Greens list ranking
June 1st, 2010 at 11:00 am by David FarrarAudrey Young reports:
Green Party supporters feel so strongly about how the party list is ranked they have put an ad in today’s Herald before their annual meeting in Christchurch this weekend.
This is pretty extraordinary for members of any party, let alone the Greens who claim they make their decisions by consensus.
If party members are placing advertisements in newspapers, it suggests they are not too enamoured about the party’s internal communications.
Some members want a constitutional change saying that a ballot of members must be taken into account by the executive and they are publicly urging delegates to vote for the remit, Remit 2.
The constitution at present says the party executive ranks the list.
This surprises me, as I always thought the members ranked the list – in fact the Greens often boasted that they did.
According to co-leader Russel Norman, in reality a conference of activists comes up with a draft list which is given out to members with ballot papers.
The ranking is then based almost entirely on the members’ ballot, he said, apart from one or two occasions when it has been altered for gender, ethnic or geographic balance.
But that is still the Executive having the final say, rather than the members. Now there is nothing wrong with that, but it is useful to understand that the members ballot is not final.
ACT have been having a similar debate. They have a board ranking and a member ranking and what they have been debating is do you have the members ranking first and the board ranking last/final; or do the board ranking first and then the members ranking final after that.
He said some members wanted the practice formalised in the constitution.
I have not read the exact change proposed, but you have to wonder why there would be controversy and the need to run public advertisements, if it was as simple as formalising existing practice.
He was not sure whether the wording proposed for the change was the best.
This is code for “I am against this, but don’t wish to say so”
Tags: Greens, list ranking
June 1st, 2010 at 11:08 am
I liked the full page ad that Family First put in yesterday’s Herald re: the Smacking Review whitewash…
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 11:09 am
[Fletch]: I liked the full page ad that Family First put in yesterday’s Herald re: the Smacking Review whitewash…
^^^ Hiya, troll!
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 11:15 am
So their executive ranks the list (as per their constitution) but the means they normally use to do this ranking is by polling the membership. Pretty sinister stuff.
Oh and there is too much unemployed-workers’-rights stuff and social policy in the Greens at the moment IMHO. Get rid of that and return to being a focussed environmental pressure party and they’ll never look back… my 2c.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 11:18 am
Greens ranking list, oh yeah people give a rats about that today alright.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 11:20 am
Paper ads are quite common now – like the Happy Birthday Jim Bolger half page ad testerday inserted by his friends.
More seriously, though, the main parties keep a tight control on how their lists are ranked – they have far more at stake than minor parties.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 11:23 am
Greens ranking list, oh yeah people give a rats about that today alright.
Rabid political junkies are people too.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 11:26 am
Since when have the Greens worried about party lists?
Remember how they rorted their list to enable Comrade Norman to come into the house and use our money for election purposes.
There is a simple rule of thumb when dealing with the Greens, trust nothing they say and nothing they do.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 12:00 pm
So the party list is both sexist and racist.
No surprise there.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Labours new list remains nameless.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Still the most democratic party in parliament though aye Nats? In the National Party the top fella/lass gets to hand pick their commissars ……/// oops, i mean cabinet members
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 12:51 pm
So are the Greens now saying that the list isn’t something that they can manipulate to manage who is and who isn’t in parliament? How bloody typical of commie Norman to be comfortable when it was manipulated for his benefit now wanting the process formalised.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 12:54 pm
something sinister must be happening on the list .. I can’t imagine that the lot in there now are the best available??
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 1:06 pm
tell us again about the democratic-practices undertaken by national…in the compilation of their lists..?
very empowering for rank and file members..?..is it…?
are they happy to just be sheep…?
or would they like a democratic role in that process…?
..as green party members are afforded..?
..here’s a thought..!
..they could join the greens..eh..?
..’cos..y’know…!
..they are ‘neither left nor right…..just out in front..
..eh..?
phill(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 1:09 pm
philu
How is a thread about Greens list ranking got anything to do with National?
Although hang on… Ahhh there we go… a big hit on the vaporizer and yes… you, … like eh? it is? eh?
well like… said … philu…. who needs a job eh… benefits give time and money… eh… like bludger is cool eh…
National… like bad eh? Green make it up as they go … like eh? Good…
Ahh more vaporizer… good eh?
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 1:13 pm
jaba
History tells us that the Green’s see the list as their own play thing to enable them to discard the will of the voters and allow them to be 100% self serving in their own parties best interest.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 1:40 pm
It’s also in the DomPost (B5). I thought greens didn’t like political advertising?
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 1:46 pm
It is lucky that the Green party do not run a rugby team, if they did their strategy of having a set ratio of team members based on some archaic notion that better outcomes are delivered by controlling the mix of people rather than choosing the best people for the job would be unacceptable.
In highly important things that govern of lives like rugby we want the best players, luckily in something as trivial as being in govt it is clearly not so important to have the best players on the team.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 1:52 pm
“..How is a thread about Greens list ranking got anything to do with National? ..”
possibly because nattys here are having a bit of a moan about the ‘failings’ of the green list-ranking-system…?
thought i’d do a bit of a compare and contrast…y’know..!
..just to prove..that once/again/as usual/still..
they are just blowing it out of their arses..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz).
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 1:58 pm
What?!? I’ve repeatedly praised the Greens and condemned other parties on this very issue, based on several assurances from different Greens members (ncluding on here) that the list was ranked by the entire membership.
So who’s been told a bare faced lie? Me, and other people, by Greens members? Or Greens members, by their leaders?
Yes, stephen, rabid political junkies are people too
And this one feels considerably let down.
Worse still is the fact that the process as described by Norman (if he’s telling the truth) is still marginally better than that practised by the other parties… surely we’ll soon see the back of MMP, and it’s scope for this pernicious gerrymandering to propel no-hopers into list seats simply on the basis of their race, gender, or fawning loyalty to the leadership, brought to an end?!
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 1:59 pm
“..History tells us that the Green’s see the list as their own play thing to enable them to discard the will of the voters and allow them to be 100% self serving in their own parties best interest…”
substitute nattys for ‘greens’..eh..?
and whattayagot..?
…eh..?
and yr rugby-analogy…?
..brilluiant…!
you really are the gift that just keeps on giving today..aren’t you..?
..old spurt..?
got any more for us…?
..c’mon..!…spoil us..!
(idiots come..and idiots go..
..thru the sands of time..
..that are..
..the days of kiwiblog…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Phool:
So why spend all day on Kiwiblog abusing those, like Burt, who fund your stay-at-home lifestyle?
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 2:52 pm
So Red Russel says “in reality a conference of activists come up with a draft”………….sounds like the Melon hierarchy has fallen off the wagon, I’m picking they are just not commie enough. What we need is a good old purge, off to the Gulag for the appeaser’s.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 3:04 pm
‘cos burt is funny…wot with his ‘rugby-wisdoms’..and all..
and ‘abuse’…?
really…
what do you call what you maggots spew up all the time…?
..to the exclusion of anything else..?
..mmm..???
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 3:14 pm
..?
..is it…?
…?
…?
….?
..here’s a thought..!
….eh..?
..’cos..y’know…!
….
..eh..?
..mmm..???
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 3:16 pm
i hafta say…i’ve seen much better impersonations…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 3:33 pm
I agree with phlu on this, I’ve seen better impersonations too. I think you need to include more letters next time Peter. Just any combination of random characters will do, but you have to give it some meat. mmmm, meat.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Phool:
Maggots?
From Wikipedia:
Oh no! Life cycle… generations… grows exponentially… you don’t mean to say…?
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 4:00 pm
>>I agree with phlu on this, I’ve seen better impersonations too
It’s a template!
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 4:13 pm
interesting article at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/ (Saturday, May 29, 2010
‘Taking The Greens Seriously’)
With their female co-leader speaking all about maori issues and never anything about green issues its no wonder they are getting a bit frayed. Would be surprised to see them flying to bits I think
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Bloody hell!
If you have insomnia then just listen or watch David Clendon speak in the house.
Never have I heard a more boring speaker.
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 4:35 pm
>The ranking is then based almost entirely on the members’ ballot, he said, apart from one or two occasions when it has been altered for gender, ethnic or geographic balance.
That is odd. They don’t adjust the list for lunatic or Aussie balance, but Delahunty and Norman are both on it?
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 4:57 pm
They don’t appear to have adjusted for the McDonalds Corporation either…..
Vote:June 1st, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I’ve also blogged my analysis of today’s Green Party member advertisements here:
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2010/06/the-green-party-list-selection-conflict.html
Here’s a snippet:
Vote:“Today’s nationwide advertisements raise questions about the health of democracy in the Green Party. The leadership is prone to boast about the party being the most democratic in New Zealand politics. But scratch the surface and you often find some contradictory signs suggesting that democracy isn’t as healthy in the party as is constantly made out. For example, the Greens’ website states, ‘Our Party List is decided by a vote of all members’, and its MPs often claim the high moral ground by saying things such as ‘the Green Party list-ranking process is, as far as I am aware, the only democratic list-ranking process of any political party in this country. Every member of our party gets an equal vote over the final list position’ (Tanczos). But the Greens’ list selection process isn’t as democratic as their MPs suggest. Although the Electoral Act 1993 stipulates that parties must follow ‘democratic procedures in candidate selection’, when you go beyond the party’s rhetoric and formal procedure, the reality is a bit different. In their list selection, the Greens actually use what they call ‘guided democracy’ which isn’t exactly ‘real democracy’.”
June 1st, 2010 at 5:43 pm
I don’t know why they bother. After all, their concept of “leadership” is so improbable that their “left” hand will be permanently unaware of what their other “left” hand is doing, unless they’re permanently together. Co-leadership is an utter nonsense – does a car have two steering wheels – so one can imagine the absolute chaos that would follow their being elected to office.
Co-leadership might work at “party organisational levels, depending on what level of organisation was actually required – but leadership requires demonstrable qualities that the Greens, including Rod Donald, have never had the faintest opportunity to put to the test. Any fool can spout theory – and they do so often – but, being able to deliver at the coalface requires practical and instinctive skills that no one who was ever attracted to the Greens’ hand-wringing, wet-blanket style of philosophy would ever be capable of demonstrating.
Vote: