http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/12/truth-out-tomorrow-youll-want-a-copy-of-this-one/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WhaleOilBeefHookedGotcha+%28Whale+Oil+Beef+Hooked%29

If voters could, if they wished, rank the list of the party to whom they were giving their party vote at the same time as they were voting (an “open list”) then list MPs would have some claim to a mandate. However NZ in its wisdom did not opt to impose democracy on the internal workings of political parties.

Instead, list MPs owe their ranking to a small number of people – in NZ First, perhaps as little as one and certainly no more than half a dozen – and thus by no stretch of the imagination have a mandate.

As DPF and other commenters have said Mr Horan’s “mandate” comes not from the 4,611 people voted for him to be an electorate MP – he lost that contest. Instead it comes from the significantly smaller number who decided his list ranking. But so does every other list MP’s. It’s when the one, two or half a dozen power brokers responsible for their holding high office turn against them that the undemocratic nature of NZ’s form of MMP becomes apparent.

The “inside story” on the Couch settlement is “inside” the paper…sounds like a good read tommorro…

And by “family” I mean his kids Bill…whatever he might have done they are innocent collateral damage..

When I lost the support of Hide, there were those who urged me to stay based on the “mandate” from however many SST supporters had voted ACT because I was on its list. There is no question there were a significant number who would never have voted ACT otherwise.

At first blush, the argument had some logic to it. After a few days reflection however, it was quite clear that I had no right to stay here having been elected as part of an ACT team. Looked at through that prism, and in the light of the votes he got in Tauranga, Horan has even less “mandate” to stay on as an independent than I did.

He should go, but he will take the pay over the holidays instead. Whatever he might have done, I am glad the media jackals seem to have left his family alone.

Peters was not aiming for an electorate , he was aiming for five percent party vote and he put in a B grade TV star in the hope that the large slice of New Zealand’s population which is dumb enough to vote for a dick who spruiks the weather from an auto-cue would vote for NZ First.

And they did.

Do you recall the margin by which Peters gained entry to parliament?

Deduct from that the 10,000 or so votes from Horan’s far flung whanau and fan club and you might see a very different picture.

Wouldn’t surprise me if Horan’s party vote got Peters over the line.

I’ve no expectation that the NZ electorate will come to its senses any time soon and ditch this hopeless, indeed laughable, electoral system.

Us and the Germans! Great company, eh?

and he is carry-on exactly the same as many maori before him have carried on.

ie: whats your is mine. If I can take it then Ill have it. There is no morality involved. I have done nothing wrong.

Horan has no mandate to represent those 4,611 people who voted for him.

I agree. Irrespective of whether or not Peters was right to kick him out, the fact is that he has done so and Horan knew he was getting himself into a personality cult when he joined NZ First. He should quit, then cane Peters from outside the House (if, in fact, he hasn’t done anything wrong).

Since they did the opposite, against all reason and good advice, Mr Horan has a perfectly justifiable mandate to remain in Parliament for his full term. He is not a trougher, he is our elected representative, and entitled to finish the job assigned to him.

Had there been clear evidence of criminal activity, I might think differently. But all I see is evidence of a civil dispute, and not even concrete evidence of that from what has been made public. He should remain an MP to remind the idiots of what they voted for last year when they had the chance to do away with list MPs.

If he stands again I believe he is entitled to be paid for three months after the election, which those retiring do not get.

As an aside, if you are correct that he is claiming a mandate based on getting 4,611 votes in Tauranga (I haven’t seen him do that directly, rather just using it as an example of his popularity), then what does he say to fellow Tauranga candidate Deborah Mahuta-Coyle?

MAHUTA-COYLE, Deborah LAB 4,707