Who will win the 2011 election?

**oldrider** · 5th November 2011, 11:19

Originally Posted by Spearfish

(especially the ones on the lists nobody votes for).

Hmmmm.

Often quoted is that list politicians are not voted in! ...... Is that not what our "party vote" does? votes the list members in!

That is the vote that I am more careful with, if I use it, I don't really know exactly who it is supporting into parliament!

Stupid MMP system always presents us with a lucky dip government of god knows who!

**shrub** · 7th November 2011, 12:02

Originally Posted by oldrider

Stupid MMP system always presents us with a lucky dip government of god knows who!

not necessarily. You'll find that all of the parties have disclosed their list MPs and their ranking well before election date, so if you don't like people on a party's list - don't vote for that party. As for it being a lucky dip, the same could be said about the electoral seats and FPP. National could stand a donkey in somewhere like Ilam (Jerry Brownlee's seat - maybe they have?) and that member would get voted in. Then look at what's happening in Epsom and Oharia Belmont - it is likely that they will vote in John Banks in Epsom and Peter Dunne in OB - why? Because National aren't seriously contesting those seats. If Banks and Dunne get in, it will have nothing to do with the policies of Act or United Future are and everything to do with National giving their chums seats in parliament. Personally I think that is a cynical and corrupt manipulation of the eclectoral system.

**Bald Eagle** · 7th November 2011, 12:07

Originally Posted by shrub

Personally I think that is a cynical and corrupt manipulation of the eclectoral system.

No that's the way it's supposed to work.

**Banditbandit** · 7th November 2011, 12:43

Originally Posted by oldrider

Stupid MMP system always presents us with a lucky dip government of god knows who!

Isn't that true of any electoral system???

**shrub** · 7th November 2011, 12:50

Originally Posted by Bald Eagle

No that's the way it's supposed to work.

No, more a way that it can be made to work because people's behaviour is ultimately predictable. Most of the people who live in Epsom/Ilam/Oharia Belmot will only vote for someone who is right wing, regardless of how flaky the policies their party espouses - and yes, I know the same could be said about people in predominantly left wing electorates. Therefore National are capitalising on the sheep-like behaviour to get their chums (and maybe one or 2 extra list MPs) in. I was interested/appalled to hear a recent poll about Epsom where most people preferred the National candidate but would vote for Banks and Act if John Key told them to.

Baaaa.... baaaaa.... baaaa....

**Oscar** · 7th November 2011, 13:05

Originally Posted by shrub

No, more a way that it can be made to work because people's behaviour is ultimately predictable. Most of the people who live in Epsom/Ilam/Oharia Belmot will only vote for someone who is right wing, regardless of how flaky the policies their party espouses - and yes, I know the same could be said about people in predominantly left wing electorates. Therefore National are capitalising on the sheep-like behaviour to get their chums (and maybe one or 2 extra list MPs) in. I was interested/appalled to hear a recent poll about Epsom where most people preferred the National candidate but would vote for Banks and Act if John Key told them to.

Baaaa.... baaaaa.... baaaa....

Au contraire - it's not sheep like behavour at all.
It's actually very sophisticated strategic voting (although I'll believe it when I see it).
Having said that, I personally think that the standard of ACT candidates is problematic and their policy too populist, so I wouldn't do it.

**shrub** · 7th November 2011, 13:12

Originally Posted by Oscar

Au contraire - it's not sheep like behavour at all.
It's actually very sophisticated strategic voting (although I'll believe it when I see it).
Having said that, I personally think that the standard of ACT candidates is problematic and their policy too populist, so I wouldn't do it.

Really? To me sophisticated voting behaviour is voting for the candidate that is best suited to represent you and for the party that has the best policies for New Zealand now. It involves assessing the policies of all relevant parties, at least attending public forums but ideally personally meeting the candidates. Then it involves making a balanced and rational decision based on all information to hand. Personally I don't consider voting for a candidate you don't like just because John Key told you to, or voting for a party because they are "right wing" or "left wing", and that's what you are to be the slightest bit sophisticated.

**Oscar** · 7th November 2011, 13:17

Originally Posted by shrub

Really? To me sophisticated voting behaviour is voting for the candidate that is best suited to represent you and for the party that has the best policies for New Zealand now. It involves assessing the policies of all relevant parties, at least attending public forums but ideally personally meeting the candidates. Then it involves making a balanced and rational decision based on all information to hand. Personally I don't consider voting for a candidate you don't like just because John Key told you to, or voting for a party because they are "right wing" or "left wing", and that's what you are to be the slightest bit sophisticated.

If it was the difference between having the party with the most support in Government by avoiding the potential loss of evey single vote for ACT wasted, it's quite sophisticated. You may not get the candidate best suited to you, but you get the party you want in Government.

**shrub** · 7th November 2011, 13:34

Originally Posted by Oscar

If it was the difference between having the party with the most support in Government by avoiding the potential loss of evey single vote for ACT wasted, it's quite sophisticated. You may not get the candidate best suited to you, but you get the party you want in Government.

if you want National in government, then vote for them. It's clever manipulation of the political system by National to capitalise on the fact that a lot of people put less thought into choosing who to run the country than they do which petrol to buy and will vote for the party that "people like me vote for".

**Oscar** · 7th November 2011, 13:45

Originally Posted by shrub

if you want National in government, then vote for them. It's clever manipulation of the political system by National to capitalise on the fact that a lot of people put less thought into choosing who to run the country than they do which petrol to buy and will vote for the party that "people like me vote for".

It can also be construed as avoiding a situation where ACT get 4.9% of the vote and National gets ousted because it can't find a coailition partner (and a significant number of votes are wasted). Personlly, I kinda agree with you as I can't see ACT making the 5%, or winning a seat - so the Nats should be saying "vote for us if you want your vote to count".

Notwithstanding that, if National can make people vote strategically, good on them. If those people grasp that process, they are proving you wrong by putting at least some thought into voting.

**shrub** · 7th November 2011, 14:22

Originally Posted by Oscar

It can also be construed as avoiding a situation where ACT get 4.9% of the vote and National gets ousted because it can't find a coailition partner (and a significant number of votes are wasted). Personlly, I kinda agree with you as I can't see ACT making the 5%, or winning a seat - so the Nats should be saying "vote for us if you want your vote to count".

Notwithstanding that, if National can make people vote strategically, good on them. If those people grasp that process, they are proving you wrong by putting at least some thought into voting.

The odds of Act getting even 2% are pretty slim and I would say that getting them back in parliament, or even worse, government would either be a strategically stupid or smart move. It would be stupid because based on history Act are pretty well a loose cannon, and the whole debacle over Brash and legalising cannabis suggests that not much has changed. In fact I'd go as far as to say having Don Brash in parliament will guarantee embarrassment for Act and National. However National may well be using them as a scapegoat - let them introduce potentially risky and unpopular policies, then Key can put on his "who, me?" face and let them take the blame.

As for Peter Dunne, he's harmless and a little silly. Kind of like Jim Anderton.

**Oscar** · 7th November 2011, 14:32

Originally Posted by shrub

The odds of Act getting even 2% are pretty slim and I would say that getting them back in parliament, or even worse, government would either be a strategically stupid or smart move. It would be stupid because based on history Act are pretty well a loose cannon, and the whole debacle over Brash and legalising cannabis suggests that not much has changed. In fact I'd go as far as to say having Don Brash in parliament will guarantee embarrassment for Act and National. However National may well be using them as a scapegoat - let them introduce potentially risky and unpopular policies, then Key can put on his "who, me?" face and let them take the blame.

As for Peter Dunne, he's harmless and a little silly. Kind of like Jim Anderton.

The Maori Party (even with Hone), was a far better partner than ACT.
ACT had a shot with John Banks in Epsom, but Brash has shot the party repeatedly in its electoral foot.

**shrub** · 7th November 2011, 15:46

Originally Posted by Oscar

The Maori Party (even with Hone), was a far better partner than ACT.
ACT had a shot with John Banks in Epsom, but Brash has shot the party repeatedly in its electoral foot.

They're a fairly crazy and out of control lot really, especially considering they originally positioned themselves as pro-business and personal responsibility for people who don't need to be told how to live their lives. They're all for smaller government - maybe they're trying to demonstrate the message: "you really don't want people like us running the show, so the less of us in government the better".

**shrub** · 7th November 2011, 16:20

DOes anyone in Act know what anyone else is doing? Has it ever dawned on them to be a little careful about what they say publicly? Is anyone silly enough to vote for them?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ate-from-Epsom

**Oscar** · 7th November 2011, 16:37

Originally Posted by shrub

They're all for smaller government - maybe they're trying to demonstrate the message: "you really don't want people like us running the show, so the less of us in government the better".

Best summation of ACT so far.