Our next national election - policies, promises and people

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our next national election - policies, promises and people

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 33

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2362571 29-Nov-2019 09:09

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Id rather have FPP, keep it simple, A or B. None of these bargaining sideshows

LOL. The 4 years long and still not resolved sh!tshow in the UK on Brexit, the debacle with an extremist corrupt government in the US - elected despite a popular vote minority, and the performance of the last Muldoon Government elected by a minority here...

One should be careful what one wishes for.

Dont follow that at all

Right now we already have A vs B, but we throw into that mix, dirty deals. Feeding ACT into parliament, a maori party that only wanted its own gains, an NZF that bribes parties so it can spend up big. I just prefer removing the latter three examples

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2362643 29-Nov-2019 09:21

tdgeek:

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Id rather have FPP, keep it simple, A or B. None of these bargaining sideshows

LOL. The 4 years long and still not resolved sh!tshow in the UK on Brexit, the debacle with an extremist corrupt government in the US - elected despite a popular vote minority, and the performance of the last Muldoon Government elected by a minority here...

One should be careful what one wishes for.

Dont follow that at all

Right now we already have A vs B, but we throw into that mix, dirty deals. Feeding ACT into parliament, a maori party that only wanted its own gains, an NZF that bribes parties so it can spend up big. I just prefer removing the latter three examples

Pretty straight forward really. Choose the lesser of evils, and don't kid yourself that FPP guarantees "stable government". PR may not be perfect, but without any doubt it is more democratic.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2362651 29-Nov-2019 09:29

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Id rather have FPP, keep it simple, A or B. None of these bargaining sideshows

LOL. The 4 years long and still not resolved sh!tshow in the UK on Brexit, the debacle with an extremist corrupt government in the US - elected despite a popular vote minority, and the performance of the last Muldoon Government elected by a minority here...

One should be careful what one wishes for.

Dont follow that at all

Right now we already have A vs B, but we throw into that mix, dirty deals. Feeding ACT into parliament, a maori party that only wanted its own gains, an NZF that bribes parties so it can spend up big. I just prefer removing the latter three examples

Pretty straight forward really. Choose the lesser of evils, and don't kid yourself that FPP guarantees "stable government". PR may not be perfect, but without any doubt it is more democratic.

Where did I suggest FPP was more stable? Merely getting rid of the hangers on parties that are solely there for themselves, and are not here for NZ. The issue over popular vote is an electoral boundary problem. You can still massage the popular vote with FPP to ensure that electoral boundary results are the aligned to the popular vote. The key is getting rid of waste parties.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2362659 29-Nov-2019 09:41

tdgeek:

Merely getting rid of the hangers on parties that are solely there for themselves, and are not here for NZ.

In your opinion. I don't like NZF, but I'd rather have him on the side even as a coalition / support partner, than have the populist votes he attracts go to either of the "main" parties.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2362666 29-Nov-2019 09:50

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Merely getting rid of the hangers on parties that are solely there for themselves, and are not here for NZ.

In your opinion. I don't like NZF, but I'd rather have him on the side even as a coalition / support partner, than have the populist votes he attracts go to either of the "main" parties.

NZF has wasted a lot of money. Its leader has yet to complete a term when they have "partnered" another party. Wasteful. Maori were only here to line their own pockets so were happy to flip when it suited them, thats hardly democracy. ACT, Well ACT, nothing more to be said. If NZF failed and their votes went to the main parties, that's democracy

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2362683 29-Nov-2019 10:08

tdgeek:

If NZF failed and their votes went to the main parties, that's democracy

If you changed the system to ensure they failed (something you seem to favour), that's not democracy.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2362705 29-Nov-2019 10:33

Fred99:

tdgeek:

If NZF failed and their votes went to the main parties, that's democracy

If you changed the system to ensure they failed (something you seem to favour), that's not democracy.

Again your making things up. I said if NZF failed. Failures among minor parties are everywhere. That is a constant. Who decides to adjust the electoral boundaries? Is that democratic? Change to MMP was that democratic? Change to a popular vote FPP, no different. Its about making the result more democratic, utilising parties that actually want to run the country not use it

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2362716 29-Nov-2019 10:51

tdgeek:

Its about making the result more democratic, utilising parties that actually want to run the country not use it

You're making value judgements - and assuming a motive for why the individuals and parties want to enter politics.

Also not showing much faith in voters deciding. The most blatant attempt (in my opinion) to hijack the system for their own agenda was probably KDC. How did that work out at the polls?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2362726 29-Nov-2019 11:05

Fred99:

tdgeek:

Its about making the result more democratic, utilising parties that actually want to run the country not use it

You're making value judgements - and assuming a motive for why the individuals and parties want to enter politics.

Also not showing much faith in voters deciding. The most blatant attempt (in my opinion) to hijack the system for their own agenda was probably KDC. How did that work out at the polls?

Yes, value judgements

The ACT bribe, lets buy a seat

Maori party self centred

NZF throwing cash out to sea, with no leader who can last a term

TOP Ban cats

McGullicudy Silly Party, etc

None of these are interested in running our country, so why have them. KDC is little different, just a more blatant abuse of politics . How did that go? Nowhere

GV27

5978 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2362733 29-Nov-2019 11:12

tdgeek:

Yes, value judgements

The ACT bribe, lets buy a seat

Maori party self centred

NZF throwing cash out to sea, with no leader who can last a term

TOP Ban cats

McGullicudy Silly Party, etc

None of these are interested in running our country, so why have them. KDC is little different, just a more blatant abuse of politics . How did that go? Nowhere

....that's quite a stretch there. The 'self interest' in the Maori Party, which was formed as part of the backlash against Labour taking the Maori vote for granted during the foreshore and seabed saga, was more self determination than self interest. I suspect by the time they disappeared, they had largely served their purpose.

As for the ACT bribe, Labour and the Greens have played that game too and will do so again in Auckland Central. But the ethics of the Greens are never called into question. Funny that.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2362743 29-Nov-2019 11:22

GV27:

tdgeek:

Yes, value judgements

The ACT bribe, lets buy a seat

Maori party self centred

NZF throwing cash out to sea, with no leader who can last a term

TOP Ban cats

McGullicudy Silly Party, etc

None of these are interested in running our country, so why have them. KDC is little different, just a more blatant abuse of politics . How did that go? Nowhere

....that's quite a stretch there. The 'self interest' in the Maori Party, which was formed as part of the backlash against Labour taking the Maori vote for granted during the foreshore and seabed saga, was more self determination than self interest. I suspect by the time they disappeared, they had largely served their purpose.

As for the ACT bribe, Labour and the Greens have played that game too and will do so again in Auckland Central. But the ethics of the Greens are never called into question. Funny that.

I previously favoured FPP, A vs B, so that does not include the Greens. However the Greens don't ask for much nor get much. Comparing ACT to the Greens is a stretch LOL. If you support a myriad on nondescript parties running the show thats your opinion, I dont as there is no value, history shows that

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2362772 29-Nov-2019 11:44

@tdgeek FPP was a terrible system that heavily favoured the status quo. It was not based on votes it was based on electorates. Given that Labour main support came/comes from urban areas and Nationals support came/comes from rural areas the system favoured rural seats as there was a far greater number of rural electorates than there was urban electorates. There were many elections ref Rob Muldoon, that one elections with something like 35% of the total vote count but one more seats. The then Social Credit Party and later Values if they were standing in a MMP system they would have gained much more seats in the house.

A return to FPP would be a turn away from democracy and a return to government by the few. You say "If you support a myriad on nondescript parties running the show thats your opinion, I dont as there is no value, history shows that" What history shows that? during the time of MMP we have had stable government one just has to look at Helen Clark, John Key periods under MMP and there has been some good contributions and legislation from the MMP partners and some good Ministers.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2362785 29-Nov-2019 11:55

MikeB4:

@tdgeek FPP was a terrible system that heavily favoured the status quo. It was not based on votes it was based on electorates. Given that Labour main support came/comes from urban areas and Nationals support came/comes from rural areas the system favoured rural seats as there was a far greater number of rural electorates than there was urban electorates. There were many elections ref Rob Muldoon, that one elections with something like 35% of the total vote count but one more seats. The then Social Credit Party and later Values if they were standing in a MMP system they would have gained much more seats in the house.

A return to FPP would be a turn away from democracy and a return to government by the few. You say "If you support a myriad on nondescript parties running the show thats your opinion, I dont as there is no value, history shows that" What history shows that? during the time of MMP we have had stable government one just has to look at Helen Clark, John Key periods under MMP and there has been some good contributions and legislation from the MMP partners and some good Ministers.

If you read what I wrote, I stated that the FPP result would be aligned to the popular vote. You would have the electorates, then they get adjusted to the popular vote. The point is to get rid of nondescript parties that add no value to NZ

History shows that all these minor parties did nothing, and eventually went.

Do you prefer a myriad of minor parties? You also prefer minority Govt as we have at the moment?

Is a Government that was not voted in, democratic?

If there was just two parties, and the final result was based on the popular vote, it doesnt matter who won, as the winner will be the popular voted party. I doint agree with parties governing the country that were not elected

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2362793 29-Nov-2019 12:05

@tdgeek That is FPP I am not sure what that would be and so open to abuse.

NZ Green went?

NZF went?

Act went?

Social Credit and Values went pre MMP. We currently do not have a minority government, the coalition is a representation of the majority of voters. The multiple party system is representative and not representative based on compromise. A two party system is not representative and the only time NZ has endured minority governments from memory was during the pre MMP period, correct me if I am wrong.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2362794 29-Nov-2019 12:06

European countries like Germany and Holland always have government coalitions based on multiple parties. No system is perfect, of course, but government by compromise is a hell of a lot better than government by half the voters plus 1.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 33