by frog
One of the nice things about getting you candidate list out first is that you can sit back and watch everyone else’s list unfold, or in some cases rupture its way into the public. The Greens, with a list that was decided on entirely by party member votes, didn’t face the type of tension that National is now currently going though. That is, trying to let party members have some sort of say, but not so much say that they give poor rankings to sitting MPs that the don’t think are up to the task. Vernon Small at the Dominion Post quotes a ‘senior National member’:
It’s an ego thing [for MPs]. They fear they will be ranked lower by their region than … their caucus ranking would indicate.
The concern is that the decisions have already been made … which makes regional list rankings potentially a farce.”
I wonder which National MPs were most worried about their regional list ranking? I’m inferring from Kiwiblog’s defence of the National list ranking process that Farrar think’s Labour’s list ranking could be even messier.
Published in Campaign by frog on Wed, May 14th, 2008
Tags: candidate list, Frog, frogblog, green party, greens, labour, Listranking, national, new zealand, Vernon Small
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
I would dispute whether the Green party list was “decided entirely by party member votes”. An elite group made up of those with the time and money to go to Auckland for a 2 day conference, as well as sufficient influence within the party to be elected as delegates, made an initial list, which was then sent to members.
In theory members make up their own mind based on the profiles given and do not have to pay any attention to the initial list (this is the approach I took). In practice however, most members simply rubber stamp what has already been decided for them. The first 10 candidates were exactly the same as that in the initial list, with the exeption that one pair had swapped one place.
A more democratic way of making the list would be for everyone to make up their own mind without an initial list. Contact numbers on the profiles would make it easier to make a more fully informed choice. I would have liked to have rang a few candidates up and asked them about their opinion on certain issues.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So its just the illusion of democracy then?
The hard left have indeed stolen your party.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
grrrrrr..please post my comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB – why not see why your comments are not cutting it, and try another approach?
or make your own blog
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kiore1 said: A more democratic way of making the list would be for everyone to make up their own mind without an initial list.
Indeed, it would. The problem is the financial and/or carbon emisions cost.
A conference involving 4000+ members would be prohibitively expensive (and would subject the Greens to allegations of hypocracy re carbon footprint of getting everyone there.
Video conferencing the candidates’ performances at the conference into every Party member’s home would be prohibitively expensive (many won’t even have the tech capacity to engage in this).
So how do you suggest we do it kiore1?
A initial list, compiled by delegates to the campaign conference where candidates strut their stuff, still seems the best option to me as guidance for rank and file members.
I think the members do engage – one candidate gained 13 places on the final list from the initial list. So I really don’t think there is a lack of actual democracy in compiling the final list.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So how would I do it. Firstly I would be honest, and if the list is not decided by the whole party, for whatever reason, I would say so and not pretend otherwise.
I also don’t see why we need to video everyones performance at the conference. Most delegates in 2005 did not appear to use the marking schedule in any case. Candidates were asked a question and were supposedly graded on the answer. Some did not even answer the question, and would be given zero in any university course, but were still graded highly. So the conference spends a great deal of money dreaming up an elaborate marking scheme and then ignores it.
Secondly even if we send DVDs of the performance in the speeches, it does not follow that we need to send 4000 plus. There are 60 electorates, why not send one to the convener for each eletorate and they can arrange a meeting of members who are interested.
The other way I would do it, as I explained earlier, is for candidates to provide contact details on their profile. Standing as a candidate makes you a public figure, so implicit in standing is permission for anyone to have your contact details.
I was not present at the conference and did not see the DVDs, but based my choice on the profiles, and on the behaviour of candidates who I emailed (those who ignored my emails went straight to the bottom). Having sufficient communication skills to write an informative and persuasive profile with a minimum of woffle is an essential skill for a politician.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Only BB would see a ‘hard left’ hijacking of a party in a democratic process! sigh
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)