The 2017 Election Thread

[oldrider]

read it how you like, i actually voted for a female last election but i wouldn't vote for either of those two. and not would i vote for jacinda adern. the labour party is quite frankly fucked and national are only marginally better

Labour strong point and media advantage = Jacinda Ahern has better bigger brighter whiter teeth than Helen Clark. - How can she possibly lose?

[pritch]

And yet with a system supposedly arranged to eliminate "minority governments" we're a simple Nat PR fuckup from something even less representative: A govt nobody voted for and nobody wants.

Can't quite follow your reasoning here. If a coalition gets to form a government that will nomally be because the parties got most of the votes. Politicians - who have a vested interest - will quote dire warnings about coalitions but many countries in Europe function like that without major problems. In recent years it has worked for National, even if at first partnership with the Maori Party looked an unlikely alliance.

We had some problems in NZ initially because whichever partner had the most seats thought "consultation" meant telling their partner five minutes before they told the press.

[Maha]

...vote axl...

Well he is the face of a very small marginal minority.

[Ocean1]

Can't quite follow your reasoning here. If a coalition gets to form a government that will nomally be because the parties got most of the votes. Politicians - who have a vested interest - will quote dire warnings about coalitions but many countries in Europe function like that without major problems. In recent years it has worked for National, even if at first partnership with the Maori Party looked an unlikely alliance.

We had some problems in NZ initially because whichever partner had the most seats thought "consultation" meant telling their partner five minutes before they told the press.

Don't matter which parties are involved, a coalition govt assembled after the election isn't an entity that was voted on.

Literally nobody voted for them.

At least so far it's always been the party with the highest number of votes that constructed the coalition, usually having been just a few % short of an absolute majority, but that's not necessarily always going to be the case.

If National get 47% of the vote, but their potential coalition partners don't add up to 51% then you could end up with a govt led by Labour with a voter preference of 25% plus whatever perennial minority parties they have to deal with to make up that (considerable) shortfall.

Not only did nobody vote for that, but nobody even voted for what the Labour policy set would look like after the heavy concessions they would have to make in order to construct that coalition.

In fact you could argue that the shape of such a govt would be more or less the exact opposite of what most people voted for.

It's a fucking ridiculous system.

[Voltaire]

Don't matter which parties are involved, a coalition govt assembled after the election isn't an entity that was voted on.

Literally nobody voted for them.

At least so far it's always been the party with the highest number of votes that constructed the coalition, usually having been just a few % short of an absolute majority, but that's not necessarily always going to be the case.

If National get 47% of the vote, but their potential coalition partners don't add up to 51% then you could end up with a govt led by Labour with a voter preference of 25% plus whatever perennial minority parties they have to deal with to make up that (considerable) shortfall.

Not only did nobody vote for that, but nobody even voted for what the Labour policy set would look like after the heavy concessions they would have to make in order to construct that coalition.

In fact you could argue that the shape of such a govt would be more or less the exact opposite of what most people voted for.

It's a fucking ridiculous system.

Oh I think I prefer to the Muldoon/Rowling days. I do miss the Mcphail and Gadsby piss takes though.... Jono and Ben are not

really in the same league.

Other than home made Pizza and jog walking videos how much government do you need to run a country that's got a population of Sydney?

[oldrider]

Don't matter which parties are involved, a coalition govt assembled after the election isn't an entity that was voted on.

Literally nobody voted for them.

At least so far it's always been the party with the highest number of votes that constructed the coalition, usually having been just a few % short of an absolute majority, but that's not necessarily always going to be the case.

If National get 47% of the vote, but their potential coalition partners don't add up to 51% then you could end up with a govt led by Labour with a voter preference of 25% plus whatever perennial minority parties they have to deal with to make up that (considerable) shortfall.

Not only did nobody vote for that, but nobody even voted for what the Labour policy set would look like after the heavy concessions they would have to make in order to construct that coalition.

In fact you could argue that the shape of such a govt would be more or less the exact opposite of what most people voted for.

It's a fucking ridiculous system.

If the electorate voted the ensuing government into being they (the electorate) would know the result at the conclusion of the election - not so!

The electorate only give the successful politicians/parties the right to form a government amongst themselves - the electorate has no idea what the outcome will be!

The result means that politicians and parties develop a loyalty and responsibility to each other rather than to the electorate - the electorate has no control!

Ocean is right - the system is designed to dis-empower the electorate and castrate the government! - Parliament then becomes an expensive low achieving talkfest!

[Oakie]

At least so far it's always been the party with the highest number of votes that constructed the coalition, usually having been just a few % short of an absolute majority, but that's not necessarily always going to be the case.

If National get 47% of the vote, but their potential coalition partners don't add up to 51% then you could end up with a govt led by Labour with a voter preference of 25% plus whatever perennial minority parties they have to deal with to make up that (considerable) shortfall.

I've always thought that the single party who polls highest should get the clear opportunity to form a coalition government and that the others couldn't enter into discussions unless the top poller failed to form a coalition after say, a week.

[AllanB]

I've always thought that the single party who polls highest should get the clear opportunity to form a coalition government and that the others couldn't enter into discussions unless the top poller failed to form a coalition after say, a week.

How simple and logical is this. Nah - the pricks will never go for it!

[Ocean1]

I've always thought that the single party who polls highest should get the clear opportunity to form a coalition government and that the others couldn't enter into discussions unless the top poller failed to form a coalition after say, a week.

I believe that's correct. But again that opportunity is dependent on minority parties agreeing to work with the highest polling party.

It's not difficult to see Labour promising more concessions if they do a deal with them. With the result mentioned above: a govt significantly different to any policy set voted on by the electorate.

You can't claim any coalition govt is ever voted for by the electorate, but if the govt doesn't at least include the party with the most votes it's a complete travesty.

[husaberg]

You can't claim any coalition govt is ever voted for by the electorate, but if the govt doesn't at least include the party with the most votes it's a complete travesty.

National has formed at least one of those already.
Plus the only reason Todd Barclay is still an MP is they need him for the numbers as their own Coalition will not vote with them on stuff they claim to have a mandate to turn into law.

[Ocean1]

National has formed at least one of those already.

Where it wasn't the highest polling?

[Oakie]

National has formed at least one of those already.

Don't, think so. Pretty sure that all the giovernements National has formed they have polled higher than Labour. I could be wrong though. It is August and I'm probably due to be wrong about something this year.

[Grumph]

As compared to when I first voted in the first past the post era, much, much more information is available to the voter now. Even if it's unlikely that their favoured party is going to get a majority, they will be well aware of what potential partners are available.
I don't consider MMP a travesty, more than one general election in the FPP days became at least something resembling a travesty.
I consider the wider range of choices available now to be a good thing as it should at least get more out to vote...

[husaberg]

Don't, think so. Pretty sure that all the giovernements National has formed they have polled higher than Labour. I could be wrong though. It is August and I'm probably due to be wrong about something this year.

I was thinking of the bolger/NZ first mid nineties.

[husaberg]

Where it wasn't the highest polling?

where they and their cohorts were not. Remember on seperate occasions tapsil and burke were made speakers of the house so they could have a majorty.