New Zealand Elections 2017 Results on this thread please.

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

Forums › Politics › New Zealand Elections 2017 Results on this thread please.

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

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1872297 25-Sep-2017 09:44

MikeB4:

There is an electoral reason fro suggest to NZF to go in coalition with Labour, as of election night for more people did not vote for Nation than voted for them therefore this could be seen that the voter choice is not for a National lead government.

Conversely, National's largest share of the votes could be seen to indicate more people want them involved in government.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1872301 25-Sep-2017 09:49

Geektastic:

MikeB4:

There is an electoral reason fro suggest to NZF to go in coalition with Labour, as of election night for more people did not vote for Nation than voted for them therefore this could be seen that the voter choice is not for a National lead government.

Conversely, National's largest share of the votes could be seen to indicate more people want them involved in government.

I don't see how, 54% exceeds 46%

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1872302 25-Sep-2017 09:51

Geektastic:

The Financial Times began it's article on the election with "New Zealand's next government will be decided behind closed doors..."

Which I think reasonably encapsulates my objection to the current system. It just does not quite pass the sniff test for me.

The Germans are likely to be having the same sort of thing now from what I read this morning, with coalition talks taking "months". Hopefully ours won't!

There's an interesting map here showing the electorate seats and whether they are blue or red. Without the urban seats, Labour would have very few indeed!

What system do you prefer

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1872304 25-Sep-2017 09:56

Special votes are yet to be counted - ~300,000 or so of those, unknown what the impact of those will be but last time they cost National a seat from the election night tally. The makeup of special votes differs from 2014 (includes same day registration and voting). It would be wise for Peters to wait.

Voter turnout is up a bit, but still an indictment on 20% of the population who presumably choose to not vote. It's easy to vote, and if you want to protest vote, it's very easy to cast an invalid vote - so there's no excuse to not vote at all. Sheer laziness.

I guess the Maori Party in part got punished for working with National, but probably mainly because minority parties slipped.

One of Winston's bottom lines was a referendum (binding or non-binding?) on the Maori seats. English has indicated he'll go along with that, Jacinda has rejected it. (personally I don't care much as MMP partly negates the prior need for the Maori seats to ensure representation - but as a probably harmful sh!t-fight will ensue if there's a referendum, I'd rather it didn't happen)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1872305 25-Sep-2017 09:56

tdgeek:
Geektastic:

The Financial Times began it's article on the election with "New Zealand's next government will be decided behind closed doors..."

Which I think reasonably encapsulates my objection to the current system. It just does not quite pass the sniff test for me.

The Germans are likely to be having the same sort of thing now from what I read this morning, with coalition talks taking "months". Hopefully ours won't!

There's an interesting map here showing the electorate seats and whether they are blue or red. Without the urban seats, Labour would have very few indeed!

What system do you prefer

let me guess the UK which is terrible. Closed door government by a faceless elite

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1872306 25-Sep-2017 09:57

tdgeek:

I don't see how, 54% exceeds 46%

Given that MMP in NZ has never produced a result of >= 50% for any party, the argument that more people voted for the opposition is fallacious. For every election since MMP was introduced, more people have voted against the ruling party than for it.

64% of voters prefer another party to Labour, so it's difficult to argue that they should hold the majority of power

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1872312 25-Sep-2017 10:07

shk292:

tdgeek:

I don't see how, 54% exceeds 46%

Given that MMP in NZ has never produced a result of >= 50% for any party, the argument that more people voted for the opposition is fallacious. For every election since MMP was introduced, more people have voted against the ruling party than for it.

64% of voters prefer another party to Labour, so it's difficult to argue that they should hold the majority of power

Its not fallacious, its correct. Its also correct that 64% did not vote for Labour. So, National and Labour cannot govern alone, as there is no majority. So, if "any" of these two can put together a majority, then we have a majority, sorted.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1872315 25-Sep-2017 10:14

tdgeek:

Its not fallacious, its correct. Its also correct that 64% did not vote for Labour. So, National and Labour cannot govern alone, as there is no majority. So, if "any" of these two can put together a majority, then we have a majority, sorted.

OK, I could have phrased that better. The argument that National shouldn't form the next government because >50% of voters voted against them is fallacious, for the reasons I pointed out above.

Special votes could have a big impact here, but on current results, Labour could only pull together an extremely tenuous majority

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1872317 25-Sep-2017 10:23

Wiggum:

MikeB4:

You are right we should have the choice and we do have the choice and we have made the choice.

Say that again? Who exactly is this "we" you are referring to, the 7% of voters that voted NZFirst?

The 'WE' are the 49%+ of us who have voted for a change of government. This is how MMP works. (as opposed to the 46% who still want New Zealand to elect governments under FPTP)

I note the Bill English is still claiming the National Party should be the government because they got 46% of the vote under MMP, but flat out denies the 49%+ who didn't vote for him under MMP could possibly have been voting for a change of government. Oh and he's 'called on' his farmer mates to proclaim they're not going to spend any more money until their mates in the national party get back into government again. Says it all really...

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1872322 25-Sep-2017 10:31

shk292:

tdgeek:

Its not fallacious, its correct. Its also correct that 64% did not vote for Labour. So, National and Labour cannot govern alone, as there is no majority. So, if "any" of these two can put together a majority, then we have a majority, sorted.

OK, I could have phrased that better. The argument that National shouldn't form the next government because >50% of voters voted against them is fallacious, for the reasons I pointed out above.

Special votes could have a big impact here, but on current results, Labour could only pull together an extremely tenuous majority

There is no rule about who gets first dibs or priority. A Labour/Greens/NZF Govt has far more support than National and Act, is one way to look at it. And Nat/NZF has more again

Say Winston doesn't want National, as he cannot get a deal. Are you suggesting he should go with National anyway as they have more base support than Labour/Greens? If so, he throws his party and supporters under the bus.

I don't see a 1 or 2 vote majority that tenuous, its not that unusual. Its a majority. Its better than no majority, or a minority Govt. Its a mandate. Botto line is who can work together for the benefit of the population

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1872324 25-Sep-2017 10:39

Fred99:

Special votes are yet to be counted - ~300,000 or so of those, unknown what the impact of those will be but last time they cost National a seat from the election night tally. The makeup of special votes differs from 2014 (includes same day registration and voting). It would be wise for Peters to wait.

Voter turnout is up a bit, but still an indictment on 20% of the population who presumably choose to not vote. It's easy to vote, and if you want to protest vote, it's very easy to cast an invalid vote - so there's no excuse to not vote at all. Sheer laziness.

I guess the Maori Party in part got punished for working with National, but probably mainly because minority parties slipped.

One of Winston's bottom lines was a referendum (binding or non-binding?) on the Maori seats. English has indicated he'll go along with that, Jacinda has rejected it. (personally I don't care much as MMP partly negates the prior need for the Maori seats to ensure representation - but as a probably harmful sh!t-fight will ensue if there's a referendum, I'd rather it didn't happen)

I agree about protesting votes, better to place an invalid vote. What about those who didn't know how to decide, or didn't have the time energy or inclination to determine what they felt was right for NZ in their view? Should they cast random votes? I think that does more harm than good.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1872332 25-Sep-2017 10:51

tdgeek:

There is no rule about who gets first dibs or priority. A Labour/Greens/NZF Govt has far more support than National and Act, is one way to look at it. And Nat/NZF has more again

Say Winston doesn't want National, as he cannot get a deal. Are you suggesting he should go with National anyway as they have more base support than Labour/Greens? If so, he throws his party and supporters under the bus.

I don't see a 1 or 2 vote majority that tenuous, its not that unusual. Its a majority. Its better than no majority, or a minority Govt. Its a mandate. Botto line is who can work together for the benefit of the population

Agreed - any coalition with >50% of seats is a valid form of government. If Nat-NZF can't agree a deal, then Lab-Green-NZF is valid. I'd actually prefer Nat-Green to that, if Green would become a true environmental party instead of a far-left party, but I think that is unlikely.

I'm uncomfortable with Winston having the balance of power because in his recent interviews he has in my opinion become less coherent, less rational and more detached from reality. It was interesting listening to Richard Prosser on RNZ this morning, describing the difficulties Winston's frequent unpredictable policy changes caused during the campaign. But that's MMP

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1872334 25-Sep-2017 10:58

networkn:

Fred99:

Special votes are yet to be counted - ~300,000 or so of those, unknown what the impact of those will be but last time they cost National a seat from the election night tally. The makeup of special votes differs from 2014 (includes same day registration and voting). It would be wise for Peters to wait.

Voter turnout is up a bit, but still an indictment on 20% of the population who presumably choose to not vote. It's easy to vote, and if you want to protest vote, it's very easy to cast an invalid vote - so there's no excuse to not vote at all. Sheer laziness.

I guess the Maori Party in part got punished for working with National, but probably mainly because minority parties slipped.

One of Winston's bottom lines was a referendum (binding or non-binding?) on the Maori seats. English has indicated he'll go along with that, Jacinda has rejected it. (personally I don't care much as MMP partly negates the prior need for the Maori seats to ensure representation - but as a probably harmful sh!t-fight will ensue if there's a referendum, I'd rather it didn't happen)

I agree about protesting votes, better to place an invalid vote. What about those who didn't know how to decide, or didn't have the time energy or inclination to determine what they felt was right for NZ in their view? Should they cast random votes? I think that does more harm than good.

I guess my point there is that in the past, turnout was in the 90s, it was seen to be an important thing to do if you valued democracy.

Mostly low turnout dilutes claims for "consensus" - if only 80% vote and only a 50% majority is attained (a vote by 40% of electors), then claiming that there's "consensus" is spurious and divisive. That may be "how it works", but it's less than ideal.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1872337 25-Sep-2017 11:02

shk292:

tdgeek:

There is no rule about who gets first dibs or priority. A Labour/Greens/NZF Govt has far more support than National and Act, is one way to look at it. And Nat/NZF has more again

Say Winston doesn't want National, as he cannot get a deal. Are you suggesting he should go with National anyway as they have more base support than Labour/Greens? If so, he throws his party and supporters under the bus.

I don't see a 1 or 2 vote majority that tenuous, its not that unusual. Its a majority. Its better than no majority, or a minority Govt. Its a mandate. Botto line is who can work together for the benefit of the population

Agreed - any coalition with >50% of seats is a valid form of government. If Nat-NZF can't agree a deal, then Lab-Green-NZF is valid. I'd actually prefer Nat-Green to that, if Green would become a true environmental party instead of a far-left party, but I think that is unlikely.

I'm uncomfortable with Winston having the balance of power because in his recent interviews he has in my opinion become less coherent, less rational and more detached from reality. It was interesting listening to Richard Prosser on RNZ this morning, describing the difficulties Winston's frequent unpredictable policy changes caused during the campaign. But that's MMP

re If Nat-NZF can't agree a deal, then Lab-Green-NZF is valid. Peters will need to talk to both, and it makes sense if that was concurrently. The Peters can choose what he feels is best. That being the case, that takes away the Nats first preference. It comes down to the best deal. Say, Nats came up with a deal. Cool. Labour has a better deal, he goes with Labour possibly.

In any case, if he goes with Nats I'm ok with that. I dont see him as the ogre, and this election thing has been very up there, so its hard to take too much comment with a grain of salt as regards comments about WP

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1872342 25-Sep-2017 11:06

Fred99:
Special votes are yet to be counted - ~300,000 or so of those, unknown what the impact of those will be but last time they cost National a seat from the election night tally. The makeup of special votes differs from 2014 (includes same day registration and voting). It would be wise for Peters to wait.

Voter turnout is up a bit, but still an indictment on 20% of the population who presumably choose to not vote. It's easy to vote, and if you want to protest vote, it's very easy to cast an invalid vote - so there's no excuse to not vote at all. Sheer laziness.

I guess the Maori Party in part got punished for working with National, but probably mainly because minority parties slipped.

One of Winston's bottom lines was a referendum (binding or non-binding?) on the Maori seats. English has indicated he'll go along with that, Jacinda has rejected it. (personally I don't care much as MMP partly negates the prior need for the Maori seats to ensure representation - but as a probably harmful sh!t-fight will ensue if there's a referendum, I'd rather it didn't happen)

voting is not easy for some in the voting station I went to all the booths suited people who are standing.

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