Cunt Key

[ManDownUnder]

blah blah blah politics... blah blah blah election...

[Skyryder]

I wasn't particularly convinced FPP was bad but I can live with proportional representation. MMP is not the right option but it was chosen because the electorate could grasp the concept.

Single Transferable Vote - STV - http://www.id-performance.com/obj14/obj14_Right.jpg is IMHO the best method. It looks complicated so it probably won't be adopted but gives the fairest result.

The problem with FPP is a minority party can have wide support but never enter Parliament. MMP etc allows entry and coalition allows power. Even not in coalition, a minor party still has the benefit of a public platform to raise issues from. Look at the milage Rodney Hide and Peter Sharples are able to get.

There is some truth in what you suggest that MMP was the easiest option for the public to understand but that is only part of the story. The whole process of the electoral reform was based on the fact that under FFP a truly representative Parliament based on the number of votes that each party received was not possible as you state. The allocation of seats in the house was based on the number of electorate seats that each party won not the number of votes that each party received. STV is and I repeat is a complicated method that uses algorithms to allocate discarded votes that do not reach the threshold, to the next candidate in line. Manual counting and checking is a nightmare and this does not take into account any challenges to the vote count.

MMP was voted by the majority on the bases that this system delivered a Parliament giving those parties who reached the threshold a proportion of the seats that their party received in the election. This was the fundamental purpose of the electoral reform. To produce a Parliment based on the percentage vote that each party won with the proviso that there needed to be 5 percent threshold to gain a list seat.

The issue on this is as I see it, do we want a Parliament that delivers seats to a party based on the proportion of votes received or do we want a system where the candidate that you did not vote for receives your vote due to the fact that his total votes did not reach the threshold. That is STV your Single Vote is Transferred to a candidate that you did not vote for.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

So saying something, immediately realising that what you said was wrong and then immediately correcting what you said is a "lie"?

That's not the definition I use for lying. Where I come from a lie is the act of being deliberately untruthful.

No he only 'corrected' after the journo questioned his answer and Key immedialty realised that she 'knew' he was lying.

Skyryder

[Jantar]

...... Without Anderton's political skills in putting together the Alliance the Greens would still turning the compost heap.

Skyryder

Finally, a political concept that we agree with.

IMO Anderton is one of the few politicians with integrety, and he still stands for the values that Labour stood for 40 years ago. I may not agree with his politics anymore, but I can still respect his contributions to parliament. That is something I cannot say about most other politicians.

[Hinny]

... the bullshit you read here from right wing conservative crackpots ...

And so many of them.
I have been pondering the reason for the predominance of these people on KB.
I am still at a loss as to why there should be so many. Is it because they are the type of people that are vocal. Like talk-back radio fans.
The vitriol and name calling is really disheartening.
New Zealand is a society worthy of better people than that.
Perhaps we need a FIFO policy of emigration.
Fit in or Fuck off.

[Hinny]

...
Yes our terms of trade are the best they have been since 1974. Long time between drinks. Why didn't this happen in 2003 and continue every quarter since than - because that is when our economy boomed.

Instead we reach almost a balance of trade, just as an oil crisis hits, and a world economic crisis on top of that. .. Sadly its downhill again for NZ for a while.

Our terms of trade have been less than ideal because the people who earn money for this country are few and the people who buy stuff from overseas are many.
The high exchange rate and high rate of employment has meant we are a society still on a spending spree.
Our economy boomed under a Labour government. Just as it has under every Labour govt. we have had.
Our economy has gone downhill under every National govt. we have had.
Well that is according to the Statistics dept......bunch of Leftie Pinko communist civil servants.
If the polls are indicative of the outcome of the election then sadly it may well be downhill for NZ. for a while.

[Flatcap]

No he only 'corrected' after the journo questioned his answer and Key immedialty realised that she 'knew' he was lying.

Skyryder

It doesn't really matter. As that bastion of moderation, Bob Jones, said in his editorial today:

"In attacking Mr Key's failure to reveal his correct number of Tranz Rail shares, Labour missed the salient point. The number of shares doesn't matter. What does is the revelation of Mr Key's abysmal financial acumen by investing in such a dog".

[rodimus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSF9Lq1-NTU

Very enjoyable.

Now, To all you Idiots out there. Stop voting your favourite colour and start voting against the political mis-representation.

[Hinny]

When the shouting guy from DISCOUNT TYRES decides to take a break from fronting his ads John Key could fill in.

[Hinny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSF9Lq1-NTU

Very enjoyable.
.

Connect with John at jonhnkey.co.nz

jonkey.....

brought a smile to my face.

[Hinny]

Balderdash. If an election were to be held today, and the various parties won votes proportional to how they are currently performing in the opinion polls, then it is entirely possible that Labour could broker a coalition that would let them remain in Government, despite having won fewer votes than National. Please tell me how that is any different to what sometimes happened under FPP when "minority" Governments were elected?

At least under FPP a party was elected with a mandate to govern based on its pre-election manifesto. Under MMP any pre-election manifesto is immediately up for negotiation as part of coalition talks that "the people" have little knowledge of. Indeed Governments can now be elected that nobody actually voted for. How is that "democratic" or representative of "the people"?

While you're at it, I'd also like an explanation as to how MMP is more "representative of the people"? With the exception of the Greens, all other political "parties" are disgruntled members of either National or Labour who have buggered off to form a Me-Too party. And, in the case of the Greens, who decides who represents Green voters in Parliament? "The people"? Bugger off. It's the Party that determines who goes on its list. What say do "the people" get in that?

You said a mouthful there Hitcher.
Minority Governments sometimes happened under FPP.
I would have thought it was the majority of times since ....Geez I can't remember back past....yesterday.....1960 something... Certainly there were a lot of elections where Labour got the majority vote yet remained out of POWER for a long time before the election f the third Labour government.

The cool thing that the current Labour govt. did, I believe, was produce their pledge card.
It said what it was going to do... and it did it. I've seen commentators say they achieved 80% of their pledges. In spite of the fact that they had to work in a coalition Comrade Klerk was able, in fact, to get through 100% of her pledges.
National would have found themselves in a more munificent or magnanimous playground had they been elected since they only had two announced policies at the last election. Lower chance of failure to deliver.

Who voted for Comrade Brash. Certainly not 'the people'. He was a failed political candidate. Never elected because I guess the people who had the opportunity to make him an MP knew him. He was promoted as a list MP because he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. The fact that he was abysmal in that role seemed to have eluded the Nats and indeed the people of NZ. I was amused to see him criticising his successor . FFS the country boomed after they had got rid of him and Bollard took over. And now we have his successor. A second term MP.....
It's a funny old world 'aint it?

[riffer]

The cool thing that the current Labour govt. did, I believe, was produce their pledge card.

Somewhat ironic choice of example there Hinny, considering they ended up having to produce some, shall we say unanticipated, legislation which retrospectively legitimised their illicit misuse of funds producing it...

[Skyryder]

It doesn't really matter. As that bastion of moderation, Bob Jones, said in his editorial today:

"In attacking Mr Key's failure to reveal his correct number of Tranz Rail shares, Labour missed the salient point. The number of shares doesn't matter. What does is the revelation of Mr Key's abysmal financial acumen by investing in such a dog".

Yes I read that but Labour could hardly agree with Jones's sentiment when they bought Tranz Rail.


A salient point that Jones missed along with Keys' silence.


Still he makes a good 'hit' on occasions


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Balderdash. If an election were to be held today, and the various parties won votes proportional to how they are currently performing in the opinion polls, then it is entirely possible that Labour could broker a coalition that would let them remain in Government, despite having won fewer votes than National. Please tell me how that is any different to what sometimes happened under FPP when "minority" Governments were elected?

At least under FPP a party was elected with a mandate to govern based on its pre-election manifesto. Under MMP any pre-election manifesto is immediately up for negotiation as part of coalition talks that "the people" have little knowledge of. Indeed Governments can now be elected that nobody actually voted for. How is that "democratic" or representative of "the people"?

While you're at it, I'd also like an explanation as to how MMP is more "representative of the people"? With the exception of the Greens, all other political "parties" are disgruntled members of either National or Labour who have buggered off to form a Me-Too party. And, in the case of the Greens, who decides who represents Green voters in Parliament? "The people"? Bugger off. It's the Party that determines who goes on its list. What say do "the people" get in that?

I agree with you on the mandate thing. But it was both Labour and National who refused to inform the public of their manifesto with a coalition partner. The Alliance led by Anderton was the only party who promoted this idea under the first MMP election. Labour refused and the Nats refused with Winstone. Effectively this is not a flaw in the System but an abuse by those standing for office.

The difference being is that under FPP the total votes cast will not produce a Parliament representative of the total votes cast in the election. The Parliament produced is that in which the party won the most electorates and a Government. MMP’s main purpose was to produce a Parliament that is representative of the number of votes that each party received. This is the very foundation that opponents of MMP refuse to accept and cite the system as anti democratic when in fact it is the very opposite. MMP was never designed to Produce a Government and this needs to be clearly understood unless a party won a majority where it did not need a partner. At the time of the referendum this was touted as a method that would put the brakes on any extreme legislation that the Government of the day never had a mandate for. Personally I never believed in this myself but that is another story.

There is no doubt that what you say in respect of disgruntled members of other parties has some truth but the reality is that in most cases with a few exceptions they do not make the grade.

Party lists. Political parties are no more than a registered organization in which any member of the public can join. If you wish to stand on a list or be part of the selection process there is no law to stop you. But you do need to be a member of the party as you would with any orgaisation.
The difference being with political orgaisations is that you do not need to be a member to vote but you do need to be a member to stand under it's banner.


Skyryder

[idb]

Balderdash. If an election were to be held today, and the various parties won votes proportional to how they are currently performing in the opinion polls, then it is entirely possible that Labour could broker a coalition that would let them remain in Government, despite having won fewer votes than National. Please tell me how that is any different to what sometimes happened under FPP when "minority" Governments were elected? At least under FPP a party was elected with a mandate to govern based on its pre-election manifesto. Under MMP any pre-election manifesto is immediately up for negotiation as part of coalition talks that "the people" have little knowledge of. Indeed Governments can now be elected that nobody actually voted for. How is that "democratic" or representative of "the people"?

Because it represents the views and intentions of the electorate that voted for the parties involved in the coalition.

While you're at it, I'd also like an explanation as to how MMP is more "representative of the people"? With the exception of the Greens, all other political "parties" are disgruntled members of either National or Labour who have buggered off to form a Me-Too party. And, in the case of the Greens, who decides who represents Green voters in Parliament? "The people"? Bugger off. It's the Party that determines who goes on its list. What say do "the people" get in that?

Whatever...the representation is still proportional to the vote(excepting the 5% threshold without seat thingy).