Referendum Options

Forums › Off topic › Referendum Options

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

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#554563 6-Dec-2011 16:51

dontpanic42: The fact is, by definition, National alone did NOT get a majority. They only got 48%.
This is precisely why MMP needs to stay; to keep any one party from governing alone when they did NOT get a majority.
If National had achieved a majority, there would be no argument.

I personally hope that if it does turn out the Maori Party holds the balance of power after the special votes, that they stick to their guns and oppose asset sales.

There is no inherent problem with one party governing alone when they did not get a majority - in fact this country's most prosperous years were under such governments.

Then you say that National should not be able to get what they want because they only got approx 48% of the vote.

But then you say that the Maori Party should be able to get what they want even though they got less than 2% of the vote.

No wonder the country is not performing to the level it could do so with so many people, apparantly, thinking along ideological lines rather than economic and pragmatic ones.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#554570 6-Dec-2011 16:58

John2010:
dontpanic42: The fact is, by definition, National alone did NOT get a majority. They only got 48%.
This is precisely why MMP needs to stay; to keep any one party from governing alone when they did NOT get a majority.
If National had achieved a majority, there would be no argument.

I personally hope that if it does turn out the Maori Party holds the balance of power after the special votes, that they stick to their guns and oppose asset sales.

There is no inherent problem with one party governing alone when they did not get a majority - in fact this country's most prosperous years were under such governments.

Then you say that National should not be able to get what they want because they only got approx 48% of the vote.

But then you say that the Maori Party should be able to get what they want even though they got less than 2% of the vote.

Wow I found something I agree with you about (I am not trying to be rude FYI), that is an EXCELLENT way to put it (2% vs 48%)

I think proportional govt has some benefits, but they need to increase the threshold from 5% to say 8 or 10%.

gzt

17138 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#554579 6-Dec-2011 17:10

networkn: gzt: If they led alone do you think they would even be conversing with ACT at this point? Seriously?

Key has shown willingness to include other parties in de facto support arrangements previously, even when not strictly needed, so it is quite possible. The strategy gives a bit of protection from internal elements tempting to change your course one way or another in key policy areas.

Also, I'm not sure if you are referring to FPP as well, but FPP does not guarantee the party with the most seats in parliament will be a single party government.

There is a widespread misconception developed that in an FPP system the party winning the most seats in parliament will always lead. This is just not the case at all. The key thing in parliament is confidence and supply voting. If you are the biggest party by seats but not a majority by seats in an FPP parliament, and in the situation where you know you will lose on confidence and supply, you would have to turn down the invitation to form a government.

In addition, remember that Banks and Dunne are both electorate candidates/MP's and therefore could still be part of an FPP coalition. Same for Turia, Sharples and Flavell of the Maori Party - all electorate MPs.

isosmama

92 posts

Master Geek

#554615 6-Dec-2011 18:23

Hi, um am I the only thinking WTF!? Company logos on school uniforms! and how come Peter Dunne and John Banks are high ranking ministers when no-one voted for them? Democracy my arse!

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#554774 7-Dec-2011 00:32

isosmama: Hi, um am I the only thinking WTF!? Company logos on school uniforms! and how come Peter Dunne and John Banks are high ranking ministers when no-one voted for them? Democracy my arse!

What do you mean, no one voted for them?

isosmama

92 posts

Master Geek

#555210 7-Dec-2011 20:44

Ok, forgive my hyperbole. You're right, they got enough votes to get a seat each.

Some of National's mandates are definitely going to happen and were not publicised before the election. Such as the corporate funding for schools. Obviously not the kind of policies that get votes.

Not in the spirit of it IMHO

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#555380 8-Dec-2011 11:21

isosmama:
...Some of National's mandates are definitely going to happen and were not publicised before the election. Such as the corporate funding for schools. Obviously not the kind of policies that get votes.

Not in the spirit of it IMHO

That is not a National mandate it is something that has come about because of MMP in order for the possibility of a government being formed.

The objective of MMP is that the party that gets the first shot at forming the new Government has to bend to some of the conditions of other parties who may be prepared to be in coalition with them. If one likes MMP as it currently is then you just have to eat that, whether you like it or not. But you cannot blame the compromises that result from that, and likely unknown until coalition discussions after the election get down to the detail, on the party trying to form a government.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

gzt

17138 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#555382 8-Dec-2011 11:29

You are wrong. Exactly the same coalition outcome is possible in an FPP environment.

isosmama

92 posts

Master Geek

#555391 8-Dec-2011 11:43

It's all completely lawful. Not completely above board though. One could call it ruthless manipulation of the democratic process.

Ideologically speaking, a democratically elected government sole function is to govern a country in a way that directly reflects the views of the people they represent.

What about "Its hardly cricket old chap"?

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#555397 8-Dec-2011 11:52

isomama: It's completely above board, you just don't like it. It's the basis by which MMP works.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it "not cricket"

I don't like it much either which is why I voted to get rid of MMP and move to something with higher effective requirements for the minor parties.

MMP will be revised sometime soonish, should put a stop to some of this, but ultimately in exchange for support, the largest party will need to negotiate terms with it's partners. If you don't like what they asked for, contact your local office of that party and tell them, though don't expect much weight behind it if you aren't a voter for that party.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#555398 8-Dec-2011 11:52

gzt: Why blame MMP? Exactly the same coalition outcome is possible in an FPP environment.

No need to get so defensive of MMP. In case you are not aware our current electoral system is an MMP one and that is what the context of the arrangements for the coalition mentioned are being made under and it was those arrangements which were clearly being referred to.

I am unsure why you felt that you had to point out specifically that such coalition arrangements may occur in the case of FPP too (albeit much more rarely) as you you have neglected to mention that they might also be required under electoral systems other than MMP and FPP too.

gzt

17138 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#555402 8-Dec-2011 12:01

John2010: I am unsure why you felt that you had to point out specifically that such coalition arrangements may occur in the case of FPP too (albeit much more rarely) as you you have neglected to mention that they might also be required under electoral systems other than MMP and FPP too.

Only because your entire post was about MMP:

John2010: That is not a National mandate it is something that has come about because of MMP in order for the possibility of a government being formed.

The objective of MMP is that the party that gets the first shot at forming the new Government has to bend to some of the conditions of other parties who may be prepared to be in coalition with them. If one likes MMP as it currently is then you just have to eat that, whether you like it or not. But you cannot blame the compromises that result from that, and likely unknown until coalition discussions after the election get down to the detail, on the party trying to form a government.

As I said, this is just incorrect. First of all, the objective of MMP is to send your representation to parliament provided the party you voted for got over 5%. Secondly, the exact same coalition arrangement is possible under FPP. (and as you now correctly assert, other electoral systems as well)

[Edit: for logical consistency added the remaining sentence in the 'entire post' I was referring to in second para above]

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#555404 8-Dec-2011 12:05

isosmama: It's all completely lawful. Not completely above board though. One could call it ruthless manipulation of the democratic process.

Ideologically speaking, a democratically elected government sole function is to govern a country in a way that directly reflects the views of the people they represent.

What about "Its hardly cricket old chap"?

Our current "democratic process" includes an MMP electoral system. If you don't think MMP, or MMP as it now is is not "cricket" then vote, tell those who matter, etc that the system needs to be improved.

Within our MMP system even a party with less than 1% of the vote has the opportunity to make demands on the party trying to create the coalition government with it and if a Government is to be formed then some of those demands have to be met whether they like them or not. That is what many people think is democratic.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#555409 8-Dec-2011 12:17

gzt:
John2010: I am unsure why you felt that you had to point out specifically that such coalition arrangements may occur in the case of FPP too (albeit much more rarely) as you you have neglected to mention that they might also be required under electoral systems other than MMP and FPP too.

Only because your entire post was about MMP:

John2010: The objective of MMP is that the party that gets the first shot at forming the new Government has to bend to some of the conditions of other parties who may be prepared to be in coalition with them. If one likes MMP as it currently is then you just have to eat that, whether you like it or not. But you cannot blame the compromises that result from that, and likely unknown until coalition discussions after the election get down to the detail, on the party trying to form a government.

As I said, this is just incorrect. First of all, the objective of MMP is to send your representation to parliament provided the party you voted for got over 5%. Secondly, the exact same coalition arrangement is possible under FPP. (and as you now correctly assert, other electoral systems as well)

Stop being silly, I spoke about MMP because that is the system we have, I was not going to hypothesise about all the other possible electoral systems, none of which are currently relevant to NZ.

Also your statement "First of all, the objective of MMP is to send your representation to parliament provided the party you voted for got over 5%", needs to also include those parties that get less than 5% but get a candidate elected to parliament.

gzt

17138 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#555419 8-Dec-2011 12:34

John2010: Also your statement "First of all, the objective of MMP is to send your representation to parliament provided the party you voted for got over 5%", needs to also include those parties that get less than 5% but get a candidate elected to parliament.

If you mean candidates elected to electorate seats (which are not proportional) like Banks, Dunne, Sharples, Turia, Flavell, and Harawira then you are correct.

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