polglase:

Linuxluver:
As for MMP, what is "disproportionate" power?

A government either has a majority...or it doesn't.

Those are the only proportions that really matter.

Example: If 61 out of 120 MPs don't back them...why pick on the smallest part of the 61 who don't support the Government? The reality is that a majority of the elected erpresentatives - from a variety of parties - do not support the Government. This "disproportionate power" meme is a fallacy. If you don't have a majority, you don't have a majority. 

Sounds like bullying, to me. :-)

This is getting off topic, it really is a minor issue for me, I'm not that bothered by it. 

All I meant to say is I don't like the situation that may arise where a party with one seat (or five etc) and perhaps 0.8% (or some other smallish number) of the vote could potentially hold the balance of power and choose the next government... the point being that a small minority party could, under MMP, potentially choose the winning party and therefore wield an amount of power in Government that is disproportional to their vote... do you see what I mean or am I missing something?

Linuxluver:

polglase:

Linuxluver:
As for MMP, what is "disproportionate" power?

A government either has a majority...or it doesn't.

Those are the only proportions that really matter.

Example: If 61 out of 120 MPs don't back them...why pick on the smallest part of the 61 who don't support the Government? The reality is that a majority of the elected erpresentatives - from a variety of parties - do not support the Government. This "disproportionate power" meme is a fallacy. If you don't have a majority, you don't have a majority. 

Sounds like bullying, to me. :-)

This is getting off topic, it really is a minor issue for me, I'm not that bothered by it. 

All I meant to say is I don't like the situation that may arise where a party with one seat (or five etc) and perhaps 0.8% (or some other smallish number) of the vote could potentially hold the balance of power and choose the next government... the point being that a small minority party could, under MMP, potentially choose the winning party and therefore wield an amount of power in Government that is disproportional to their vote... do you see what I mean or am I missing something?

I understand your point very well and it is based on a fallacy.

The 0.8% of the vote isn't holding up the works. It is the 50.8% who are - together - holding up the works.

One MP or 5 CAN'T out-vote the rest of a parliament in agreement.  

So it isn't fair, accurate or even rational to blame the smallest portion of the MAJORITY who do not support government policy.

The government simply doen'st have a majority...and they want someone to blame. Pick on the little guy. 

A "winning party" that doesn't have a majority in the House is just one more minority and they and their supporters need to get theirs collective heads around that and stop pretending they have a right do whatever they please despite the majority of voters NOT supporting them.

polglase: I may have done this all wrong, so forgive me if I have, but wouldn't Party D end up effectively choosing the next government depending on who they sided with?

That possibility, however remote, is what I was referring to. It doesn't seem right to me that a party with 5% of the vote have the influence to choose the Government. Particularly as it could exclude the party with the largest share of the vote. This is the disproportionate power I was referring to even if I didn't explain it very well .

hellonearthisman: Yeah right, you overlooked ACT who have got a lot of there stupid (ultra right) bills passed as part of there Kingmaking deals.

I would like to see the Greens in coalition, so they can lock up National's crazy ideas and throw away the Key.

MikeSkyrme:

hellonearthisman: Yeah right, you overlooked ACT who have got a lot of there stupid (ultra right) bills passed as part of there Kingmaking deals.

I would like to see the Greens in coalition, so they can lock up National's crazy ideas and throw away the Key.

Out of curiousity, is there a comprehensive list of the bills that the Act Party had passed?...

polglase:

Linuxluver:

polglase:

Linuxluver:
As for MMP, what is "disproportionate" power?

A government either has a majority...or it doesn't.

Those are the only proportions that really matter.

Example: If 61 out of 120 MPs don't back them...why pick on the smallest part of the 61 who don't support the Government? The reality is that a majority of the elected erpresentatives - from a variety of parties - do not support the Government. This "disproportionate power" meme is a fallacy. If you don't have a majority, you don't have a majority. 

Sounds like bullying, to me. :-)

This is getting off topic, it really is a minor issue for me, I'm not that bothered by it. 

All I meant to say is I don't like the situation that may arise where a party with one seat (or five etc) and perhaps 0.8% (or some other smallish number) of the vote could potentially hold the balance of power and choose the next government... the point being that a small minority party could, under MMP, potentially choose the winning party and therefore wield an amount of power in Government that is disproportional to their vote... do you see what I mean or am I missing something?

I understand your point very well and it is based on a fallacy.

The 0.8% of the vote isn't holding up the works. It is the 50.8% who are - together - holding up the works.

One MP or 5 CAN'T out-vote the rest of a parliament in agreement.  

So it isn't fair, accurate or even rational to blame the smallest portion of the MAJORITY who do not support government policy.

The government simply doen'st have a majority...and they want someone to blame. Pick on the little guy. 

A "winning party" that doesn't have a majority in the House is just one more minority and they and their supporters need to get theirs collective heads around that and stop pretending they have a right do whatever they please despite the majority of voters NOT supporting them.

I don't feel as if we are on the same wavelength.

Let's use the following (hypothetical) example

On election night the results are:

Party A - 45%
Party B - 33%
Party C - 11%
Party D - 6%
5% of the vote on parties who failed to reach the threshold.

Imagine Party B and C have announced before during or after the election that they will not work with Party A under any circumstances because of irreconcilable differences and they form a coalition.

I may have done this all wrong, so forgive me if I have, but wouldn't Party D end up effectively choosing the next government depending on who they sided with?

That possibility, however remote, is what I was referring to. It doesn't seem right to me that a party with 5% of the vote have the influence to choose the Government. Particularly as it could exclude the party with the largest share of the vote. This is the disproportionate power I was referring to even if I didn't explain it very well .

But at the end of the day all systems have pros and cons and I don't mind MMP at all, I don't have a a better solution to offer up. It was really just a throwaway OT comment.
 

Linuxluver: ...Yes, I do not accept one tiny party can dictate to everyone else...because the simple reality is, they can't do that by themselves at all. They must be part of a majority of MPs who collectively agree.
 
5 MPs, by themselves, can't do very much at all.

Linuxluver: No one is holding anyone to ransom. Voters didn't give a majority to any of the present minorities....and they are ALL minorities.

nakedmolerat: just read NBR article :-

Economically speaking: Credit agencies expose government spin (subscriber only)

excellent article! i hope government do more to improve our economy... debt clock is increasing and no one is brave enough to admit this issue and stop it from going further