Referendum Options

Forums › Off topic › Referendum Options

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

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#547784 21-Nov-2011 11:36

TheUngeek: 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.

I absolutely disagree with the suggestion that 5% of the New Zealand population would support ethnic cleansing, but I understand where you're coming from. Raising the MMP threshold and abolishing the electorate "back door" might be a good compromise between those who support MMP versus those who have concerns about the implications of having too many small parties in parliament.

Chainsaw

358 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 15

#547789 21-Nov-2011 11:38

FPP is vile - I seem to recall minority govt's being in power, can't get much more unfair than that.

However I do like FPP for the fact that minority parties do not wield more power than their share of the vote, as happens under MMP. Hence I like SM, a combination of FPP and MMP, some proportionality, but not too much. I like that SM still has 2 votes, 1 for party, 1 for electorate, since MMP I don't think I have ever voted for the same party with both votes. The proportions of proportionality can always be changed later too if the people so choose.

Having 2 votes is quite complicated for some people I think, probably nobody on this forum however. I'm not sure how well they would react to a ranking system.

So it's SM for me.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35
Inactive user

#547790 21-Nov-2011 11:40

alasta:
TheUngeek: 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.

I absolutely disagree with the suggestion that 5% of the New Zealand population would support ethnic cleansing, but I understand where you're coming from. Raising the MMP threshold and abolishing the electorate "back door" might be a good compromise between those who support MMP versus those who have concerns about the implications of having too many small parties in parliament.

Possibly ethinc cleansing maybe a bit harsh, but do not underestimate the level of racism and scum element in NZ.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 28

#547795 21-Nov-2011 11:54

oxnsox: 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??...

Well I was around as far back as 1984 election (and earlier too

) and if you are going to use your argument it should be noted that in 1984 (FPP, of course) Social credit only got around 8% of the vote but won two seats (as they had also done in earlier elections with a bigger percentage of the vote). One assumes because they actually put up candidates that came across in their electorates as being better than the major party ones (as opposed to most of their candidates who could only be regarded as even more financial weirdos).

Which is one of the rubs with MMP in its current form, a party can have no candidates that any electorate sees as being competent enough to be voted in as their electorate MP so win no seats at all, yet can end up with a fleet of these less competent people getting in on the list just because the party got more than 5% of the vote e.g. the Greens with cuurently 9 MP's all list, but who I must acknowledge are cleaning out the worst dross from their top ranks (the clown suited tricycle rider, Bradford, Locke, Kedgley, etc) - if they get Turei to mature from acting like a stupidly opinionated 18 year old who can't stop yapping they may do better still

(Whew, the more watemelon type Greens here will hate me even more now).

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#547798 21-Nov-2011 11:57

TheUngeek:
Possibly ethinc cleansing maybe a bit harsh, but do not underestimate the level of racism and scum element in NZ.

I think you'll find it's pretty much endemic in every society.
Just tends to come out as a defensive attack of last resort. (When you don't know what to do blame everyone else for your ethnicity)

crackrdbycracku

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 68

#547812 21-Nov-2011 12:31

I'm not in the job of telling anybody how to vote in the referendum, particularly since I am a 'swing' voter for the first time I can remember. However, having read the thread here are a couple of points I think and thinking voter, ie Geek Zone forum contributor, should consider.

1) MMP with the two votes you get gives you the ability to vote meaningfully along policy lines.

If you live in a safe seat for Party A and actually support the policies of Party B then while you constituency vote might not do much your party vote will. This is the upside of list MPs. Support for parties and therefore the policies they support does not need to be geographically concentrated to be meaningful. The whole country becomes a 'marginal seat'. I'm not a fan of the Greens but if people support their ideas they should get a voice in parliament, that all the Green supporters don't live in the same place shouldn't matter. This is why I won't vote for STV, I don't like political support being completely tied to the electorate.

2) It isn't the system, it's what the system does.

New Zealand has had a good run with MMP. We have not had to call a snap election, as we did in '84, we have not had to dissolve parliament because of a vote of 'no confidence' either. Sure, I disagree with some things that have happened since the start of MMP, Winston Peters I'm looking at you, but I agree with a lot of things as well. The rise of female MPs, the increase of diversity of MPs in the house (sure, I don't like them all but that isn't the point). The increase in Maori and youth participation in politics, again don't agree with everything they say but I like that they are part of the conversation.

It is hard to see these things happening under a system which didn't promote coalition politics.

Anyway, that's my bit.

CrackedByCracku

Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#547825 21-Nov-2011 12:52

I would vote for MMP if the threshold for smaller parties was increased.

I like the fact that compromise is encouraged, but look at places like the USA, where they can't get anything done due to said "compromises" I forsee a future in NZ with a similar result. Right now we need a decisive and authorative government, to rebuild the damage done in Christchurch, and other parts of the country with other issues, time spent bickering and negotiating is not time spent improving NZ.

I don't really "get" the other systems like PV and STV, I understand MMP (Kinda) and FPP. I don't see how they change anything.

allan

2073 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 899

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#547843 21-Nov-2011 13:26

For what it's worth, I heard John Key on Newstalk ZB this morning saying he would be voting for the Supplementary Member option

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#547857 21-Nov-2011 13:38

I can understand John Key wanting SM as i'm sure Labour will as well, SM means the bigger percentage of party votes the bigger the chunk of the 30 non electorate seats which favours the bigger parties.

SM is most likely the way i will go and hopefully, if it gets the nod, it will mean less pandering to minor parties so they hard decisions can be made instead of voting on personalities and nonsensical policies that affect a small part of the population.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#547877 21-Nov-2011 14:32

jeffnz: I can understand John Key wanting SM as i'm sure Labour will as well, SM means the bigger percentage of party votes the bigger the chunk of the 30 non electorate seats which favours the bigger parties.

It's my understanding that Labour supports MMP because historically under FPP their shares of seats tended to be less than their share of the overall vote. Under SM they would probably achieve similar outcomes to FPP so it's not something that I would see them supporting.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#547879 21-Nov-2011 14:36

I found this very interesting and helpful. I now have a better idea how I will vote:

http://www.referendum.org.nz/tool

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#547931 21-Nov-2011 16:16

Given that they are losing most of thier votes to the Greens which makes them stronger every election year I wonder if they still believe that.

Also with some of the deals they have had to do in the past I think they have be made to look ineffective.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#547935 21-Nov-2011 16:24

I am a little worried about the greens. I actually for the first time think they have 1-2 compelling policies (education) however the stunt with the bill boards and Robyn Malcolms carry on, leads me to believe they are still basically well educated (in the most part) activists. I am leaning pretty heavily now to SM, which seems to be the best of what's on offer, though there is hardly any decent option available.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#547938 21-Nov-2011 16:28

The Greens have changed tac since Norman took over and finally realsie that they need to get away from the airy fairy ideas that sounded good but in reality had the opposite impact than was intended. Found it strange they could even contemplate talking to National on anything as they are basically Socialist with a green tinge (tongue in cheek here) I can understand the Maori Party going with National though.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

sleemanj

1514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 315

#547939 21-Nov-2011 16:29

networkn: I am a little worried about the greens. I actually for the first time think they have 1-2 compelling policies (education) however the stunt with the bill boards and Robyn Malcolms carry on

I don't think it is fair to tar a whole party by the actions of a few general party members. There are extremists in all the parties, usually they are kept under thumb by the party officials, but occasionally they slip out, just the nature of politics, and religion.

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

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