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 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1871998 24-Sep-2017 13:20

Geektastic: No it wouldn't.

It would involve 3 parties that obtained no sort of majority at all...

What sort of "majority" are you looking for?

National's 46% is the largest segment of the vote, but it's not > 50%, and therefore it's also not a majority.

Geektastic: ...adding themselves together and pretending that means that someone who voted Labour also voted for the other two etc.

Nobody's pretending anything of the sort! If this happens, they'll work together on the things they can find agreement on.

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

sleemanj

1485 posts

Uber Geek

#1872000 24-Sep-2017 13:23

Geektastic:

It would involve 3 parties that obtained no sort of majority at all adding themselves together and pretending that means that someone who voted Labour also voted for the other two etc.

Someone who voted for Labour voted for Labour to do what Labour needs to do to implement as many policies that Labour campaigned on as it can.

If that means reaching compromises with other parties who share some but not all of their goals, that's a good thing, more voters get a representation in the direction of the country.

For National to govern they will have to make compromises also.

Compromise is good, it improves the function of government to represent the wishes of the people as a whole, those who voted for the party at the prime minister's table AND those who didn't.

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1872001 24-Sep-2017 13:23

Geektastic:

It is clear (based on the as yet unfinalised numbers) that a majority of NZers want the National party to be involved. I just cannot see any kind of outcome being 'democratic' where that does not happen.

No it's not. It's only clear that more voted for National than any other single party - but that's still not a majority.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1872002 24-Sep-2017 13:25

Pumpedd:

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

It seems very odd to me that there is any possibility of NZ being governed by a coalition not involving the party for which the biggest percentage of New Zealanders voted. That would, surely, be fundamentally undemocratic?

a coalition of Labour, NZF, Green would be a Government that the majority of voters chose

That just wouldnt work for more than a few months as it would only be 1 or 2 majority. But as I said it would be hilarious to watch. remember National got more votes than Labour and Greens combined, so I would say thats the biggest percentage of voters.

Yeah, National and NZF have a much better record of working together... /sarcasm

frednz

1467 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1872005 24-Sep-2017 13:32

amiga500:

Bill English at a Federated Farmers meeting... 'And now I would like to introduce my new Environment Minister James Shaw' As a commentator on RNZ said this morning this is not going to happen. For the Greens to remain viable at the next election they would have to score an amazing amount of concessions from National & even then the Green voters would see it as a betrayal...

Nats with NZ First so easy. So easy to pass legislation. No wheeling in of a sick MP to pass a bill. Winston gets Deputy PM & acting PM when Bill E is away. Gets a good deal for Northland. Gets some policy that tightens (slightly) immigration rules & a few other bits and pieces. Deal done.

Dealing with NZ First has never proven to be easy! I think that Green supporters should not see a coalition with National as a betrayal because it would give the Greens a real chance for the very first time to actually get some of their climate change policies implemented in law.

If I was James Shaw I wouldn't mess around, I'd get coalition talks going with National as soon as possible. Surely the Greens don't want to be in opposition yet again? This is their best chance ever to get into Parliament and if they concentrate on their climate change policies, they will be in tune with what most Green voters really want. If there is a NZ First - National coalition, then the Greens are again out in the cold!

In any event, Labour didn't exactly worry too much about the Greens when they pinched some of their climate change policies!

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1872007 24-Sep-2017 13:35

mm1352000:

Pumpedd:

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

It seems very odd to me that there is any possibility of NZ being governed by a coalition not involving the party for which the biggest percentage of New Zealanders voted. That would, surely, be fundamentally undemocratic?

a coalition of Labour, NZF, Green would be a Government that the majority of voters chose

That just wouldnt work for more than a few months as it would only be 1 or 2 majority. But as I said it would be hilarious to watch. remember National got more votes than Labour and Greens combined, so I would say thats the biggest percentage of voters.

Yeah, National and NZF have a much better record of working together... /sarcasm

He's got a great record for being able to milk situations to the maximum - keeping the spotlight on himself - but timing it well so he's not been universally branded a scoundrel.

Not sure if this makes him perhaps NZ's most skilful politician or in fact a scoundrel - but quite possibly both.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1872009 24-Sep-2017 13:39

Pumpedd:

Aredwood: The party vote threshold should be reduced to 2%. That will make it far easier for the minor parties.

Screw the minor parties. 5% is heaps. Encouraging any more parties would make it more of a circus.

In my opinion concentration of power (ie. large parties) leads to a circus of a different kind.

Some minor parties have great policies. For example, I agree with networkn that the Maori Party (or something like it) has a place... and I think TOP has a place too. Unfortunately I feel I can't support them because I only have one vote and I've previously been burned (vote "wasted").

In my opinion STV plus a parliament with more smaller parties and less large parties has the potential to be more accurately representative.

mm1352000

1149 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1872043 24-Sep-2017 14:08

frednz: Dealing with NZ First has never proven to be easy!

True!

frednz: I think that Green supporters should not see a coalition with National as a betrayal because it would give the Greens a real chance for the very first time to actually get some of their climate change policies implemented in law.

But at what cost?

In my opinion the cost of the compromises they'd have to make this time around isn't worth it. If National becomes the government, it'd be more principled to continue voting with National on individual policies based on merit.

frednz: This is their best chance ever to get into Parliament...

I take it you mean government rather than parliament.

frednz: ...and if they concentrate on their climate change policies, they will be in tune with what most Green voters really want.

I maintain that social policy is a core element of Green policy. Let me put it this way: as somebody who has previously voted for the Greens, I would be bitterly disappointed if they compromised on the social policy to get gains on the green policy. To me both sets of policy are equally important.

Perhaps you're also looking for a "blue-green" party?

frednz: If there is a NZ First - National coalition, then the Greens are again out in the cold!

You say that like it's the end of the world.

Yes, they can't affect change in the same way and on the same scale as if they were in government. However I'd argue that the mere fact that they're in parliament has improved environmental consciousness across the board.

frednz: In any event, Labour didn't exactly worry too much about the Greens when they pinched some of their climate change policies!

Exactly! The fact that they exist, are producing some good green policy, and are present in parliament is having a significant impact regardless of whether they're in government or not.

gzt

16821 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1872046 24-Sep-2017 14:16

Pumpedd: That just wouldnt work for more than a few months as it would only be 1 or 2 majority.

Someone familiar with the stability of recent governments in NZ would be unlikely to make that statement.

pom532

149 posts

Master Geek

#1872068 24-Sep-2017 15:20

mm1352000:

Pumpedd:

Aredwood: The party vote threshold should be reduced to 2%. That will make it far easier for the minor parties.

Screw the minor parties. 5% is heaps. Encouraging any more parties would make it more of a circus.

In my opinion concentration of power (ie. large parties) leads to a circus of a different kind.

Some minor parties have great policies. For example, I agree with networkn that the Maori Party (or something like it) has a place... and I think TOP has a place too. Unfortunately I feel I can't support them because I only have one vote and I've previously been burned (vote "wasted").

In my opinion STV plus a parliament with more smaller parties and less large parties has the potential to be more accurately representative.

some people seem to dislike having minor parties, but if we get more minor parties that people want to vote for, wouldn't that be more representative?

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1872098 24-Sep-2017 16:53

Geektastic:

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

It seems very odd to me that there is any possibility of NZ being governed by a coalition not involving the party for which the biggest percentage of New Zealanders voted. That would, surely, be fundamentally undemocratic?

a coalition of Labour, NZF, Green would be a Government that the majority of voters chose

No it wouldn't.

It would involve 3 parties that obtained no sort of majority at all adding themselves together and pretending that means that someone who voted Labour also voted for the other two etc.

No wonder NZ spends more time going nowhere than somewhere if that is regarded as democracy.

It is clear (based on the as yet unfinalised numbers) that a majority of NZers want the National party to be involved. I just cannot see any kind of outcome being 'democratic' where that does not happen.

I accept that is the system, but there is just no way that resembles democracy IMV.

Yes it would, and yes it does resemble democracy.

46.05% (The minority of votes cast) voted for the current government.

49.2% (the majority of votes cast) voted for a change of government. We voted for Labour, NZF, and the Greens, not the National party.

And if the special votes go the way they have in previous elections, the majority percentage is likely to increase (to 50%+?), and the minority percentage decrease.

http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/

gzt

16821 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1872121 24-Sep-2017 18:13

Sir Key makes the same mistake:

NZ Herald: The former Prime Minister also remained confident despite Winston Peters holding out on a decision that the New Zealand First leader would go with what the majority wants.

"Whatever you think of Winston he is a politician that understands democracy is underpinned by what the majority wants."

"Mathematically it's possible he could make Jacinda Prime Minister, but the reality is the majority wanted a National government.

The signalling was very clear this time around. If you voted Labour or Green you were voting for a govt of those parties. If you voted for NZ First you were voting to trust Peters with the coalition decision to a large extent. If those add to more than the other parties and that's what Peters wants to do, that's a majority.

I would still be surprised if that happens but that is the way it works. Not only is it 'mathematically possible' it is entirely constitutional. In reality, how sensible that is for any particular party or politician depends a lot on the final count and the balance of parliament.

tdgeek

29554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1872149 24-Sep-2017 19:30

Pumpedd:

Wiggum:

So now we left with Wnston (who did not even win his own seat), with only 7% of the party vote, getting to chose the government for NZ. How on earth is that democratic? It stinks to say the least.

Not much we can really do, I think the National vote has turned out to be good. I was beginning to loose a lot of faith in NZ. What now? Well I hate to say it, but we need to give Winston whatever he wants and keep Labour/Greens our of Goverment at all costs. It seems MMP has caused us to slide backwards in our democracy.

MMP is just the perfect voting system. I hate it. FPP is by far better where we democratically elect our own candidate in our own geaographic area.

Britain still uses FPP and the only grizzlers are the small minorities. In NZ we let the small minorities rule.

So, this election, FPP is National? But when they pass laws they cant as 46% compared to the opposition.

tdgeek

29554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1872152 24-Sep-2017 19:34

amiga500:

Bill English at a Federated Farmers meeting... 'And now I would like to introduce my new Environment Minister James Shaw' As a commentator on RNZ said this morning this is not going to happen. For the Greens to remain viable at the next election they would have to score an amazing amount of concessions from National & even then the Green voters would see it as a betrayal...

Nats with NZ First so easy. So easy to pass legislation. No wheeling in of a sick MP to pass a bill. Winston gets Deputy PM & acting PM when Bill E is away. Gets a good deal for Northland. Gets some policy that tightens (slightly) immigration rules & a few other bits and pieces. Deal done.

And he takes Steven Joyce and Paula Bennett fishing? Who are at the top of the tree?

tdgeek

29554 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1872153 24-Sep-2017 19:36

Geektastic:

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

It seems very odd to me that there is any possibility of NZ being governed by a coalition not involving the party for which the biggest percentage of New Zealanders voted. That would, surely, be fundamentally undemocratic?

a coalition of Labour, NZF, Green would be a Government that the majority of voters chose

No it wouldn't.

It would involve 3 parties that obtained no sort of majority at all adding themselves together and pretending that means that someone who voted Labour also voted for the other two etc.

No wonder NZ spends more time going nowhere than somewhere if that is regarded as democracy.

It is clear (based on the as yet unfinalised numbers) that a majority of NZers want the National party to be involved. I just cannot see any kind of outcome being 'democratic' where that does not happen.

I accept that is the system, but there is just no way that resembles democracy IMV.

Yes, it would. National. Maori ACT, same thing.

You need to discuss, rather than promote what you want.

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