POLL: Which voting system do you prefer?

[slofox]

We get to select the voting system we want in future in a couple of weeks.

Which one do you prefer? You can tell us why as well if ya like...

If you don't have a fucking clue what they are about, you can find about 'em HERE (http://www.referendum.org.nz/).

[JimO]

i dont see no poll

[MSTRS]

Can't put the poll up until the thread is up first...takes a few minutes.
I'm leaning to STV, but no doubt the bastard pollies will be able to twist that to suit themselves as well.
Might have to be FPP...or any system that removes that fucken 'list'...if the public didn't vote you in, you're not an MP.

[Usarka]

I don't like this voting system.

[slofox]

i dont see no poll

Errr...it's up there on my screen..?

[Blackshear]

I don't know what any o that means, and aside from the occasional HEY MODS WANT U 2 LOOK polls, I don't vote.

[neels]

You shouldn't vote, it only encourates the fuckers.

And from what I remember reading when this first raised it's head and MMP appeared, STV looked to be the most likely way to get the people most people liked into parliament. I just don't think the voting public could get their heads around the concept.

What we have now just means the party drones can cover their bases by list places, and if the electorate boots thinks they're wankers and boots them out they just slide in on their list placing.

Still better than the absolute power days of muldoon and rogernomics though.....

[Oakie]

MMP but I think it needs a little tinkering over thresholds and one person bringing half a dozen more in by winning a seat.

[Ocean1]

The one most likely to return the government the majority of people vote for. FPP.

If you feel the need to fuck with that so some of the losers feel better then Supplementary Member is the least odeous of the other choices.

Except that it sounds really rude.

[MD]

It seems to me that MMP opened the door for too many people, that no one voted for, to get a free lunch and retirement off the taxpayer. On the other hand FPP will always be a game of two players in NZ. Not happy with either of these.

I'm hoping the supplementary vote will be a fair balance between these two extremes. Of course history shows us how our incumbent Govts ignore any referendum that does not give the result they want.

STV sounds too much like a disease you don't want to tell the Missus about.

[Swoop]

Still better than the absolute power days of muldoon and rogernomics though.....
That'll be FPP then...:angry:

[MD]

The one most likely to return the government the majority of people vote for. FPP.

If you feel the need to fuck with that so some of the losers feel better then Supplementary Member is the least odeous of the other choices.

Except that it sounds really rude.

So you saying your can catch a dose of STV from someone's supplementary member. When did politics get so dirty?

[Jantar]

The one most likely to return the government the majority of people vote for. FPP......

Isn't that the one where in two consectutive elections in the mid 1980s the party with the largest number of votes got the lesser number of seats in parliament?

Isn't that the one we used to have where over a third of voters were completely unrepresented in parliament?

Isn't that the one that gives the voting public the least representation in parliament?

FPP must be the worst system we have ever experienced.

[Virago]

The one most likely to return the government the majority of people vote for. FPP...

Sadly, that couldn't be further from the truth. FPP resulted in massive landslide victories with only minority voting numbers. I recall one election where National triumphed with far fewer votes than Labour. A vote for a minority party was effectively a wasted vote - you were better to choose between the lesser of two evils between the main parties, to ensure that the party you liked least didn't get in.

MMP on the other hand, turned the tables the other direction, with some minority parties having disproportionate power. Winnie Peters was a master of the game in his day, basically holding the country to ransom. It also introduced the system of List MPs, who alarmingly answered to no-one.

I reckon STV would create the best balance.

[Jantar]

I would like MMP if the parties didn't get to make the lists themselves.

The fairest way would be for the lists to be made up of the best performing losing candidates. eg. if a candidate loses by a very close margin (say only 100 votes) then they would be the first name on the list. The more votes a canidate loses by the lower down the list they would go. If a candidate's own electrate doesn't want that person then why should the rest of the country have to put up with him/her?

[Swoop]

A candidate should not be able to stand for an electorate AND be on the party list. If they lose in their electorate - bye, bye charlie. No second chance through the back door on the list.




STV.

[Jantar]

My first choice would be PV. It is a simple system with only one representive per electorate. It does disadvantage the minor parties which can lead to closet collaboration between the major parties.

A close second is STV. The disadvantages are too many representives per electorate and a more complex counting system

[Ocean1]

Isn't that the one where in two consectutive elections in the mid 1980s the party with the largest number of votes got the lesser number of seats in parliament?

Lesser than the runner up, yes, by a small margin. The result of the inevitable variation between the total individual votes and the electorate vote.



Isn't that the one that gives the voting public the least representation in parliament?

Nobody votes for list MPs. Nobody votes for composite governments formed by negotiations voters have no part in after the polls have closed. Take those annomolies out and then count votes again.

Who voted for the current mix of parties? Nobody, it wasn't an option on election day, was it?



FPP must be the worst system we have ever experienced.

I repeat, it's the system most likely to return the government voted for by the highest number of voters.

[Ocean1]

Sadly, that couldn't be further from the truth. FPP resulted in massive landslide victories with only minority voting numbers. I recall one election where National triumphed with far fewer votes than Labour.

Bit of an exageration. The problem there was, (and Labour was as guilty) allowing the government of the day to fuck with electoral boundaries in order to maximise their voting power. Remove that power and you'd have a fairer apportionment of voting blocks.



I reckon STV would create the best balance.

It's one of the systems most likely to require back room deals to decide who forms the government. Hardly ballanced.

[Shadows]

What I don't like about MMP is that the fringe parties end up holding the balance of power. The tail should not wag the dog. The make up of the government rarely represents the will of the majority as a result, much like FPP, which was at the other extreme, the only difference being it was then a two horse race.

MMP needs to be fixed properly, whereby if one loses the contest in one's own electorate one can't get back in on the list, whereby a party win in a single electorate does not mean half a dozen others get a free ride into parliament, whereby if one leaves one's party whilst in office one also loses the mandate to be there at all, whereby smaller coalition party members cannot hold positions of power above the level of mandate granted to them by the electorate, and whereby the Maori seats are abolished as they are nothing but another form of "reverse rascism" against the majority.

As there is no guarantee a review of MMP will result in even any of the above being corrected, I'm considering voting SM because for every coalition formed since the introduction of MMP that was a rort and/or a joke and/or a fuck up, SM would have provided a more stable and accountable government, more representative of the will of the majority, along with the minorities being granted the voice they deserve in a democracy.

If we get one more government formed by a bunch of minorities with maybe one decent policy each, and the rest of their ideas being simply fucktarded, contradictory and controversial, I feel another Guy Fawkes coming on and after that you will all be growing potatoes to feed my army.

[Motu]

Back in the FPP days I had to vote communism for my vote to be noticed,with MMP I can give my vote to the party,or person that will stir the most shit. MMP gives the most voice to those who don't want to vote in a 2 party race.

[Bikemad]

umm.........shoot em all i say..........but for me STV gets the nod...........only coz my big bruver nutted it all out and reckons its the only system that will hold the bastards somewhat accountable an if we dont like the way the first pricks doin his job we can give our second choice guy a crack at it or something like that......i really dont think it makes fuck all difference...........first MMP election we didnt have a Govt for something like 10-12 weeks while they sorted the mess out......people still got paid,ships and planes came and went,people made and lost fortunes......it all still goes on without those pricks............
rant done.....carry on

[Coolz]

[QUOTE=Swoop;1130186237]A candidate should not be able to stand for an electorate AND be on the party list. If they lose in their electorate - bye, bye charlie. No second chance through the back door on the list.

They have a system of MMP in Wales where the candidate has to choose to be on either the electrol or party list,not both. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[oldrider]

Even though STV results in a *coalition, I feel that candidates need to pay more attention to the requirements and wants of the electorate that votes for them!

MMP allows the parties to ignore the electorate and focus on themselves and what value they can be to each other! (rather than the electorate)

FPP is a proven disaster and was soundly rejected therefore it should not be an option this time, only the MP's profit from it!

*Coalition governments are an after event that you never know about until the MP's have picked it to death usually with their own interests 1st! :motu: Jack!

[Shadows]

Even though STV results in a *coalition, I feel that candidates need to pay more attention to the requirements and wants of the electorate that votes for them!

MMP allows the parties to ignore the electorate and focus on themselves and what value they can be to each other! (rather than the electorate)

FPP is a proven disaster and was soundly rejected therefore it should not be an option this time, only the MP's profit from it!

*Coalition governments are an after event that you never know about until the MP's have picked it to death usually with their own interests 1st! :motu: Jack!

The problem with STV is that for a large part of the voting population, a two vote system is about as complex a proposition as they can cope with.

I know people who can't even put a set of random numbers in order.

[Robert Taylor]

The one most likely to return the government the majority of people vote for. FPP.

If you feel the need to fuck with that so some of the losers feel better then Supplementary Member is the least odeous of the other choices.

Except that it sounds really rude.

Yes, FPP as opposed to MMP ( mickey mouse politics ) Then you have likely only one collective bunch of idiots not to vote for.

[Robert Taylor]

Back in the FPP days I had to vote communism for my vote to be noticed,with MMP I can give my vote to the party,or person that will stir the most shit. MMP gives the most voice to those who don't want to vote in a 2 party race.

It also gives a disproportionate amount of power to minorities, especially when their votes are required and trade offs unpalatable to most of society occur. Sue Bradford and her anti smacking bill being a prime example. In many ways it used to be better when we had priministers who didnt suffer fools and ate journos for breakfast.

[Gremlin]

I think a form of STV is used during our local body elections, and tbh, I hate it. I've got one or two people I want, but have to select 4, so I end up making up the numbers with the rest, and I think it shouldn't be like that.

I also disagree with the fucken fetish for 120 MPs. We as a country have already said we want 99. Hell, I think we need a Lord Mayor and a council. Wouldn't require the thousands it currently does, huge cost savings and less hot air.

SM is the I agree with the most, but drop the 120 MPs to something more like 50.

[MisterD]

SM is the I agree with the most, but drop the 120 MPs to something more like 50.

Even if we stay with MMP (which is what all the parties want because it gives them a nice bunch of votes in the house that aren't going to be swayed by actual voters in constituencies) why do we actually need list MP's?

What the fuck use to they serve? Just give the appropriate number of votes to be cast by the party leader and we don't have to pay for some mong to sit there and raise their hand.

I'm going PV, but what I'd really like to see is some form of primaries so that even MP's in "safe" seats can be deselected in favour of a different donkey wearing the appropriate-coloured rosette. Won't happen though, for exactly the same reason as the parties want to stay with MMP.

[oneofsix]

What does it matter. It isn't binding so if they don't like the alternative we propose there wont be anything more done. If they hold the second referendum then you know we have played in to their hands. And then after this referendum the commission is going to review the way we do MMP but not the shit we want looked at like the number of MPs and list MPs staying in parliament after leaving the party who's list they got in on. The whole referendum is a waste of money and pissing in the wind.
FFS do not vote FPP, if you think the minor parties hold too much power it is probably because you don't vote the minors (and nether do I usually) but it is better than the business round table or the unions holding ALL the power as the minors force them to moderate their policies and we the voters have more sway over the minors.

[Mental Trousers]

Anything with a List should be thrown away immediately. So that would leave

FPP
PV
STV


FPP - First Past the Post - we've been there, done that and didn't want it. It's fundamentally wrong to have a government that was elected by less than 45% of voters as happened a number of times. There were even elections where the majority vote lost. Ends up being a two party system with virtually no small parties at all
PV - Preferential Vote - means someone ends up with a majority eventually so you get single party governments. Much harder on the small parties than our current system. Also means we have lots of electorates, each with a single MP
STV - Single Transferable Vote - similar to PV except we get multiple MP's per electorate rather than more electorates. It also means governments are far more likely to be a coalition that the people vote for, rather than a single party ruling or a coalition that the politicians negotiate. Can be bloody complex to sort out the votes.

Of those three I reckon STV gives us the best mix.

[Banditbandit]

STV looks like a reasonable option, it again puts too much power into the hands of the crazies. THe lowest performing candiates drop off the bottom and their votes are given to their second choice ... So in an Electorate that has candidates from the Aotearoa Legalize Cannabis Party, The Natural Law Party, The New Citizens Party, LibertarianNZ ... all get their second choice ... God knows what that might look like ....

So STV places power into the hands of the minorities ... just in a different way to MMP ... and at a different level ... It means we have more chance of getting a Government that the fringe elements want ... not the one that the majority wants ..

[avgas]

I know this sounds crazy but what if we voted on things rather than people?
Voting for people to decide what you can/can't have is so 500BC.

[oldrider]

It's obviously Hobsons choice all over again, only Hobson (the Government) gets the casting vote and if it doesn't suit them, they will just ignore the result! :sick:

[Indiana_Jones]

Deciding between FPP* and STV** myself.

-Indy

*Or FFP
**Or STD

[Swoop]

Deciding between FFP and STV myself.

-Indy

Please explain the FFP system...

[Indiana_Jones]

Please explain the FFP system...

Sorry, typo. FPP rather then FFP.

I'm currently prairie-dogging and my mind is elsewhere.

-Indy

[Swoop]

Sorry, typo. FPP rather then FFP.

I'm currently prairie-dogging and my mind is elsewhere.

-Indy

:lol:
Back to the cube farm then!

[Swoop]

[QUOTE=Swoop;1130186237]A candidate should not be able to stand for an electorate AND be on the party list. If they lose in their electorate - bye, bye charlie. No second chance through the back door on the list.

They have a system of MMP in Wales where the candidate has to choose to be on either the electrol or party list,not both. Sounds like a good idea to me.
It appears that Winston "no baubles for me" Peters (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10763108)has decided to sit on the party list and hope for the best. Going for an electorate appears far too difficult now.

[avgas]

Deciding between FPP* and STV** myself.

-Indy

*Or FFP
**Or STD
I reckon we need more five fingered prostitutes in parliament. As for getting aids in there, nah things are bad enough already.

[oneofsix]

Please explain the FFP system...

The country is divided in to electorates like what you have for the electorate members now. Rather than just concerning themselves with number of voters represented they worry about setting the electorate boundaries so that they win the most electorates. You only get to vote for the party member in your electorate. The party that wins the most electorates becomes the government, this can happen with as little as a third of the votes, both Labour and National have virtually achieved this and there was a guy somewhere in Europe that managed it as well but he went on to make other changes that gave him even more power. :banana:

[Swoop]

The country is divided in to electorates...
That is FPP.

Indy invented the FFP system. Please try and keep up!:cool:

[Mental Trousers]

[QUOTE=Coolz;1130186331]
It appears that Winston "no baubles for me" Peters (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10763108)has decided to sit on the party list and hope for the best. Going for an electorate appears far too difficult now.

Being an Electorate MP means you're responsible to your electorate, have a duty to be available to them and help them out. Being on a list means he doesn't have to talk to the peasants.

An extremely good reason for making sure we get a system that doesn't involve Lists of any kind.

[Banditbandit]

Please try and keep up!:cool:

Needs a faster bike maybe?

[shrub]

I would like MMP if the parties didn't get to make the lists themselves.

The Greens have a system where the party members vote for the candidates so the more votes you get, the higher you are up the list. Personally I like it because it stops cronyism and represents how the members want to be represented. For filthy commies them Greens are bloody democratic.

[shrub]

Anything with a List should be thrown away immediately.

Why? If a party is clever they can use their list to bring specialist skills and knowledge (business, economics, law etc) into their caucus which means that they're not all charming baby kissers with nice smiles.

[Mental Trousers]

Why? If a party is clever they can use their list to bring specialist skills and knowledge (business, economics, law etc) into their caucus which means that they're not all charming baby kissers with nice smiles.


Being an Electorate MP means you're responsible to your electorate, have a duty to be available to them and help them out. Being on a list means he doesn't have to talk to the peasants.

That's exactly why. MP's not responsible to voters and who didn't actually get voted in (think Sue Bradford - who the hell would actually vote her in) are not a good thing. Doesn't matter what they bring to the Government, they're not responsible to anyone except their own caucus, who happen to be somewhat biased because they're the ones that put those list MP's in there in the first place.

[oneofsix]

That's exactly why. MP's not responsible to voters and who didn't actually get voted in (think Sue Bradford - who the hell would actually vote her in) are not a good thing. Doesn't matter what they bring to the Government, they're not responsible to anyone except their own caucus, who happen to be somewhat biased because they're the ones that put those list MP's in there in the first place.

Didn't notice the electorate MPs under FPP given much of a flying fork about the electorate. Their job was to win the seat for the party not to represent the people of the electorate. And if they were really good party peoples they would get 'promoted' to a save party seat.
With MMP you get to chose the party you like even if you do have to put up with their list selections and to choose who you think will best represent your electorate separately. The electorate vote works on a localised FPP system.
Reckon you should be allowed to rank the members on the list for the party you are voting for and use STP for the electorate selection to give it more proportionality.
But lets be real the pollys aren't going to easily let us have a system that works for us so we have to make small steps forward and not go backwards until we get what we need.

[shrub]

That's exactly why. MP's not responsible to voters and who didn't actually get voted in (think Sue Bradford - who the hell would actually vote her in) are not a good thing. Doesn't matter what they bring to the Government, they're not responsible to anyone except their own caucus, who happen to be somewhat biased because they're the ones that put those list MP's in there in the first place.

I can see where you're coming from, and in that past with some parties that was a problem - I think back to Alamein Kopu or Winston Peter's wide boys in 96 - they really supported your position. Today I think most parties would rather have the best people for the job in caucus because at the end of the day nobody wants to carry dead wood and most pollies work bloody hard and 60 - 70 hour weeks are normal. And there are some very sharp people on all sides in parliament, so people who can't quite foot it in the debating chamber and the select committee get pretty well slashed and burned by the opposing pollies which makes it hard to get what you want. You also need to have a very carefully selected group that work well together and have complimentary skills - Act have shown what happens when you don't.

I think the process of selecting list members is probably the only real weakness in list MPs, and maybe that needs to be reviewed.

Personally I can't see why anyone would vote for Jerry Brownlee as he is a fat, lazy, incompetent and stupid twat; yet he gets voted in year after year, so the electoral system isn't flawless.

[shrub]

Reckon you should be allowed to rank the members on the list for the party you are voting for and use STP for the electorate selection to give it more proportionality.

That would work, and is kind of what the Greens do by having the list placings decided by the party members. The only drawback is you need to be a member but I am a member of all the major parties, so that's not difficult.