As you can see from my explanation above (and that of others on this thread) your wacky vote counting maths is not reflected by the reality of the situation. 3 votes for local reps (chosen by the local electorate organisation, ie not head office), 3 votes for head office reps, 1 vote determined by the floor vote. All of these votes are of equal value. To continue your line of argument would be like saying the $1 coin in my wallet is actually worth $10,000, while the $1 coin in yours is only worth $1. See how silly that is?

I do feel there is at least a faint whiff of the troll about you, certainly in relation to this thread, so perhaps I’ll leave it at that. Feel free to keep digging your lovely little hole if you so choose.

Yours etc
Span

Remeber the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Local reps one vote. Man from Head Office 10,000 votes.

To make it real simple for you – What Head Office wants – Head Office gets.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dailynews/4168752a6002.html

And by your maths the local electorate reps would also get 30,000 votes, which would equal the head office ones, leaving the floor vote to decide in a deadlock situation.
Yours etc
Span

Stacking has been tried in National – in 2002 Brian Neeson (unsuccessfully) tried to stack the selection meeting. Furthermore, stacking is usually only successful when there is no membership fee – a minimum $5 fee was introduced in 2003 in order to prevent further attempts to stack meetings. But A@L is right that National is more agreeable to stacking than Labour. However, National also places the decision formally in the hands of the electorate, while Labour does not.

Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages.

Personally I think it is a great thing potential candidates are encouraged to sign up members. One reason National may have five times as many as Labour.

National works on a delegate system, which means overall membership numbers entitles an electorate to have up to a certain number of delegates.

If they don’t have the number of members to maximise delegate numbers, then the head office/board is able to substitute in delegates.

There’s actually little chance of “stacking” by a nominee, but there is every possibility of a fiercely independent electorate ensuring the head office can’t run the local selection.

Which when you think about it, is actually a good thing.

But seriously, correct me if I’m wrong, but potential candidates for National selection can sign heaps of new members in the electorate so they will vote for them come selection time. Labour’s system is set up to guard against selection stacking, whereas National’s system seems to encourage it…

However, it is an additional valuable accomplishment to add to his CV. Association with the Engine of Power in Government would stand him in good stead for parliamentary service.

Sorry I got it wrong. With 3 reps from head office it should be 30,000 votes.

Hardly 10,000 votes for the party machine. And a shame that DPF chose not to explain this himself in his comment but gave the impression local members didn’t get any say.

What part of Auckland is Wellington central again?