Comments on: MMP Referenda

By: winston smith

winston smith — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:45:28 +0000

Garethw – I thought this actually meant “If the majority vote to retain MMP, then the second question is irrelevant”. If you vote to retain MMP, but the majority vote to dump it, then your vote for your preferred system (eg: STV) would still be counted. Can anyone confirm otherwise?

Bigbruv –
“Your precious “democratic” system of government has seen the Greens, NZ First, The Mowree party, United Future, Anderton and to a lesser extent ACT all having far more influence than they deserve or were given by the people of NZ.”

So you’d rather that Labour or National have far more influence than they deserve or were given by the people of NZ? ‘Cause that’s what you’ll get under FPP/PV/SM or even STV.

“Interesting to see those who champion MMP as democracy, are you the same people who have pissed and moaned about the tail waging the dog for the last nine years?”

All electoral systems are democracy. Voting in representatives every three years and having the power to vote them out is democratic. Some are better at reflecting the will of the voters than others… and reflecting minority views, whether that be NZF/Act/Maori/Green/etc.

By: garethw

garethw — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:24:02 +0000

“If the first question is a vote to retain MMP, the second question is academic and that is the end of it.”
Can you confirm that this is the process in the 2011 referendum? If I vote for MMP any vote I make for an alternate is ignored at the count. And if so, does my MMP vote count or is the whole ballot considered spoiled?

By: The Linesman

The Linesman — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:23:55 +0000

grumpyoldhori – the Greens already do it.

By: Grant Michael McKenna

Grant Michael McKenna — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:25:59 +0000

Everyone is ignoring the most obvious point: DPF is the real power behind the National Party, the shaper of policy, the arbiter of arguments, the determinant of decisions, which is why his ’suggestions’ are acted upon. And I, for one, welcome our new Kākā loving overlord. I’d like to remind him that I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in his vast vineyards and fields of hops, barley, malt and rye.

By: malcolm

malcolm — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:21:23 +0000

Is a modification of the current MMP going to be an option (e.g. no 5% by-pass etc)?

By: grumpyoldhori

grumpyoldhori — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:09:48 +0000

It seems one of the biggest grouches with MMP is the party list.
Easy answer people, join a political party and DEMAND that they hold primaries for who goes on the list and the ranking.
In other words political party members would list from one to fifty the people they want on the list.

Never happen though, being Kiwis we would rather bitch and whine after the event.

By: menace

menace — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:52:08 +0000

bloody oath, course it’s all about brown noising.

By: CharlieBrown

CharlieBrown — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:20:22 +0000

People that believe mmp allows the tail to wag the dog are ignorant. Firstly, their is no emperical proof that this is the case. Winney tried his best in 1996 but even he got booted from power pretty promptly.

Secondly, if this was the case, and mmp was removed which would effectively kill of the other parties, the people who make up those parties will move into the big two and form their own particular wing of that party. This will be very similar to the USA. The downside of this is the public will have less of an idea of what a government will do and we will have repeats of the muldoon and lange(not that this govt was bad but alot of people seem to think so) government.

By: CharlieBrown

CharlieBrown — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:13:23 +0000

“hope and expect that this commitment to procedural fairness will extend to the question wordings.”… good luck, they certainly did their best to stack the deck against the smacking referendum, and when the results still showed overwhelming support for a change in the law gutless spineless socialist john key ignored it. Make no mistake, national are only doing this for personal benefet, nothing to do with whether this is better for the country or not.

By: expat

expat — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:50:59 +0000

Makes a change for New Zealand re: having a government that isn’t constantly stacking the deck huh.

By: Rob Salmond

Rob Salmond — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:04:08 +0000

I agree that this is a fair process for deciding on our electoral system. Bravo to Simon Power and the government for not bowing to the demands of those who wanted to stack the deck. I hope and expect that this commitment to procedural fairness will extend to the question wordings.

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:57:15 +0000

[I savaged Simon Power's decision on Peter Ellis last week.]

You disagreed with it strongly. You stated you were “gutted”, and “think the Minister made the wrong decision”; you “really hoped he would finally be the person to do the right thing”, and the decision was “a classic argument of form over substance…”

This falls somewhat short of a savaging … I’d quite like to see one of those

By: STC

STC — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:37:22 +0000

I would just like to congratulate the National Government for creating a fair referendum.

By: menace

menace — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:14:55 +0000

democracymum> my thoughts exactly.

By: kiki

kiki — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:52:37 +0000

freedom is the ability to choose.

ACT, Greens even NZF give people choice. If we only have the national/labour party again there will be no choice and no freedom.

if you have no choice then you have no freedom
if you have no freedom you are a slave
and a slave is not accountable for their actions

By: Banana Llama

Banana Llama — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:48:53 +0000

I’d rather P.A.Y.E was abolished as well as consumer based taxation, come the end of the year i wonder how many people could afford to save one third of their yearly wage and pay their taxes? the effect this would have on the country’s governance would be far more electrifying.
Good to see we get a referendum on MMP though.

By: big bruv

big bruv — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 07:02:13 +0000

Interesting to see those who champion MMP as democracy, are you the same people who have pissed and moaned about the tail waging the dog for the last nine years?

Your precious “democratic” system of government has seen the Greens, NZ First, The Mowree party, United Future, Anderton and to a lesser extent ACT all having far more influence than they deserve or were given by the people of NZ.

Of course DPF thinks the proposal floated by the Nat’s is a good idea, he thinks that every idea the Nat’s float is a good one.

Make no mistake people, the gutless Nat’s and the rest of the troughers have decided that they want MMP to stay, what the public want is irrelevant to them, the referendum will be worded in such a manner as to ensure the survival of this corrupt system.

[DPF: If you keep lying I will keep calling you a liar and a moron. I savaged Simon Power's decision on Peter Ellis last week. I criticised twice Anne Tolley's deal with unions on league takes. I attacked what the Nats were proposing six weeks ago in terms of the referenda. It is only because they changed their proposal (to what I advicoted) that I am now praising it. Only a moron can be surprised that I praise something when they do exactly what I said they should do]

By: Captain Neurotic

Captain Neurotic — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:54:45 +0000

The big problem is that if the system changes there may not be representation for the minority parties and those with minority views… Not too sad about the Greens – But it would be a travesty to lose the Act party!

By: CharlieBrown

CharlieBrown — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:43:18 +0000

So it seems that all the options being brought forward would reduce proportionality… hense reducing democracy. Why don’t people just wake up and realise that electorate seats are worthless, how many people can point to times when mp’s have represented their electorates even if it goes against party policy?

I really hope one of the options that gets proposed would be something that does away with electorate seats full stop. That way people would be represented by what they believe in, not by where they live.

By: winston smith

winston smith — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:23:09 +0000

@MikeNZ: do you mean direct democracy? Because that would be out of the scope of this referendum.

FYI, Switzerland has Full Proportional Representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland) – so MMP without the electorate seats. The difference is that the party vote (of 200 seats) is taken on a smaller scale than the Party vote in NZ – ie: the 26 cantons of Switzerland.
So it’d be like, say, someone ticking Labour in West Auckland/Waitakere – they’d be voting Chris Carter, Lynne Pillay & David whats-his-name (and so on) in, rather than just the national list with Clark, Cullen, etc.
This was one of the options that wasn’t put forward in 1992/3, probably because NZ (and all other English-speaking folk) tend to like having electorate MPs around. It would reduce people’s issues with List MPs, but also reduce proportionality quite a bit.

@PaulL: “Most of the problems people are complaining about are either to do with politicians (particularly the deal making involved in forming a coalition, and the power of parties)…”

And conveniently ignoring that minor parties in coalitions – seen to be the tail that wags the dog – almost always do worse in the post-coalition election.

ie: NZ First in 1999 (kept on by Winnie’s seat, a margin of 90 votes or so) & in 2008,
The Alliance/Progressives in 2002; the Progressives in 2005 (bye bye Matt Robson),
United Future in 2005 and then in 2008.
I guess everyone has a minor party that they love to hate.