Referendum Options

Forums › Off topic › Referendum Options

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

1737 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#547474 20-Nov-2011 16:41

John2010: As I understand it -

The second question (Part B) asks "If New Zealand were to change to another voting system, which voting system would you choose?" - so ones response to that is not related at all to how one answers Part A the intent of which is whether one wants to keep MMP or not.

So one gets the opportunity to vote as to whether one wants to keep MMP or not and then to vote for the separate matter of which would you choose (if any, because you don't have to answer both Parts if one doesn't want to) should it be that the result of the referendum is that the majority don't want MMP.

I think you are bang on the money there.

But, wouldn't the proper way to have done this to be to include MMP in the options for Part B? They way it has been done is to exclude it entirely from Part B, where they're asking people to choose something other than MMP. Being that FPP is, IMO, the only other option that many/most people truly understand, I wonder where most people will vote then? There should also be a question to gauge peoples understanding of the options so as to know if they've cast an informed vote, or blindly chosen an option because they know about that option and not the others!

Edited to add: I guess at least with the current voting paper I can vote to keep MMP, AND vote for STV in case there is an overwhelming vote for change...

My personal opinion is that if there is an overwhelming vote to change systems then we'll likely end up with FPP, and that would (IMO) just be a big mistake as it allows politicians to completely manipulate the votes through carefully considered electoral boundary changes. And at least under all the other systems you shouldn't end up with someone running the country who actually received less votes than other parties did. (What election was that again?)

Bee

732 posts

Ultimate Geek

#547513 20-Nov-2011 18:23

Ill be very surprised if the majority don't vote to keep MMP... the only ones that really dont like it are the politicians...

If we keep it then there will be a review to improve it which I believe is the best option - The biggest issue is that MMP supposedly has to have coalition govts... I think National could have easily ruled alone this time but they have made a few mistakes in the last few weeks...

Will definitely vote for MMP and then if we cant keep it - SM.

Doing your best is much more important than being the best.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#547530 20-Nov-2011 19:47

Bee: Ill be very surprised if the majority don't vote to keep MMP... the only ones that really dont like it are the politicians...

I personally wont vote to keep MMP.
I cant see why we have a system that can be hijacked by a party with less than 5% of the countries support.
That is not democracy.

Bee

732 posts

Ultimate Geek

#547557 20-Nov-2011 20:54

off topic slightly but, Democracy is not democratic. We vote in a govt every 3 years and then they are pretty much free to do whatever they like!

Doing your best is much more important than being the best.

jonb

1771 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#547584 20-Nov-2011 21:38

SpookyAwol:
Bee: Ill be very surprised if the majority don't vote to keep MMP... the only ones that really dont like it are the politicians...

I personally wont vote to keep MMP.
I cant see why we have a system that can be hijacked by a party with less than 5% of the countries support.
That is not democracy.

One interesting thing about the referendum legislation is that if MMP comes out on top there will be a review of MMP, so there is a chance that the current 'hijacking' when a party has a constituency seat but less than 5% will be phased out.

However, if MMP doesn't come out on top in the referendum, but then wins the follow up referendum between MMP and the winning system in the first referendum, there is nothing in the legislation to say MMP will then have a review. So you would end up with MMP as it is now, with the 'hijacking' shortcomings.

So, if you like proportional representation, but don't like the current pecularities in the border-line cases of MMP, you should actually vote to keep MMP and hope the review of the system smoothes everything out.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#547589 20-Nov-2011 21:44

Whilst folk say that there is no guarantee of a review if MMP comes out on top, I've heard officials say that there would be public input to this process.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#547591 20-Nov-2011 21:46

SpookyAwol:
Bee: Ill be very surprised if the majority don't vote to keep MMP... the only ones that really dont like it are the politicians...

I personally wont vote to keep MMP.
I cant see why we have a system that can be hijacked by a party with less than 5% of the countries support.
That is not democracy.

When can you honestly say that the country has been "hijacked" since MMP came in? The closest to this so called high jacking would be statistically unpopular laws being implamented like the Sues "no smacking" policy. A non-event since its introduction. Equally without the pressure of a coalition poor law gets implamented - skynet law. Hijacking the country is rubbish, personally dont even feel they have had disproportinate power.

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).

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#547653 21-Nov-2011 07:54

When can you honestly say that the country has been "hijacked" since MMP came in?

The forming of the 1996 Government? NZF held 13% of the votes and pretty much held the country in limbo while they decided the terms of goverment. Cant say I look forward to that again.

alasta

6703 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#547664 21-Nov-2011 08:34

SpookyAwol:
When can you honestly say that the country has been "hijacked" since MMP came in?

The forming of the 1996 Government? NZF held 13% of the votes and pretty much held the country in limbo while they decided the terms of goverment. Cant say I look forward to that again.

Which is a natural consequence of 13% of the population having their due representation in parliament. If Winston is playing silly buggers then you should be blaming his supporters, not the voting system.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#547704 21-Nov-2011 09:24

Its a case of having more than 13% of the power.
Im not saying any system is perfect, but that election clearly exposed some of the flaws of MMP and how it can be abused for one parties agenda

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#547727 21-Nov-2011 09:55

Well I'm certainly no brainiac when it comes to this so i can only look at it simply so my take, for what it is worth and happy to have comments.

Basiscally i like having 2 votes so I can vote for a paty. For instance with one vote and I live in a strong National electorate and I support Labour I feel I don't have a say. This to me isn't much differant to FPP therefore that leaves me only MMP and SM both of which I get to vote for party and also candidate.

In MMP we have 50 list seats and a percenatge is given for parties getting over the 5% threshold and also for each electorate seat. I don't favour this at all and is the one part of MMP which puts me off and I'm not confident that any review will actually change this as it is only a review and if the majority vote for it then they can say all is well with it.

In contrast the SM systems gives me the choice I want with only 30 seats going to list and based on percentage of party vote not electorate seats held.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#547728 21-Nov-2011 09:58

itxtme:
When can you honestly say that the country has been "hijacked" since MMP came in?

Too many times for me to recall.
Every minor party that formed part of a coalition has forced apon us at least one out there policy, or caused silly stand offs.

Sues stupid law is far from a non event. It was not needed, did nothing to change child abuse and cost a pile of $$.

I don't agree with this bollocks about a small % getting there say. I bet you can find 5% who would vote in favour of some sort of ethnic cleansing in NZ. Should that go ahead??

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#547769 21-Nov-2011 11:07

Some of you folk may not have been voting in FPP times.

That system was more open to the types of abuse and manipulation you're trying to peg on MMP.
Under FPP Governments simply continually adjusted electoral boundaries to keep them either Blue or Red, and other political parties simply didn't get a look in. In its first election Social Credit got 13% of the vote (or a similar amount) and no MP's... is that fairer or more representative than what we have now??

MMP may not be ideal but there is really no ideal system, as any permutation will favour some party or other....

Historically under FPP change happened because voters voted the existing Government out. It's not that simple with any other system. At the weekend I read about a poll (of approx 3000) where people were asked to give their first and second choice. Surprisingly it seemed that those that preferred Labour first, opted for National second, and vice versa.

This election we're seeing great gains in support for the Greens. Much of this I suspect is part of the way we now vote under MMP..... they're protest votes. People who don't want to see Labours policies (they recently had 9 years to right all the wrongs...), but don't want their assets sold off either. In a completely truly democratic voting system you might be able to vote for (say) the economic path and stability and leadership of the Blue team, but without them selling off any assets. But we can't. Such voting systems don't exist.

Instead we rely on a scenario over which we have no control. One where any coalition partner will make those calls for us. Maybe that's why it's called Politics.

alasta

6703 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#547771 21-Nov-2011 11:23

TheUngeek:
itxtme:
When can you honestly say that the country has been "hijacked" since MMP came in?

Too many times for me to recall.
Every minor party that formed part of a coalition has forced apon us at least one out there policy, or caused silly stand offs.

That's the whole concept of a coalition. For every few policy wins achieved by the major party it is reasonable to expect the minor party to get a policy gain of their own. It's called compromise.

Sues stupid law is far from a non event. It was not needed, did nothing to change child abuse and cost a pile of $$.

I am a vocal opponent of the anti-smacking law, but the fact is that the bill only passed because the other major parties supported it.

I don't agree with this bollocks about a small % getting there say. I bet you can find 5% who would vote in favour of some sort of ethnic cleansing in NZ. Should that go ahead??

Unless there was a sudden radical shift while I was asleep last night I would imagine that the level of support for ethnic cleansing would be a tiny fraction of 1%. Do you see ethnic cleansing being discussed by select committees under the current MMP environment?

The idea that minorities don't deserve a voice would imply that communities such as Maori, Asians, homosexuals and people with disabilities should just shut up and fit in with the rest of us. I don't know about you, but I would personally much rather live in an inclusive society.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#547777 21-Nov-2011 11:29

I don't mean in political parties, I bet you more than 5% of this country would vote for something like that.
Plenty of cases where 5-10% of NZ would want something that is completely ridiculous.
Hence the need for the 5% threshold to be a lot higher. At least 10% IMO.
If your party cannot get 10% of the popular vote then you have no seats.

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