Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
18338 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1827326 22-Jul-2017 21:36
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

tdgeek:

 

 

 

What is an overhang? The votes are fixed, the seats are fixed. I dint follow what an overhang means. In this context forget Maori seats, thats a red herring. (Red Herring means it seems linked, but its not)

 

 

http://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/bulk-upload/documents/Overhangs_submissions.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks. You are correct, wasn't aware of that. 


18338 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1827327 22-Jul-2017 21:38
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

tdgeek:

 

[q

 

What is an overhang? The votes are fixed, the seats are fixed. I dint follow what an overhang means. In this context forget Maori seats, thats a red herring. (Red Herring means it seems linked, but its not)

 

 

The number of seats though is not fixed.

 

 

And then I asked what overhang means, which you answered


 
 
 
 


18338 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1827328 22-Jul-2017 21:42
Send private message

Batman:

 

I recall the Civilian party ... 

 

 

A good party with innovative ideas

 

  • increased taxes for the poor and decreased taxes for the wealthy to disincentivise poverty
  • giving a llama to every child living in poverty
  • one free tub of ice cream for every citizen

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 1827331 22-Jul-2017 21:49
Send private message

Handle9:
Wiggum:

 

Batman:

 

All I know is if you win a seat, you get that seat.

 

But if you don't win a seat, and you have 5% party vote, you get some seats, proportionate to some magical formula.

 

If you have 51% party vote, your seats depend on the above, usually you get more than your party vote because some party votes under 5% will be lost.

 

 

I don't think thats really true.

 

Conservative party for example got 4% of the party vote, yet they don't get any seats. The whole system is flawed IMO.

 

Maori party obtained less votes than the Conservatives, yet they have seats.

 



Of course so did Act and United Future (and far less than the Maori Party). Don't let that worry you though, I guess they are ok in your view.

 

Party preferences aside, I don't think the system like it is, is really fair. Especially now from what I have learned from @tdgeeks example of wasted votes.

 

 


18338 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1827333 22-Jul-2017 21:59
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

Handle9:
Wiggum:

 

Batman:

 

All I know is if you win a seat, you get that seat.

 

But if you don't win a seat, and you have 5% party vote, you get some seats, proportionate to some magical formula.

 

If you have 51% party vote, your seats depend on the above, usually you get more than your party vote because some party votes under 5% will be lost.

 

 

I don't think thats really true.

 

Conservative party for example got 4% of the party vote, yet they don't get any seats. The whole system is flawed IMO.

 

Maori party obtained less votes than the Conservatives, yet they have seats.

 



Of course so did Act and United Future (and far less than the Maori Party). Don't let that worry you though, I guess they are ok in your view.

 

Party preferences aside, I don't think the system like is is, is really fair. Especially now from what I have learned from @tdgeeks example of wasted votes.

 

 

 

 

Yes, they are wasted. But if you allowed every party to get access to Parliament based on Party Vote with no threshold you have a mess. Frivolous party will be there, and clearly in numbers, as that lack of management means every idiot can throw a party together and join the fun. Thats abuse of democracy, so we have rules that aim to reward a serious party. Should my 12% example happen, that 12% is awarded to the parties that did gain seats, proportionally. Thats as fair as that can get. Those 3 parties can try harder next time. Maybe drop it to 4% or 3% is an option. Maybe keep at 5% but allow 2%+ parties to be in Parliament in much reduced or non voting capacity. But at the end of the day there needs to be a line drawn. Its the same line that can mean one party wins a 25,000 electorate by 1 vote.  


1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 1827336 22-Jul-2017 22:05
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Wiggum:

 

Handle9:
Wiggum:

 

Batman:

 

All I know is if you win a seat, you get that seat.

 

But if you don't win a seat, and you have 5% party vote, you get some seats, proportionate to some magical formula.

 

If you have 51% party vote, your seats depend on the above, usually you get more than your party vote because some party votes under 5% will be lost.

 

 

I don't think thats really true.

 

Conservative party for example got 4% of the party vote, yet they don't get any seats. The whole system is flawed IMO.

 

Maori party obtained less votes than the Conservatives, yet they have seats.

 



Of course so did Act and United Future (and far less than the Maori Party). Don't let that worry you though, I guess they are ok in your view.

 

Party preferences aside, I don't think the system like is is, is really fair. Especially now from what I have learned from @tdgeeks example of wasted votes.

 

 

 

 

Yes, they are wasted. But if you allowed every party to get access to Parliament based on Party Vote with no threshold you have a mess. Frivolous party will be there, and clearly in numbers, as that lack of management means every idiot can throw a party together and join the fun. Thats abuse of democracy, so we have rules that aim to reward a serious party. Should my 12% example happen, that 12% is awarded to the parties that did gain seats, proportionally. Thats as fair as that can get. Those 3 parties can try harder next time. Maybe drop it to 4% or 3% is an option. Maybe keep at 5% but allow 2%+ parties to be in Parliament in much reduced or non voting capacity. But at the end of the day there needs to be a line drawn. Its the same line that can mean one party wins a 25,000 electorate by 1 vote.  

 

 

Is this not limited to MMP though?

 

Ie FPP would not have these problems? What was the reasoning for switching to MMP?


18338 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1827344 22-Jul-2017 22:17
One person supports this post
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

tdgeek:

 

Wiggum:

 

Handle9:
Wiggum:

 

Batman:

 

All I know is if you win a seat, you get that seat.

 

But if you don't win a seat, and you have 5% party vote, you get some seats, proportionate to some magical formula.

 

If you have 51% party vote, your seats depend on the above, usually you get more than your party vote because some party votes under 5% will be lost.

 

 

I don't think thats really true.

 

Conservative party for example got 4% of the party vote, yet they don't get any seats. The whole system is flawed IMO.

 

Maori party obtained less votes than the Conservatives, yet they have seats.

 



Of course so did Act and United Future (and far less than the Maori Party). Don't let that worry you though, I guess they are ok in your view.

 

Party preferences aside, I don't think the system like is is, is really fair. Especially now from what I have learned from @tdgeeks example of wasted votes.

 

 

 

 

Yes, they are wasted. But if you allowed every party to get access to Parliament based on Party Vote with no threshold you have a mess. Frivolous party will be there, and clearly in numbers, as that lack of management means every idiot can throw a party together and join the fun. Thats abuse of democracy, so we have rules that aim to reward a serious party. Should my 12% example happen, that 12% is awarded to the parties that did gain seats, proportionally. Thats as fair as that can get. Those 3 parties can try harder next time. Maybe drop it to 4% or 3% is an option. Maybe keep at 5% but allow 2%+ parties to be in Parliament in much reduced or non voting capacity. But at the end of the day there needs to be a line drawn. Its the same line that can mean one party wins a 25,000 electorate by 1 vote.  

 

 

Is this not limited to MMP though?

 

Ie FPP would not have these problems? What was the reasoning for switching to MMP?

 

 

FPP. The two main parties always win all the seats. Social Credit way back in the day always polled well, never got a seat. They did one time.

 

Labour got the popular vote one time, National won the election

 

MMP allows minority parties to have a say.

 

It also causes more likelihood of a coalition which also allows minority parties to not only have a say but to effect action, aka doing a deal to partner the main party seeking a coalition.

 

Also, and unsure if seen as primary benefits or not, coalitions tend to make the main party more conservative as they lost the ability to do what they like when they like as they would win every bill vote, but now they usually have to rely on the deals they made and that may make some bills a compromise, than a default bill vote win


 
 
 
 


132 posts

Master Geek


  # 1827359 22-Jul-2017 23:25
Send private message

I think there is a way for the big parties to game the system under MMP.

 

 If a well known Labour candidate is sitting in a safe Labour seat, then they should quit Labour and join and run under the closely affiliated "Labour 2" party. "Labour 2" will not contest the party votes  and Labour will not contest that particular seat.  As such, the candidate will still win that seat, and Labour  will not waste some of its party vote on a candidate that has already won a seat. Obviously, Labour and "Labour 2" form a coalition. Doing so, Labour effectively gets one more seat in government. 

 

It would be risky move for marginal seats because the candidate will not be on a party list as backup in case they lose. 

 

 Consider 2014. Labour won 27 electorate seats but got only 5 list seats.  If 20 of the electorate seats were won under "Labour 2" then Labour would have got 25 list seats instead of 5.

 

Hope this makes sense. 


1014 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 1827380 23-Jul-2017 00:47
Send private message

Fred99:

 

 

 

Positive discrimination aka "affirmative action" does have a history of some success in reducing negative social indicators.

 

Apartheid (in SA) had the sole intent of preserving massive privilege to a small white minority who held all the wealth - and held on to that behind the barrel of a gun. 

 

There's nothing to debate - you're on a soap box - and at risk of coming across as a racist.

 

 

And it's just so much better in South Africa now, isn't it. And just look at Rhodesia - another success story...


2998 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1827407 23-Jul-2017 07:47
Send private message

Wiggum:

 

Batman:

 

 

 

If you get seats and 51%, you get 51% of the seats.

 

 

 

 

Thats incorrect. We only know about overhangs and how many seats there will be after results are in.

 

So 51% of votes, can result in less than 50% of seats.

 

 

 

 

How?

 

 


1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 1827436 23-Jul-2017 09:04
Send private message

frankv:

 

Wiggum:

 

Batman:

 

 

 

If you get seats and 51%, you get 51% of the seats.

 

 

 

 

Thats incorrect. We only know about overhangs and how many seats there will be after results are in.

 

So 51% of votes, can result in less than 50% of seats.

 

 

 

 

How?

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.otago.ac.nz/law/research/journals/otago036316.pdf

 

Jump to pg16, see the overhang. Lots of other related info in there too. Very interesting.

 

Note that is from a few years back. 

 

In 2008, the Maori Party won five electorate seats. However, their party vote of 2.39 per cent would have entitled the Party to only three seats. Hence, the present parliamentary overhang of two has increased Parliament‟s size to 122 members. This means in order to form a government, the number of votes needed is 62. The latest ONE News Colmar Brunton poll has the National Party on 49 per cent. Assuming the Maori Party‟s electorate seats are held at the next election, National, if they received 50 per cent (or slightly more) of the party vote, would not have requisite numbers to form a single party government. This outcome woulld be completely undemocratic and fundamentally contrary to the expressed will of the New Zealand public

 

 




1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 1827438 23-Jul-2017 09:11
Send private message

I have always preferred the FPP system as it is truly democratic within your geography. 


18338 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  # 1827444 23-Jul-2017 09:22
Send private message

Pumpedd:

 

I have always preferred the FPP system as it is truly democratic within your geography. 

 

 

Is it?

 

If an electorate was won narrowly, thats a win for say 51% votes. Another electorate is a huge win, its a win with 80% votes. Essentially the latter one, shows 30% of votes were wasted as they gave no result. This is why a party can, and has, won an election by more electoral wins but less overall votes. MMP allows every party vote to count. And avoids the lopsided electorates skewing the results. 

 

 




1759 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  # 1827499 23-Jul-2017 10:47
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Pumpedd:

 

I have always preferred the FPP system as it is truly democratic within your geography. 

 

 

Is it?

 

If an electorate was won narrowly, thats a win for say 51% votes. Another electorate is a huge win, its a win with 80% votes. Essentially the latter one, shows 30% of votes were wasted as they gave no result. This is why a party can, and has, won an election by more electoral wins but less overall votes. MMP allows every party vote to count. And avoids the lopsided electorates skewing the results. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No system is perfect.

 

But a system like we have now that gives the power to the minority parties is grossly unfair. In my book a win is a win. Its the same in sports and all through life....why should politics be any different.

 

Currently we vote for a party after consideration of their policies etc, but after election night it can all be thrown out the window as back room deals get done to gain power and we end up with policies we would NOT have voted for.

 

This coming election it is looking like Winston will be King maker....and who does he have in his party....its full of nobodies...including an ex crooked MP. This is not the making of good Government.

 

 


Lock him up!
10831 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  # 1827507 23-Jul-2017 11:09
Send private message

This is a good point, though I don't agree with it. As with all things, it is a trade-off and a matter of proportion. Politics is not a game, though some seem to think so. But the problem with FPP, and the reason it was changed, is that in practice it creates a situation where you have only two-party rule and large disenfranchised minorities who never get a say. If one party gets 51% of the vote, that means 49% of the electorate is left out in the cold. That hardly seems fair either.

 

I am not a fan of MMP. It gives too much influence to political parties, which then take on a life of their own. Politics becomes party politics, rather than what is in the best interests of the country. My own preference would be no parties with official status, though political clubs could exist, and an STV system of voting. I don't know that it would be any better in practice, but it seems fairer to me and would be worth at least trying.

 

 





I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney
 


1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Chorus to launch Hyperfibre service
Posted 18-Nov-2019 15:00


Microsoft launches first Experience Center worldwide for Asia Pacific in Singapore
Posted 13-Nov-2019 13:08


Disney+ comes to LG Smart TVs
Posted 13-Nov-2019 12:55


Spark launches new wireless broadband "Unplan Metro"
Posted 11-Nov-2019 08:19


Malwarebytes overhauls flagship product with new UI, faster engine and lighter footprint
Posted 6-Nov-2019 11:48


CarbonClick launches into Digital Marketplaces
Posted 6-Nov-2019 11:42


Kordia offers Microsoft Azure Peering Service
Posted 6-Nov-2019 11:41


Spark 5G live on Auckland Harbour for Emirates Team New Zealand
Posted 4-Nov-2019 17:30


BNZ and Vodafone partner to boost NZ Tech for SME
Posted 31-Oct-2019 17:14


Nokia 7.2 available in New Zealand
Posted 31-Oct-2019 16:24


2talk launches Microsoft Teams Direct Routing product
Posted 29-Oct-2019 10:35


New Breast Cancer Foundation app puts power in Kiwi women's hands
Posted 25-Oct-2019 16:13


OPPO Reno2 Series lands, alongside hybrid noise-cancelling Wireless Headphones
Posted 24-Oct-2019 15:32


Waikato Data Scientists awarded $13 million from the Government
Posted 24-Oct-2019 15:27


D-Link launches Wave 2 Unified Access Points
Posted 24-Oct-2019 15:07



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.