How will the Greens do in the US midterm elections?
As we wait for results to start rolling in from the US midterm elections, with the chances looking good for the Democrats to take control of Congress and maybe even Senate, it’s it’s easy to forget that there is a Green Party in the US as well, who are fielding 330 candidates nationwide.
See here for a summary of how they are doing from the Green Party of the United States.
Also, Public Address’s exciting new public forum, Public Address System, have an interesting discussion thread running on the election.
Bookmark to:
November 8th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Until the Green Party of the USA gets off its high horse and changes the voting machinery from FPP to almost anything else that would allow them a shot at power, they are going to be as irrelevant as moondust.
Noting that while Moondust may contain energy in the form of Helium-3 it is wholly out of reach.
respectfully
BJ
November 8th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
bj:
How are the Greens supposed to change the voting system in a very big country where a large section of the general population (with “hands on hearts” behaviour) “salute the flag” and believe that the USA has the “only true Democracy” on the Planet ?
… or have things progressed significantly since I was there last ??
Are you planning to return to help them? (That’s a serious question.)
November 8th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Not going back.
Election rules are set state by state, and the campaigning to accomplish the necessary changes is manageable. Difficult but well within the reach of the Greens, partly because not too many people recognize that it is important in the first place. In several states it could be done by direct referendum, gather the signatures and the people vote on the proposition. Directly. It takes organization to do it. It can’t be done by one guy acting alone, and it won’t be done by the major parties. Nor can it be done at the national level, the voting machinery and laws and policies are almost entirely dictated by the states.
How’d the greens here ever get MMP through? It must have been a heckuva campaign.
respectfully
BJ
November 8th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
There has been quite a large overall third party vote for a while. At one NZ general election in the 80s, the Social Credit party got around 20% of the vote. But no MPs under FPP.
Also, I have the vague impression that at another election, one party (Labour?) got the most votes overall in NZ, but another party (National) got more seats under FPP and ended up in power. Come to think of it, wasn’t that the situation at the last US presidential election ….?
I imagine that there would have been quite a few voters keen to change the situation.
November 8th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Ahhh yes….
Polling Data
Election 2006 - Virginia U.S. Senate
Incumbent: George Allen (R)
Challengers: James Webb (D), Gail Parker (IG)
(IG) = Independent Green
Gail Parker has 25000 votes.
The margin between Webb and Allen is 6000 votes with Allen leading.
Out of 2.2 million
Green Party USA strikes again!
I swear these people are on Rove’s payroll!
BJ
[extremely disgusted]
November 8th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Historic NZ election results under FPP
http://www.elections.org.nz/elections/FPP_seats_won.html
Yes, National was technically the loser in 1978 and 1981 (by popular vote).
More at the Electoral Reform Coalition website
http://www.mmp.org.nz/
November 8th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
bj..i totally agree with you re greens..
after they gave us bush..i’ve been really nervous what influence they might have in this election..
and eredwen..voting for/campaigning for the greens is campaigning for the republicans..as b.j. shows above..
have you never seen that simpsons episode where the illuminati are meeting..
and nader is there..part of the celebrations/meeting…he offers to do something..and the other iluminati go..”..no no ralph..you’ve already done more than enough..”
i mean..yeah..tee-hee…silly simpsons..!
but that pretty much nails it…
supporting/voting for the greens in f.p.p. elections is just helping the enemy…
do the math..folks..
those in america should be putting their energies into electoral reform….(good luck..!…)
but the most effective work greens in america could do..is to ‘green’ the democrat party..
nothing else makes any sense..and in fact is bleedin’ insane..!..and seriously unproductive..
as the illustration from just today shows…
‘green’ democrats must curse nader and co..
and didn’t nader accept funding from rightwing groups..?
do you know..?..bj..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 8th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
There is no guarantee that the people who voted green in any of the US elections you cite would have voted democrat if the greens had not stood. They may have voted GOP; they may not have voted at all.
And, leaving aside the big national and statewide races that you cite, the Greens ARE relevant AND electable in numerous local elections. You can see all the GPUSA election results ever here: http://greens.org/elections/
Then there are all the safe seats, where a republican or democrat is going to be elected no matter what, so why shouldn’t the greens stand there.
Personally I think you should direct your anger at Monkey Boy and his cronies being elected at the corrupt electoral system with the biased returning officers and dodgy voting machines rather than the few green votes that pale into insignificance when compared with the millions of stolen votes.
November 8th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Stuey - I recall these issues being discussed on a previous thread not long ago. I think that you are right to be annoyed with perceived issues in the US voting system. I also think that the US Greens would be wise to be tactical in the circumstances. I think that green voters in the US must surely tend to vote for the democrats if the green party was absent? Have the US Greens looked into this, I wonder.
November 8th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
oh and bj, the Virginia Senate race you cite is now being led by the democrat, and how can you blame the Green Party when Ms Parker is an ‘Other’ and not a Green Party candidate!?!?!
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/VA/index.html
November 8th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Hi Prim, yes you are probably correct that most Green voters would otherwise vote democrat. (And presumably most of those people did vote democrat in the important close races of late).
But we are not talking about most Green voters here, we are talking bout the hard-core, won’t vote for anyone else rump of the Green vote here - there is no guarantee that those voters would have voted Democrat.
November 8th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
My friend votes Green in Indiana, which is a safe republican state. She says that she would vote Democrat if she was registered in a swing state. I think that if I could vote in the USA, I would vote democrat in a swing state unless there was very little difference between the democrat and republican candidates, in which case I would vote Green to punish the democrats for putting up such a bad candidate.
The history of NZ’s change to MMP is rather strange. After two elections in which National won despite Labour getting more votes, Labour finally won. The deputy PM Geoffrey Palmer said eh thought we should change to proportional representation (he could say that - he was only the deputy PM, so it’s not as if he had any power). Then the PM, David Lange, mistakenly said in the election campaign that it was Labour Party policy to have a referendum on chenging to proportional representation. Labour won, but didn’t have a referendum, because it had never been their policy to do so, and it didn’t become policy just because Lange said it was.
In the next election campaign, National leader Jim Bolger promised to have a referendum, as part of an attempt to embarrass Lange about the fact that he said he would and then didn’t. National won, and they kept this promise, because they had made lots of promises, and it seemed only reasonable to keep at least one of them.
When we had the referendum, there was a pro-MMP campaign led by Rod Donald with a little bit of money, and an anti-MMP campaign led by a fat-cat businessman (he was the head of Telecom, which was a monopoly, so he wasn’t a daring entrepreneur or anything) called Peter Shirtcliffe. The only connection with the Green Party is that Rod Donald later became a Green MP - he wasn’t a member of the Greens until after the referendum.
November 8th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Fastbike: Thanks for those links.
bj et al: The following is a quick sketch from one person’s memory, but the facts and details are well documented elsewhere:
Rod Donald had a determination / vision? from an early age. He was a natural leader with excellent “people skills”.
I first met Rod in 1972. He came “to meet this teacher he had heard about whose class was recycling” (newspapers and aluminium milk bottle tops had a ready market) … Rod was 16, still at school, and already a “leader” with a vision. I have a very clear picture of that young man.
A few years later he began to speak regularly to my “Related Studies” classes at ChCh Polytech on various topics (recycling … environmental politics … voting systems … )
When the Values Party was formed it was obvious that little could be achieved without Electoral Reform. Rod and others set out to do just that … the appropriate process was set up:
After a study of Electoral Systems used by other countries Aotearoa/NZ had an Education Campaign followed by a National Referendum where the majority chose (from the alternatives given) the German MMP system for National Elections and Australian STV for Local Bodies etc.
That is basically how we got to where we are today!
eredwen
November 8th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Stuey
She labels herself an “independent green” by which I am somewhat persuaded that the Green Party itself told her not to push but she did anyway. There are such people, naive in the extreme, on both sides of the fence. I have no sympathy or time for idiots at a national level. When I posted Webb was 2000 votes behind. I am pleased that he’s overcome the artificial handicap this ideological purist threw in his path, but with absentee voters yet to be counted, and Virginia being home to Norfolk Shipyard and Little Creek Amphibious base (among others), the race is simply too damned close to call. A recount is guaranteed. Challenges are likely.
As for the guarantee of how greens will vote, there is none. Greens are free to vote for the devil himself if they so choose. The LIKELIHOOD of them doing so is vanishingly small. Maybe they would stay home, but most of them are motivated enough to vote one way or another… and intelligent enough to understand a party choice to give the Dem a clear run is more powerful than a protest that keeps a Repugnican in power. Most. Apparently not all.
Fortunately this level of idiocy also appears to infect the Libertarians in the US as well, who may have done to the Republican in Montana what an “independent” green threatens to do in VA.
What Greens and Libertarians in the US SHOULD do is pool resources and get rid of FPP. They could each take half the country and compete for the highest number of states converted. THEN they could both share in the spoils which would undoubtedly include seats in the House and even possible representation of their views in the Senate.
Key swing votes. That’s what they’re giving up in order to follow their ideologies instead of pursuing the practical goal of increasing their political power to some number greater than zero.
The good news is that the voting appears to have been relatively honest. Enough publicity and scrutiny perhaps, but the machines still have no paper trails. I am pleasantly surpriised. Bush is in deep poo. I would hope that they grow the stones to impeach him and Cheney.
respectfully
BJ
November 8th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
kahikatea: You and I must have been writing at the same time …
I left out “the other side of the coin”, namely the input from Parliamentarians, which you covered well.
Mesh together what we each wrote, and the picture becomes clearer !
Thanks!
eredwen
November 8th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Re those who actually vote Green in swing states, it sounds to me like noone on this blog actually knows the answer to the question: who would they have voted for, if no Green candidate had stood. Perhaps the US Greens could do a survey and make tactical decisions accordingly.
November 8th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
I was interested to see the campaigns of both Howie Hawkins (GPUS cofounder) and of Rich Whitney (GPUS Illinois Governor candidate). Howie has the toughest fight of them all I think, up against Hillary Clinton in NY. Rich Whitney however, polled as high as 14% in Illinois, despite being forbidden from entering debates and a quite complete media blackout on him.
This message (and it’s reply) was posted by one of Howie’s campaign managers (or someone similarly high up in Howie’s campaign).
//
Subject: You Are Hurting Our Country
Message: I have a problem with the Green Party, and politicians like you and Ralph Nader who go out of their way to undermine politicians like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.
Let me explain why. Personally, I agree with your party on most platforms, more than I agree with the Democrats. But, realistically, you are never going to win. Voting for you is basically throwing away a vote. And, since the Green Party is much closer in philosophy to the Democrats than the Republicans, you take votes away from the Democrats who otherwise might be winning.
Take, for instance, the 2000 presidential election. The votes between Gore and Bush were so close that nobody knows with absolute certainity who really legitimately won. But, had Nader not been running, and taken a small portion of the votes, those who voted for Nader would have most likely voted for Gore, and then he would have been the clear victor…. and as much as Nader might have made a better president than Gore, Gore would have made a MUCH better president than Bush.
So, essentially, it’s a lesser-of-two-evils situation. Why do you go around trying to undermine Hillary Clinton? Most of what you say about her is true, but saying it isn’t going to get you elected- any support that you deflect away from her is simply a point for the Republicans. I’m sure that you would agree with me that, accepting that the Green Party is NOT going to win a majority any time soon, we’d all rather have Democrats in office than Republicans.
———————————————
———————————————
——
completely disagree (first of all, this is not howie)
ask a green supporter why they support greens and many will give you this argument, nader didnt cause gore to lose the election. Half the country didn’t vote. Voting machines were rigged. Countless thousands of African Amer. voters were suppressed. The Supreme Court Justice VOTED to give the election to Bush, when Gore CLEARLY had already won Florida. Meanwhile, the international community realizes what a mockery our electoral system has become. (lookup Greg Palast, Diebold)
Another thing, it’s wrong to assume that a Green will vote Democrat. Democrats have essentially justified war, the Patriot Act, the loss of habeus corpus, the installation of conservativism into our Supreme Court, and accept money from the same corporate sources as Republicans. We don’t accept money from military contractors, corrupt healthcare institutions or big oil.
The Green Party is not winning because the Democrats and Republicans like it that way. Because the corporations like it that way. We don’t accept corporate contributions. We want fair campaign finance reform that Democrats and Reps refuse, because they like to stay in power. We want all ballot qualified candidates in debates, but they will never let that happen in the debates, esp. not presidential ones. Ever hear of the commission on presidential debates? They are essentially a private corporation of Dems and Reps who control the presidential debate in this country.
So no, one evil is not greater than the other. The system is already rigged, whether you look at electronic voting machines, Supreme Court Justices, or the inequality in campaign money. Rupert Murdoch doesn’t care who wins. He’s the owner of FOX news, a notorious neoconservative among the ranks of Wolfowitz, Cheney and the Bush administration who has GIVEN money and HOSTED a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. After Clinton’s fundraiser, he goes ahead and hosts one for the Republican frontrunner, John McCain.
And you’re wrong about how the Green Party or Independents are not going to win anytime soon. We are getting stronger day by day. A Green, Matt Gonzalez almost became mayor of San Francisco, losing by 6 percent. Alice Green got 30% of the vote in her run for mayor in Albany, NY. Independent Jesse Ventura became Governor of Minnesota, because he was allowed to speak in the debates, which created a surge in his poll numbers.
The Democrats are simply a nicer face, which makes them more dangerous on a national scale, where foreign policy is controlled. Lyndon Johnson increased the troops and length of the occupation of Vietnam when he was put in power. According to the UN, a million Iraqi children died under 10 years of economic sanctions maintained by the Clinton Administration, which is more than what Bush has caused.
On May 12, 1996, television’s “Sixty Minutes” interviewed Madeleine Albright (then U.S. ambassador to the UN, now Secretary of State). Leslie Stahl asked Albright, “We have heard half a million children have died [from economic sanctions in Iraq]. That’s more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?”
Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice. But the price, we think, is worth it.”
Is this any less evil than killing Iraqi civilians creating chaos in their country through war? Death and chaos in Iraq was started long ago. Looking at Hillary Clinton’s own personal record, you will also see that she never wanted universal healthcare. She blocked the idea as First Lady when she pushed for privatized compulsory health insurance. She is financed by sources that would lose out if Americans won by receiving cheaper drugs through Canada. In fact, she is the 2nd greatest recipient of funds from the healthcare industry. Because of her, we dont have universal health insurance. And the healthcare industry knows it.
//
November 9th, 2006 at 1:22 am
bj, please refrain from calling people whose views you disagree with idiots, eh? people who stand as green candidates, and those who campaign or vote for them, do so for many different, well thought out reasons, after analysing the situation and making a personal decision. Disagree with their decision, but don’t denegrate them.
And I find it naive in the extreme that you think that (a) if they wanted to get a change to the voting system that the minor parties could acheive this, (b) that the Greens and the Libertarians don’t already support and campaign for voting reform, and (c) that if everyone stopped standing/voting for minor parties and continued to vote for the big two that voting system reform would be more, not less likely to happen.
P.S. the Green Party’s political power in the US is greater than zero - have you looked at the GP elections results pages? All the GP elected representatives are counted and listed. They are minor and local I grant you, but they are greater than zero.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:18 am
um..that example cited by bj (webb vs allen)….is now one that is too close to call….and may not be decided until december..
so..could that not be a clearer example of the problems caused by greens campaigning in swing seats..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
and as stuey noted..the wins for the greens were at the minor local level…this is where the greens should work/campaign…
they are campaigning with a lack of over-view/intelligence that just continues to gift to the really environmental bad guys..
i mean..can’t you see that with your own eyes stuey..?
with the webb/allen uncertainties just the latest example…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 9th, 2006 at 6:18 am
Stuey
In a first past the post election, where the clear and predictable result is framed thus:
IF( There is no chance you can win)
{ IF ( you run )
the person you least want in power wins
ELSE
someone slightly less disagreeable to you wins
}
else
{ all is negotiable, discuss running on two lines
}
In that circumstance, one quite clearly delineated by the posts in which several greens have pointed to a clear consideration of results before casting their votes, the person who chooses to run anyway is acting irrationally, possibly suicidally, and I have never been bashful about calling things as I see them. I don’t mind if libertarians waste their efforts, and indeed I’d expect a more nearly 50-50 split from them if they found noplace to waste their vote. I do mind when people I otherwise would agree with do something that throws away what little power they have.
The fact that some local representatives are able to be elected as Greens only means that it is not always futile to run or vote Green… and I never said that it was. It depends entirely on the district, and the topology of election districts currently in vogue in the USA is not describable without recourse to several extra dimensions and a vigorous imagination. Just to confuse you further, the same candidate may run as a Democrat and as a Green and as a Liberal, putting his/her name on the ballot in three separate places.
That’s right… you can have 2 people running but 17 entries on the ballot each with one of their two names appearing and associated with a different party each time. I have no idea what the record is for this phenomena, but it happens all the time.
Now it is possible that the green vote in VA also contains some Libertarian component of protest voting against Republicans. Hard data on such things is notoriously hard to come by.
But what it all boils down to is that FPP is an exquisitely bad system that punishes minor parties for individuality and integrity. It forces the “two major party” meme and provides for choices between bad and worse to dominate the ballot. I think even the Libertarians who frequent this board would agree with that statement.
You use SVP(?) to discuss preferential or instant-runoff balloting and I prefer that in all cases… it would be a good idea for us to put this forward in advance of any possible move by Nats or Labour to return to FPP. Fine-tuning the system.
Stuey… I won’t apologize. I am calling it what it is, and there’s no excuse for such politically suicidal behaviour. You know I don’t often call people names, and indeed, no individual here was called any name… but Ms Parker? She may be smart as a whip but her passion robbed her of her sense. Stupid.
My point about Libertarians and Greens joining together to do this is that both have a powerful motivation to change this particular aspect of US election law, and a FAR greater capacity to do so than either separately could manage. But neither party is organizing this as a priority, and it has to be the FIRST thing on their agendas.
Once the laws are changed, they can run who they please and their real support will become more apparent and their real power will be able to grow. Right now the two major parties have them bottled up and effectively powerless, and that’s going to continue indefinitely… until they get over themselves and do something practical about it.
Thanks to all for the chronicals of the MMP here.
respectfully
BJ
November 9th, 2006 at 6:40 am
Masked_Marsoe
All the evils and problems of the Democrats are quite well known to me. I AM a Green… here. However, any person who claims that Nader did not cause Gore to lose is lying to themselves because the truth is simply too painful to bear, and any person who claims that there is no difference between bad and worse need only to count the dead in Iraq. Lying to themselves about it has been and is, a feature of the idiocy that makes me furious with people I agree with about almost every other thing.
The people who did not vote were not a factor here. They were not motivated to change anything. GREENS on the other hand, want to make a difference. Greens want certain policies and protections in place for the environment. They have social agendas. People who don’t vote do not, by definition, give a toss.
The people who cheated, the people who rigged votes also wanted to make a difference and wanted certain policies and social agendas. They did something that worked towards that end. Yeah they cheated and it was illegal, but it wasn’t self-defeating.
But Greens? Greens and particularly Nader, worked AGAINST their own interest… and that is one of the classical definitions that helps in diagnosing insanity. They knew the score and the kept on to the end, because “Gore wasn’t different enough from Bush”.
I have had some private apologies from US Greens, because I’ve had this discussion before. I can forgive individuals making the mistake for the first time, but I can’t forgive Nader for running (or for the corvair), or the Green Party USA for running him, because at the party level naivete cannot dominate deliberations.
FPP forces choices between bad and worse. It is almost never an option to vote FOR someone and if you ever think you are the chances are that the someone you vote for isn’t anything like that.
As Bush and Gore have illustrated, there is a difference between Bad and Worse.
respectfully
BJ
November 9th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Last evening I tuned into Parliament on my way home, it seemed they were debating the merits of the MMP system and the possibility of reducing the number in the house to 100 members.
Now I know that they all stretch the truth from time to time (even more so when they steal money for electioneering) but what I heard last night was nothing but extreme arrogance and blatant lies.
It matters not to these people that the MAJORITY of people in NZ want a reduction in MP’s, it matters not that the MAJORITY of people want a binding referendum on MMP they arrogantly ignore the wishes of the public and insist that they are needed.
How the hell do you get turkeys to vote for Xmas?…I have a very low opinion of most elected MP’s and an even lower opinion of people who come into the house from the list, there is nothing democratic about the MINORITY holding the balance of power and nothing democratic about a system that denies the voters the right to remove an list MP they do not like.
November 9th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Big Bruv
There is nothing democratic about denying people a voice at all either. All democratic systems are a balance and I have no sympathy with the call for less representative government. None. Talk about asking a turkey to vote for thanksgiving… that’s just not on.
As for the number of people in Parliament, I don’t see why 100 is any better than 99 or 101,,, or 121. If there where a thousand it’d be too many, and ten would be too few, but I don’t think this is so big a deal. MMP however, is vital. There are other things that can help as well… preferential balloting for instance. Handing people a choice of Labour and National, bad and worse, is not the best way to fix the things you see as problems.
ciao
BJ
November 9th, 2006 at 10:11 am
big bruv says: ” … there is nothing democratic about the MINORITY holding the balance of power and nothing democratic about a system that denies the voters the right to remove an list MP they do not like.”
If big bruv doesn’t like the local Candidate, or the List order of Political Party, he has the option of NOT casting his Party Vote for that Party, and the option of NOT voting for the Electorate Candidate for that Party. That’s TWO votes against a Party and a Candidate one doesn’t like.
If voters learn to vote tactically, MMP gives each of us MORE say in the Government we will get, than the FPP system does.
Personally I think it is a very good system:
With a variety of Parties in the House:
- issues have to be discussed and debated in the House
- members of our (increasingly diverse) Society are more likely to find a voice to represent their needs and concerns.
etc etc.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:12 am
BJ
We agree on this at least “There is nothing democratic about denying people a voice”, the people have spoken, they want less MP’s, they want a binding referendum on MMP and the MP’s arrogantly ignore the wishes of the people.
The system we have now is far from democratic in that the minority are having a far bigger influence on policy than they deserve, it does not matter how you spin the facts that is not democracy.
There is no justification for 121 MP’s when almost half are not answerable to the electorate, if we must have a proportional representation then we need a system that allows for the voters to remove those people who we do not like or are ineffective.
If I may use myself as an example, I would consider giving my party vote to the greens if I could also have the option of voting Keith Locke and Sue Bradford out of the house.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Eredwen
The trouble with the current system is that there is no accountability for those who are high on the list, again I use myself as an example, last election I voted, when I looked at the list of candidates for my electorate I wondered why I bothered, EVERY one of the buggers was going to be in the house irrespective of how I or the rest of the electorate voted….that is NOT democracy.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Big Bruv
I don’t think I can agree with you about the amount of power wielded by the minority. It doesn’t appear to me to be a spectacular amount of clout and the majority parties being what they are, the minority parties are where our democracy actually remains functional.
I do take your point about list MPs… however when you consider that a minor party may not have enough votes in ANY given electorate to get someone elected in that electorate but still have a large enough vote to actually demand some representation, it becomes apparent that it MUST be the case that this sort of thing will occur. The only way for you to influence the Green’s list is to become a Green. Similarly with National or Labour or any other… the list belongs to the party, and a selected list MP doesn’t really represent a specific electorate, even if that is where they ran locally.
A better way? Not sure there is one. This is, in spite of the problem you cite, one of the best arrangements in political history. What you seem to be wanting is the ability to vote against people you don’t like… which is an interesting concept. One I think, never attempted.
Let’s play with the idea for a moment. The “negative” vote. How many does each person get? For simplicity let it be 1 vote, which can be cast against anyone running for a seat, or anyone running for a seat in your electorate? … but the objective goal you seem to want is to override the party list preference… which is a nationally determined list and privately held by the party itself.
How is it counted? When? Perhaps this is a second level of election in which the proposed parliament is subjected to a negatives ballot?
To be honest, this is really as far as I can take this. Play or not, it appears to suffer too many contradictions and difficulties for me to work out. Not rejecting it outright, but you’ll have to explain what you’re wanting and how it might work in some way. I can’t invent it on the fly and I have work to do.
respectfully
BJ
November 9th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
big bruv:
I understand what you are saying.
However, whatever the system, we each have only a SMALL input as “one cog in the wheel”.
Under FPP:
I have the opportunity to EITHER vote for the Candidate (and thus the Party) I like, OR not vote for the Candidate (and thus Party) I don’t like … fullstop!
(Unless I belong to a Political Party I have no say in who the candidates are, and in what order they are valued (ie given “safe seats”).
Under Poportional Voting systems: (we use MMP and STV)
I, as a voter, have the opportunity to have some input: my preferential order of the candidates / my vote for a particular candidate / my preferential order of Parties (and NOT voting for and Party that has a list that I don’t like, and NOT voting for a candidate I don’t like ..etc.)
Potentially we each have more input. However, to make the best use of our individual votes, Voters should learn how the system works!
MMP creates a more complex Parliament … but one which has a much greater potential to reflect our increasingly diverse society.
It is the system adopted by post WW2 Germany to ensure that “another Hitler” could not rise again.
I like MMP much more than FPP and believe we have a much more representative and vibrant Parliament than we had under FPP.
Do you really want to see the old National v Labour “two sizes fits all” adversorial Parliament again? It is important to realise that the show we outsiders see in the House is a very small part of Parliament and Government …
I have heard from insiders that Select Committees etc are much more effective now with the extra MPs and diverse Parties , AND that “behind closed doors (and out of TV camera range) one makes the most surprising allies”. Apparently the show we see in the House is a very small part of Parliament and Government.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
bj, how can say that:
(a) hard data on who Green voters would otherwise vote for is hard to come by - there may well be a libertarian anti-GOP protest vote in there
and:
(b) anyone who says that Nader did not cause Gore to lose is lying to themselves
aren’t the two statements in opposition to each other?
You have just admitted that you have no idea whether the people who voted for Nader in Florida would have otherwise voted democrat or republican, but then you say that they must have been going to vote democrat. Been reading tea leaves or looking crystal balls?
November 9th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
In a democracy you should vote for who you want to win, not who you think _will_ win. That defeats the point really. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
not here -
That is why I think that MMP is good. You can vote for the party that you really want, and be represented according to the votes it gets. It is wonderful!
November 9th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
big bruv said:
I would consider giving my party vote to the greens if I could also have the option of voting Keith Locke and Sue Bradford out of the house.
That’s your view, and you’re entitled to it big bruv, but I agree with most things that Keith Locke and Sue Bradford say. I think they make an excellent contribution to politics. They are a part of the reason I vote Green. They represent ME.
That is what democracy is about - people being represented.
I despise certain politicians from other parties - Winston Peters, Peter Dunne, Trevor Mallard and Bob Clarkson, for example (to name just four from four different parties). Personally, I would feel somewhat gleeful if all of the above were dumped, since I dislike bigoted views and/or boorish and bullying behaviour.
But I acknowledge that politicians such as the above represent people. The people they represent, much as I may dislike their politics, have a right to be represented.
November 9th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Toad: Very well said !
November 9th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
I am sure that many here know far more than I do about proportional representation, is there a system that allows one to rank list MP’s in order of preference when casting a party vote?
November 9th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Stuey - Look at the numbers by which nader f’d the dog there in florida. If greens only sided with gore by a 1% margin, it would’ve been all over for Bushco before it started. There IS uncertainty about what the percentage would actually be, but to assert Green party members were about to vote en-mass for Bush, or that Nader attracted all the libertarians when a libertarian candidate WAS available to vote for stretches credibility to monomolecular dimensions.
Greens knew it was down to the wire, and they ran Nader. Nader took 97,421 votes and the margin to Bush was 537. There WAS a Libertarian on the ballot, so no assumption of Libertarian protest votes is valid, as might be the case in Virginia this year. If the Florida Greens divided perfectly evenly in their opinion that Bush or Gore would better serve the environment it would’ve made no difference but if they favored Gore by a mere 50.5% to 49.5% Gore would’ve been President.
There’s no contradiction in what I said. Hard data IS difficult to come by, but statistical and logical absurdity would have to be assumed to relieve Nader and the Green Party USA of responsibility. They knew better. They had no desire to see Bush elected. They were TOLD what was going to happen. They kept telling us “it doesn’t matter, there’s no difference” … something that I’ve noticed they don’t repeat much anymore. They put Bush in office and I believe that most of them know it.
FPP is evil. It creates false choices and worse candidates. It demands strategic restraint by people in minor parties… we HAVE to shut up sometimes under FPP… but the answer isn’t to tilt at windmills, the answer is to get rid of FPP. THEN people can be free to vote their consciences.
respectfully
BJ
November 9th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
well said b.j…well argued/presented…
ok stuey…got that..?
can we now accept nader/greens gave us bush…?
i’d be interested to see any reply..(to the stats/logic) bj presented you..
cos’ far as i can see..he has successfully argued you to a standstill..eh..?
leaving you with acceptance or denial as your options..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
it’s funny/strange how many new zealand greens can’t seem to understand the differences and priorities of fpp vs mmp…in relation to that american experience..
November 9th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
big bruv :
I am sure that many here know far more than I do about proportional representation, is there a system that allows one to rank list MP’s in order of preference when casting a party vote?
STV? That would be pretty neat.
November 9th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
or I could go back to my original point which was that you should really be blaming that election result on the fact that so many voters were prevented from voting, or had their votes discounted, by a whole host of nefarious means - if those groups of people were composed of only 1% more democrats than republicans … ?
There are always so many what ifs in close election results that to blame a result on only one of them is unfair. Plus I disliked the venom of bjs attack on the US green party.
I do conceed though that there are horses for courses though, and the Greens should choose not to stand in some elections, and focus all their energies on others, for example the Scottish Greens chose not to stand in any electorate seats in their version of MMP, and only stood for the party vote.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Stuey
Voters who don’t care, don’t care. Can’t make them care. Can’t care about them but more to the point, they aren’t trying to accomplish anything… and they succeed in that goal.
People who cheat, suppress voter access…. whatever, are trying to do something too. Illegal or not they are working towards the goal they desire to reach and often succeed in that goal.
Greens are, or SHOULD be trying to get the best political result for the environment that they can manage. Of these three ONLY the Greens used all their skills, talents and strength to do the worst possible thing for their cause.
I have my “pen wamed up in hell” because unlike you, I have a lying chickenhawk for a President. A man congenitally incapable of understanding what it is like to have less than a six figure income, who has set the environmental movement back 10 years in the last 6 and has failed at everything he has ever attempted, including extemporaneous speech. He isn’t your President, he is mine…
All you are seeing is a bit of leakage.
Vitriolic? Yeah, probably so, and I don’t mean to insult anyone here, but about 99% of the Americans who vote know exactly what the Greens there did. Heck… the Republican party has been caught secretly funding and “aiding” the unknowing Greens, making sure their names get on the ballot… and stay there. The Republicans know who is working for them and who against.
That’s FPP…. in action… and thank you all for not having it here.
respectfully
BJ
November 9th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
big bruv:
I understand your desire to “have a say” about who should get into Parliament from/among each Party’s List Candidates.
However, you must realise that your well informed “say”, is most likely to be “cancelled out” by the miriads of other voters who could/would be voting on whim and misinformation.
As a long-time member of the Green Party, I spent a lot of time learning all I could about each Green Candidate. It still took me HOURS (and a lot of checking) to rank the Green List candidates … and we were each asked to rank our “first 20″ only. (The remainder (unranked) were listed in alphabetical order.)
I would conclude from all this, that the order in which each Party lists its Candidates (and why) is a very good indicator of the values of that Party. THAT is an important deciding factor in which Party to vote for!
November 9th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
q.e.d. bj q.e.d.
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 10th, 2006 at 12:05 am
bj: I too would be extemely embarrassed to have to call someone like George Bush “my” President.
We’ll allow you to become one of us if you promise to behave!
November 10th, 2006 at 3:04 am
bj :
There are a number of systems that allow electors to vote “against” candidates.
Examples :
1) Local body elections. It may have changed, but in entities that didn’t have a ward system, you voted for as many candidates as there were seats, and you could select them among all the lists presented. i.e. you could leave out a couple of people you didn’t like even when voting for the rest of the party ticket. When I stood for (the old) Mt Eden borough council in ummm 1983?, I came about 20th in an election for 12 seats, even though my ticket won a majority, because I was a transient student type and not many people knew me (in fact I guess it’s safe to confess now… I no longer even lived in the borough in election day)
Could this be applied on a national level? Choose 120 candidates out of a thousand or so, on election day? An amusing thought, but I don’t fancy it.
2) STV. e.g. Australia. You rank your preferences, and I would certainly tend to do it from the bottom up, leaving as first preference the candidate I disliked least… Of course it’s used on an electorate level, so you’re ranking the parties as much as the individuals.
3) Two-round system, as in France and many other countries. The conventional wisdom : In the first round, you vote for the candidate you like best. In the second round, you vote against the candidate you like least.
The disadvantages : it tends to eliminate all non-”mainstream” candidates (so it’s normative), but at the same time, it locks in the “left/right” divide (even if a Green managed to survive the first round, they would have to make a pact with the party/parties of the left in order to have a chance in the second round).
November 10th, 2006 at 6:42 am
Can’t rightly say that the first two were what I was talking about, and the French seem to have adopted something similar to my off-the-cuff solution to some the problems of the third. I liked STV. I like MMP. I understand the frustration of Big Bruv… but as I pointed out, the list belongs to the party, not the electorate.
Putting in STV at the electorate level would certainly help us all. Putting in STV at the party vote level would be a harder sell simply because it’s more complex. The race is a race to get to 5%, not a race to win.
I recall many times in the past, explaining simple STV to some of my neighbours back in the states… and watching their eyes roll back in their heads as they lost consciousness
…. so I am leery of adding too much complexity too fast.
respectfully
BJ
November 10th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Eredwen
Thank you for that, I understand it all a little better now, however I am a little worried about your last paragraph, if the values of the green party encompass the thoughts and ideas of Locke and Bradford then I am destined never to vote green.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Anyway, big bruv, what is it about what Keith Locke and Sue Bradford say that so upsets you? Let’s talk about issues, rather than personalities.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Toad
Always happy to talk issues, indeed the issues that Bradford and Locke favour are the very reason i do not and could not ever support them.
Bradford ideas on social welfare scare the hell out of me, I am dead against the working for other peoples families package but she also seems to want me to work for the families of people who do not want to work.
Locke seems to be all for the criminals in our society, his irrational hatred of the tasers (a far better option than guns) is something I cannot support, we live in a increasingly violent society and the police must have the tools that enable them to do their job with relative safety.
It also annoys the hell out of me that he supports the terrorist Zahoui remaining in our country, the sooner that man Zahoui is kicked out of NZ the better.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Hi Big Bruv
The Green Party welfare policy is here. I’m not aware of any statements Sue Bradford has made about welfare that are not consistent with that policy. She has actually been sharply critical of the Working for Families package, in that it discriminates on the basis of employment status, and it removed the discretionary ability of Work and Income to take individual circumstances into account in deciding whether to grant third tier welfare assistance. Do you see any good reason, big bruv, why the child of a working parent should receive the In Work Payment, while the child of a parent who cannot work because of illness or disability misses out? All Sue appears to be arguing, and the Green Policy says, is that children of parents on low incomes should get treated equally, irrespective of whether their parents derive their income from employment or from a welfare benefit.
While I haven’t taken a great interest in the taser debate, I’ve just read Keith Locke’s media releases of 6 July, and 21 May on this issue. What the media releases appear to be saying is that he is concerned that the Police have done no independent research into the safety risks that tasers pose, that their introduction should be a policy issue rather than a Police operational decision, and that the Minister of Police should enter into dialogue with those expressing concern about the taser trial. Hardly an “irrational hatred of the tasers” here, or even a suggestion that the Police should be prohibited indefinitely from using them. Just a call for research and dialogue.
As for Zaoui - where is your evidence that he is a terrorist? Even the SIS have not claimed he is a terrorist - merely a risk to national security through his past associations. And in that claim, their credibility must by now be severely tarnished by the fact that Zaoui has won every court case he has brought against the Government to date and the Refugee Status Appeal Authority has found him to be a genuine refugee. Methinks you might have been taking a bit to much notice of the scaremongering from Winston Peters on this one Big Bruv, and need to look at the evidence objectively.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:13 am
STV for the electorate votes first, because at that level it is comprehensible to people. Here’s a list of the folks running, who do you like best?
Then once they’ve assimilated the principle behind it we can go for the party level vote which would allow people from the legalize weed group and libertarianz to gain relevance and power of their own.
It all comes at a price though. The major parties lose a little each time the electorate gains in its ability to precisely identify what it likes best.
BJ
November 10th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Toad
Any time I see the words “all that Sue appears to be arguing” it worries me given that she has been exposed as a blatant liar over the Swedish child abuse claims.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjBKFKc2igU&eurl=
As for the claim that children of non working families are denied the working for families package i would have thought the reason for that is fairly obvious, why the hell should I as a tax payer (and god knows I pay enough of it that is already wasted) pay more tax to the parents of children that do not work.
Unemployment is at an all time low in NZ, while I accept that there are a FEW genuine cases where those people cannot work the rest are simply ripping off the tax payer, I cannot see why i should be supporting them.
As for Locke and the Tasers, I watched the man on Willie Jacksons Saturday morning TV show, if that is not irrational behaviour then I am not sure what is.
The Green party policy seems to be one that tells the police “we do not care if you are injured in the pursuit of a criminal, all we are worried about is the possibility that the criminal might be injured in the act of being arrested” that to me is wrong.
Now on the Zaoui issue (and I apologise for the previous incorrect spelling of the mans name, I assure this was a genuine error on my part and not intended as an insult) if the SIS classify him as a security risk then thats good enough for me, he has also cost the tax payer of this country a bloody fortune in legal aide and god knows what else, we have many good causes in NZ where that money could be better spent.
I am sick and tired of MY tax money being wasted, to see it wasted on somebody who is not even a Kiwi is the last straw, this man would add nothing of value to NZ, he will no doubt want to bring the rest of his family into the country as well and I can just imagine who is going to pick up the bill for that as well.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
big bruv..(psstt..!!..hey..!…)
i’ll tell you about a place where your opinions will be welcomed with open arms….
it’s here in new zealand..and the site is called sir humphreys..
if you go there..it will be like going home for you..eh..?
tell them we said hello..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 10th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
phil
Why would I want to do that?, I come here to learn a bit about the green party policy and as I have said some of it I agree with.
What I like about this site is that you can debate a topic without the unnecessary personal abuse that occurs on many other forums.
November 10th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Hi all
I’m a Kiwi living in the USA and I read all this with interest. Voting systems and electoral reform is something I’m interested in and I wish it was a conscious issue here. Unfortunately, its not even vaguely on the radar for the vast majority of people. My attempts at discussing this with people I thought would be interested have never made much progress. In the minute or so that they might show polite interest, they tend to get the issue confused with voting machine problems or think I want to change the country to a parliamentary system or they tell me that the constitution doesn’t allow it. I don’t think changes are coming any time soon. I believe any system that is too complicated for the average person to grasp in a minute or so has no hope of ever being adopted.
Here are some thoughts in no particular order:
Once you start reading about voting systems, it soon becomes clear that there is no perfect system. You really need an interest in maths to stick with it and come to grips with the issues, many of which are not obvious.
There are many elections in the US where its a relatively simple situation in that there are multiple candidates running for one office in a district such as the election of a congressional representative for a district. I think these could relatively easily replace FPP with something better. The question of course is what. Election of the president is a whole bigger more complex can of worms.
The system that gets some publicity is IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) which, I think, is the same as preferential voting in Australia and STV in NZ local elections. I think it is the one that the US Greens recommend. Unfortunately it is not the great system that many suggest it is. At first it seems appealing because it eliminates the spoiler affect. A Ralph Nader type candidate can run with a clear conscience. That’s good but … it really doesn’t help smaller parties get elected. It lets the voter safely make a protest vote for a minor candidate but then its usually the second preference that counts. Some say that it encourages the two party system even more than FPP and often point to Australia as an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRV
The system that gave a real “aha” moment when I first saw it is AV or Approval Voting. The voter simply indicates which one or more of the candidates they could live with or “approve of”. ie, you give a yes or no to each candidate. The one who gets the most votes wins. Its beautifully simple to explain and apparently, current voting machines could cope with it with little or no modification. Its pretty good but the common objection is that it doesn’t give the voter a good feeling if they “approve” of one candidate much more than another. You can’t distinguish between your favourite candidate and the one that you only marginally approve of because you prefer him over the others if your favourite doesn’t win. It also has a tendency to elect bland boring candidates who might not be great at anything or do anything particular useful but remain marginally approvable to lots of people because they just don’t do anything bad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
The system I’ve just discovered is RV or Range Voting. It seems to be a bit of a rising star among those discussing these things. The voter gives each candidate a number between 0 and 99. The candidate who gets the highest total wins. Its really a refinement on AV and the guy who invented AV now recommends RV. It does look interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting
Well … that’s enough ramblings for one night. I sure wish it was spring here. Snow is not far away.
Cheers
Ross
November 10th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Gi Bruv
Why is it “good enough for you” simply because the SIS say it is true. Arguments from authority are not always wrong, but it is important to establish the authority as credible, and to examine the evidence the authority has put up. The SIS have not got a history of much credibility, and they have been hiding their evidence (if it exists), saying in effect “trust me, I know what I am doing”. The Refugee Status Appeal Authority on the other hand has not been hiding its evidence or reasoning, and is therefore a far more credible authority.
As for Zaoui costing money, he would not have cost anything if he had been given refugee status. Surely you do not begrudge anyone the costs of a fair trial and legal process. Arthur Allen Thomas also cost a huge amount of money, in trials, jail time and in compensation, again because the state stuffed up, but nobody seems to grudge him that.
I am sure that both Zaoui and Thomas would have preferred it if they had not cost the state anything.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
“She labels herself an “independent greenâ€? by which I am somewhat persuaded that the Green Party itself told her not to push but she did anyway.”
Not true. The Independent Greens are a separate party to the right of the Greens. More Ian Ewen-Street than Sue Bradford.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Kiore1
Comparing Thomas and Zaoui is wrong and quite frankly an insult.
Thomas is a NZ citizen who was charged with a crime he did not commit, I have no problem with my tax $ paying for his trial and legal process.
Zaoui on the other hand (and you are well aware of this) is not a Kiwi, he came here without the correct documentation and should have been turned around at the border.
I do begrudge Zaoui a fair trial as he has no right to be in our country, if Mr Zaoui is so concerned about not wasting my tax $ then he is free to go anytime he likes, from what I have heard he is now safe to return anyway, given that why does the man not return or at least be reunited with his family.
November 10th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
The Illinois Green Party gained “established party status”, giving it the same rights as the Dems or GOP in Illinois. Without a decent voting system, they’re unlikely win any of the big seats, but the 500,000 votes Rich Whitney got is a good sign people don’t want to vote Dem when they have the choice.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
wow thanks for your thoughts tetranz or should I say Ross, that was great.
your criticism of what you call IRV and we call STV (I think they are equivalent?) is true for single member seats, but IRV/STV really comes into its own in multi-member elections when it is IMHO definately the fairest system.
Ideal for council elections then, they use it for council elections in MA, USA and I’m sure other places as well. In contrast the council and other local body elections system that we have here in NZ - multi-member FFP - well that is by far the unfairest system possible.
But your AV and RV and indeed the whole-electorate-ranks-the-party-list system that big bruv mentioned are all very interesting and I’d like to see them discussed more.
P.S. I produced this What-is-STV? Flash animation for the STV NZ campaign. It’s rather … erm … quaint.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Yup — and I would wager that the Libertarian party would benefit equally from a painless way to vote conscientiously FOR someone rather than against someone else.
As would norml and all the other possible 3rd, 4th and fifth parties. It simply points up the evil of FPP. Only there’s no chance of defeating the party in power do you see the true balance of the opposition. Greens would be a force to be reckoned with in a non-FPP USA. Changing the ballot methodology would be far simpler than winning outright under FPP… and the candidates would improve I think.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Big bruv
Simply calling Zaoui a terrorist is begging the question. It is the allegation of terrorism that the legal process was rset up to resolve. But according to your logic he is automatically guilty because he is not a New Zealander, and is not allowed a trial.
This seems a very racist policy, and as an immigrant myself I am pleased that you are not in charge of government policy on this matter.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Big Bro :
Zaoui was elected to parliament in Algeria. The military overthrew the democratic regime in order to prevent his team coming to power. Some of the people in his movement took up arms, he didn’t. He fled the country to escape torture or death.
If he had been expelled back to Algeria, it’s quite plausible that he would have been tortured or killed.
The evidence that he associated with terrorists doesn’t stand up in court. The assessment of the SIS was just plain wrong, they have a long history of laughable incompetence. It seems they just took the word of the Algerian government that Zaoui was a “terrorist”.
One of the basic tenets of a liberal democracy is that you give refuge to people who are persecuted for political reasons. Whether or not you agree with their politics.
November 11th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Very well said Alistair!
November 11th, 2006 at 1:41 am
Thanks stuey. I haven’t really looked at IRV for multi-member elections. It sounds like a better fit.
Ross
November 11th, 2006 at 9:12 am
Alistair
It is interesting that you are so ready to label the SIS as incompetent yet so easily accept the word of Zaoui.
Given that he has been labeled a terrorist that is good enough for me, I repeat that he is not a NZer and therefore he is not our problem, I fail to see why we are faced with picking up the tab for this man when he is now free to return to his own country.
Kiore
I am very disappointed but not surprised that you choose to play the “racist” card, just because I do not agree with your views it does not make me racist.
It seems to me that this despicable tactic is becoming more common when supporters of people like Zaoui are faced with people opposed to him being in our country, it is often used as an insult of last resort (and in the absence of any other supporting argument) in the hope that the person being accused of racist behaviour will go away.
You are correct in one thing though, I do not believe he should have a trial in NZ at all (be it fair or unfair) as he is not our problem, he has been accused of terrorist activities and it is not OUR business to fund the mans legal defense, if he is so concerned about clearing his name let him return to his own country (where he has now been assured of his safety) and fight to clear his name with HIS OWN MONEY.
Personally I can think of far more important things to spend a couple of million dollars on, imagine how many hip replacement operations that money could have funded.
November 11th, 2006 at 9:19 am
I note that nobody has refuted the claim about Bradford telling blatant lies.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
big bruv says:
1. “Given that he (Ahmed Zaoui) has been labeled a terrorist that is good enough for me, I repeat that he is not a NZer and therefore he is not our problem …”
and
2. “I note that nobody has refuted the claim about Bradford telling blatant lies.”
eredwen replies:
big bruv, in an earlier post I noticed that you said positive things about this blog, along the lines that on it there was not the usual negative put downs aggression etc …
frogblog IS different in this regard, and the contributors are different. Many of your recent posts appear to be more mindful of these differences … a case of “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”?
BUT not today it seems!
My responses to the two quotes above:
1. There is ample info on Ahmed Zaoui on the Green Website (www.greens.org.nz) that clearly shows that the “terrorist” label is inaccurate.
Also, Aotearoa/New Zealand has (international) obligations to asylum seekers and, for that reason alone, sending Ahmed Zaoui “home” is NOT an option for a country that takes its (international) responsibilities seriously.
2. I would suspect that your “bating” about Sue Bradford has been regarded as ignorant, purile and repetitive, and as such it has been ignored. (Certainly, that was my reaction!)
IF you really want it to be taken seriously and seen as more than that (perhaps as slander, or libel) … what would THAT say about your judgement?
Your current report card … “Could do better”
November 11th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Big Bruv
No, disagreeing with me does not make you a racist, but giving preferential treatment to one person over another on the basis of where they come from is racist (or to be more accurate xenophobic because it is nationality that is being discriminated aginst not race).
I am glad you support state funding of hip operations. It shows you agree that the state has a duty to help the needy. Well taking in political refugees is also helping the needy. If New Zealand was a poor country we may have to use some triage and make difficult decisions about what we can afford to fund and in that case your objection would be valid. As it is the government is sitting on a surplus, and if we are really strapped for cash, then we can quite easily take the funds needed for refugees and hip operations from the huge amount being squandered on roads and rugby stadiums.
BTW I am not at all offended by your previous posting, and I certainly agree with you about Sir Humphreys.
kiore1
http://www.epf.org.nz
November 12th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Perhaps US Green party people could consider lobbying to change the US electoral system. Perhaps relevant people in NZ can help them. It may help to encourage people also to question establish rules.
November 12th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
It has been suggested to them Prim.
I might suggest it again were I there, but it takes someone with the vision and the stature to challenge their masochistic desire to be punished at the polling place. It is almost as though having a hopeless cause makes them feel better.
I have had some very strong words with some friends of mine in that party over this sort of thing. To this day I cannot guess when they will be led out of the wilderness. It is clear that they must be led from within to do it.
respectfully
BJ
November 13th, 2006 at 10:31 am
bj: I assume that you approached the subject of electoral system change with your usual sensitivity and tact ?? (Just stirring!)
Rod Donald would have been the perfect ambassador …
However, we have others in the Green Party of Aoteatoa/NZ who could assist … as would the German Greens (from whose country we adopted our MMP voting system).
November 13th, 2006 at 11:00 am
bj: There are several facets to Proportional System voting …
A potential problem for the USA could be the rise of seriously- rightwing-nutter Parties (probably proclaiming themselves “Xian”).
Here, in comparison, we have comparatively few extremists who think that way. However, in the USA just imagine such a lobby group holding the balance of power with “election deals” made with the Republican Party / Bush Administration …
I wonder if this might be a real concern to be considered by American Greens when thinking about Proportional Voting?
… better the devil you know ?
November 13th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
eredwen -
Look at where the Act party is now in NZ ….
If there are any “very extreme” parties, it seems to me that other minor parties with more moderate policies would be more likely to get more votes and do deal-making. And I’d be cautious about assigning labels; one might rather enquire what motivates the views - possibly better to deal with issues than pretend they aren’t there. That is probably something the Greens can identify with … and noting that many on the right might label the Greens in certain ways.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
bj said re US greens: “Changing the ballot methodology would be far simpler than winning outright under FPP”.
I don’t think that anyone within the US Green Party believes they can ever win under FFP. I think they believe that standing under FPP is a means to an end, to increase visibility, to get people used to seeing them on the ballot and allow their candidates access to media, and as Marcelski points out, by gaining enough votes they pass a threshold and get funding for the next election.
With more visibility and more funding they make a change to the voting system more likely.
Prim, I’m sure they do lobby for electoral system change. I don’t know how one can assess whether they do it enough to satisfy BJ, but I note that there are 272,000 results on Google for “Green Party IRV” so perhaps that shows that a lot of Greens make a lot of effort to promote it and try and get it established in all the different levels of elections in the US.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
eredwen…one of those american greens worked here..mainly in auckland..at the election before last..
like those greens b.j. referred to she had a total blindspot to the fact her and the rest of the (misguided/deluded) american greens gave us monkey-boy president…
so..i’m not sure advice from here will be heeded..
they have their group justification/self-delusion they cling to..and thats pretty much that..
(they all must have been away from school that day..eh..?…that day they explained the (not complicated) concept of ’splitting the vote’..)
go figure..!
just a ‘means to an end’ eh stuey..
and that end..in this case..just happened to be the tragic reign of monkey-president..
gee stuey..d’ya think those greens might be better advised to either work for electoral reform..or to green the democrat party..?..instead of just splitting the vote..and letting the b*atards in..!
if so..ya gotta be feckin’ kidding..
btw..stuey..are you still defending their actions..?
surely ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’ would be the most charitable interpretation of their foolishness..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 13th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
don’t think that anyone within the US Green Party believes they can ever win under FFP.
Depends on whether they run as Democrats or not…. as I pointed out somewhere, the same person may appear on the ballot as a Green and a Democrat and a Libertarian if they all agree that he/she is the best person to run (however unlikely it sounds, politics makes strange bedfellows)… so they can win some isolated seats.
However, no amount of “visibility” will help them make this change… indeed it has to be done invisibly… because the major parties will fight tooth and nail to retain the advantage that FPP gives THEM at the polls… if they see it happening. This is something that has to be done by state organizations and in state legislatures. It has to happen by referendum, it has to be promoted to a ballot issue and people need to be educated to think about being able to vote FOR someone instead of against their worst choice.
None of that requires the party to be particularly “visible”. It just has to be organized enough and smart enough to quit drawing to an inside straight the way it’s done for the past decade. Not to feel TOO bad, the Libertarians do the same, and so did the old liberal party in NYC.
This is something that can happen best if the unlikely combination of Green and Libertarian parties both go at it together. People who wouldn’t listen to a Green WILL hear out a Libertarian and vice-versa. People who understand the difference between FPP and pretty much any other method, choose any other method. The battle could be won without being fought… but it would take a miracle to get it through at the national level, and it will never go through by Greens “improving their visibility” in this election or that and then campaigning for it. That’s the worst strategy of all, because it would call attention to the change being made. Dems and Repugs would rally round the FPP flag.
Ditch FPP first… you get all the visibility you could ask, because THEN you start actually winning some seats outright.
There’s a lot of Democrats and Republicans who hate the candidates on offer, but simply don’t want to toss their vote away. Real support for Greens in the US is probably close to 10% and where a particularly bad Dem is fielded, that Dem would be gone. Greens would have to caucus with Dems but the party would get FAR more respect. Same thing for the Libertarians, though they are not predictably going to caucus with anyone AFAIK.
respectfully
BJ
respectfully
BJ
November 13th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
prim:
My post obviously seemed over-critical to you …
However, when writing it, I was thinking about those Americans who are reported as holding “extreme beliefs” … For example, those seeking “Rapture” (which, if it comes to pass, will see me and most that I associate with left behind on Earth … provided that we are spared the (also predicted ) fire and brimstone / weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Forgive me if my assumption that such things would not be “vote catching” in Aotearoa/NZ offends!
November 13th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
phil said:
“one of those american greens worked here..
like those greens b.j. referred to she had a total blindspot …
so..i’m not sure advice from here will be heeded..
I’d agree with that !
American kids seem to be taught to be very proud of their “Democracy”. It follows that they see their system as “THE TRUE SYSTEM”, (so what could they possibly learn from others?)
November 13th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
eredwen -
I think that your 4.01 posting is actually in agreement with one of the points which I made earlier: that an “extreme” group would probably not get so many votes. I think that this would be true in the US as well as NZ; if not true in the US, it may well be best for such issues to be addressed via democracy rather than left to take another course.
Was not sure what your 11.00 posting meant by “nutters”; in general I do not like such labels. I see that the sensible Dr Dunny Brush has previously commented on the “Rapture”. I am sure that he and his helpers will be able to flush out some more of these issues.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
if it’s true that in the usa a party can name anyone as their candidate, including someone standing for another party, (can’t quite see how they can work this given the primary system, but assuming the truth of what bjchip said), then this is too powerful a tool for third parties to overlook.
it totally liberates voters to vote for third parties knowing their vote is not wasted. then, once their votes put them into the major-party category, they can stand candidates of their own.
i wouldn’t assume libertarians are otherwise-would-be-republican voters by the way - they hate the military-imperial state & the fiscal irresponsibility as much as any green does. i think people in the usa voting for one of these third parties has already despaired & is voting in a way to give themselves a nice warm feeling of being “above the fray” rather than to affect the outcome.
but the stakes are too high - with all the “last chance for the world” and “may be too late already” views of global warming, the greens need to stop playing this game. building up support over 20 years is not good enough.
if the greens and libertarians are already supporting electoral reform, how come we don’t hear of the petitions and referenda? i suspect they aren’t doing much at all.
as for our own version of proportional representation, i opposed it at the time. our MMP model is a distinctly second-best option, and i knew that once it was in, the chance of further change for a better option would be dim, but if MMP were defeated the pressure would be kept up for change (hopefully a better one). i have similar objections to MMP that big bruv has, plus i resented the way MMP was thrust to the fore as an option.
but now we have MMP, there’s no way i would go back to SMP. what we have is far from perfect but is 100 times better than SMP.
despite my objections about the possibility of further change, there is one change which we could make which would be small enough to cause no disruption or misunderstanding & which no-one could possibly oppose, but which would cause a small improvement in MMP: namely allow the voters to tick not only the party list they prefer, but their favourite candidate on that list. if a party wins say 50 list seats, that may include not the first 50 from the top of the list as ordered by the party, but instead perhaps #51, #67, maybe even #120 depending how much support each of them had from the voters for their party.
yes it’s likely that most voters will just vote for one of the big name candidates at the top of the list, but there is some small chance there for the voter to excersize greater power.
the constitution of the USA & its states does indeed allow ordinary people to campaign at the local level for national & local electoral reform - but for pity’s sake don’t go confusing them with bizarre electoral systems. preferential or instant-runoff voting pretty much solves the problems. it liberates people to vote for whoever they want - and this will sometimes mean a third-party candidate wins. (with so many voters currently choosing the lesser of two evils, how many of them will still keep voting for democrat or republican once they no longer have to?) occasionally in history, third parties become major parties, SMP works to retard this possibility while PV does not.
approval voting is just like preferential voting but without the benefit of ranking the candidates. it would genuinely be little better than SMP since everyone will have to include a major party in their slate of approved candidates in order to avoid wasting their vote, but those who actually prefer a major-party candidate will not necessarily have to approve of anyone else.
range voting is similar to PV (preferential voting) i.e. instant runoff, except that there is no need for successive rounds of ballot counting with vote reassignment & candidate elimination. it has the disadvantage though that negative preferences count as much as positive preferences. while ordinary PV is likely to return (a) candidate(s) who is/are acceptable to the greatest number of people, RV would instead return the candidate(s) least unacceptable.
(& in fact the result would also be almost random).
but if you have trouble telling your american friends about preferential voting, just tell them it’s a bit like football rankings. you see they understand it perfectly fine when it’s about football, something they are switched on to, & not politics.
i can’t remember which competition it is which uses a PV-style method of ranking the teams, but i can find out for you.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Eredwen
If a radical evangelical group manages to get represented because we are trying to represent minority parties and they manage to get the votes, then they do. I only want people to get a fair chance to vote for causes and candidates they favor… I cannot and will not compromise their right to vote for causes or candidates I regard as idiots.
In other words - so be it. I already voted with my feet, and folks who are like that have a harder time sinking roots into a well educated and literate society.
respectfully
BJ
November 13th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
yep. we like proportional representation because it allows people of different goals & beliefs to achieve representation in proportion to their numbers.
we can’t say proportional representation for everyone except those we don’t like.
it’s exactly the argument that is used against the entire concept of proportional representation.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
also worth noting is that the republicans have been losing support amongst fundamentalist christians over the last two elections. this time around, most catholics voted for the democrats.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:25 am
BJ I agree that “This is something that has to be done by state organizations and in state legislatures. It has to happen by referendum, it has to be promoted to a ballot issue” and I believe that the US Greens are doing this.
phil, the US Green Party worker that worked for us in 2001-3 who you refer to is now working on exactly that (although not for the GP) - she is now a co-ordinator for a well-funded non-partisan electoral reform organisation based in LA that is promoting IRV in ballot iniatives at local levels.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Stuey - It is possible that they’ve learned something. I don’t have a “current” axe to grind with them as someone here said that this “independent green” in VA was actually a separate party… not the US GP, and I haven’t been a VA resident in 30 years. I hope they have learned something.
Certainly those that see the way it works here are likely to change their minds about the relative importance of ballot reform vs party visibility. It does take a whack between the eyes with a 4×2 for some of us Yanks to see clearly. Not that I’ve ever needed one of course
For me it usually involves a 4×4.
BJ
respectfully
BJ
November 14th, 2006 at 9:17 am
“with a 4×2″
100×50 in the modern world.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
eredwen Says:
November 11th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
big bruv says:
1. “Given that he (Ahmed Zaoui) has been labeled a terrorist that is good enough for me, I repeat that he is not a NZer and therefore he is not our problem …�
and
2. “I note that nobody has refuted the claim about Bradford telling blatant lies.�
eredwen replies:
big bruv, in an earlier post I noticed that you said positive things about this blog, along the lines that on it there was not the usual negative put downs aggression etc …
frogblog IS different in this regard, and the contributors are different. Many of your recent posts appear to be more mindful of these differences … a case of “When in Rome, do as the Romans do�?
BUT not today it seems!
My responses to the two quotes above:
1. There is ample info on Ahmed Zaoui on the Green Website (www.greens.org.nz) that clearly shows that the “terrorist� label is inaccurate.
Also, Aotearoa/New Zealand has (international) obligations to asylum seekers and, for that reason alone, sending Ahmed Zaoui “home� is NOT an option for a country that takes its (international) responsibilities seriously.
2. I would suspect that your “bating� about Sue Bradford has been regarded as ignorant, purile and repetitive, and as such it has been ignored. (Certainly, that was my reaction!)
IF you really want it to be taken seriously and seen as more than that (perhaps as slander, or libel) … what would THAT say about your judgement?
Your current report card … “Could do better�
Eredwen
I have said positive things about this Blog and I still believe those things to be true, however this does not mean that I will blindly accept things that I BELIEVE to be wrong.
In MY opinion Zaoui is a bludger who has eaten up far to much of my tax dollars already, the man should be sent home (where he has been assured of his safety)
New Zealand only has obligations to its own people, we have more than enough problems and major issues facing us in this country without importing any from off shore.
The Bradford issue is similar, she has constantly told lies about the child smacking debate, and seeks to impose her morals and values on the rest of society irrespective of their own values and morals.
Indeed the link i provided has proof of this, my post was not intended to “bait” anybody, it is the truth and something that i would have thought more here would have commented on.
P.S….My report card was returned with the comment “better to think and ask questions than to be fed blatant lies and accept them.
November 14th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
it’s not zaoui’s fault that his case is costing new zealand taxpayers.
if the government had simply been content to accept the ruling of the refugee status authority, he would have settled in years ago & be a productive citizen.
instead the government has hounded him through the courts, at great cost for both prosecution & defence.
as for his having been assured of safety, i’m sure a spider would give a fly assurances of safety too if that would get the fly into its net.
it’s bizarre to trust some 3rd world dictatorship on their word but not to trust our judicial authorities.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:56 am
big bruv:
It seems that the problem you and I have, in communicating on these “issues” of yours, is that you must have accepted inaccurate information as fact.
I do, however, recognise and understand your point of view on both topics, and at that level we may agree to differ.
It is important to recognise that when a Green MP speaks on matters of policy they have the backing of their Parliamentary Caucus and Staff and of the Green Party. We are a very democratic lot!
I suspect that your reaction to Sue’s “anti-smacking” Bill is a personal one. It is the bigger picture of serious child abuse in Aotearoa/NZ that is in urgent need of attention, and this Bill seeks to address that.
All of this has been debated elsewhere, and further comment from me would be “redundant” at best … except to say that you do your argument and yourself no credit by continuing to abuse one of our Green MPs.
eredwen