Strings, Boston got the Big Dig. Sounds like we could be onto a winner here.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I voted only once under FPP and only resumed under MMP – because earlier my vote did not count.

The only way for every vote to count, is to have preferential voting in the electorates and party lists for the other seats (the question is whether these are SM or MMP) or STV.

Don Brash has been leading the call for the SM system – presumably this is what Key is referring to.

I initially preferred the preferential voting and SM option combination back in 1993, but was not offered this one (so did not vote).

I would prefer a referendum every 6 years on electoral matters (as is, or PV SM, or STV or as is, but with minor adjustments to the current model).

There is an existing MMP aberration where parties can win 4% of the vote and receive no seats and another with less than 2% can gain 2. I would allow parties winning over 2.5% of the vote one seat (and 2 seats for 4%). Another change that should be considered is in the way list seat allocations are assessed (a method which minimises overhang).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

turnip28

I think we’ve already discussed the fact that NZ has a rather flawed political system e.g. semi-constitutional monarchy rather than a democracy, but I agree that a direct democracy has many drawbacks particularly if there isn’t a constitution that restrains the legislature and executive from being captured my the tyranny of the majority or special interest groups to abuse its power.

Although that being said its far superior to the high-tech police state that China is becoming with the assistance of American multinational corporations in contravention of U.S. law.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye/print

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

turnip28, I think Strings was assuming that Australia and Canada would beat us to become the 51st and 52nd.

But, good points otherwise. We need constitutional safeguards under which democracy operates to protect human rights from the tyranny of the majority. With no written constitution, and no upper house, I personally think NZ is somewhat lacking in that regard.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hahaha Strings, the typical left wing NZ anti-american rubbish.

Wouldn’t we be applying to become the 51st state not the 53rd?
Anyway why would NZ want to become a US state i’m confused.

A real democracy don’t make me laugh, democracy can be an evil form of government just as evil as a dictatorship. Why are their so many people who worship at the feet of democracy as though its some great and glorious god that bestows freedom on all. A direct democracy which I believe is what you want is a very dangerous form of government since it is simply the tyranny of the mob and reminds me of revolutionary france.

Under a direct democracy in NZ maori will be destroyed along with all other minorities the tyranny of majority will reign and anyone in their path will be crushed and destroyed. An entreached constitution is the only thing that bestows freedom not a democracy.

Would you live under a dictatorship with a constitution which restricts the powers of the dictator and protects the rights of the people or a direct democracy where the power is held by the majority who can use and abuse that power for the common good.

New Zealander’s need to stop being so small minded about the US. Don’t look to the US now but look to the US of Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

turnip28
So, we adopt the US form of government, and axiomatically its constitution too, as that’s where the legal base for the system comes from. Then what? Apply to become the 53rd state? (Yes folks, there are others ahead of us in that race!)
We could ask for equal subsidies for our farmers, take a share of the US$78 trillion debt the country owes, get the pork barrel running our way.

Ouch! I just realised! We have fewer voters than the city of Boston – and they don’t get any special concessions, so why would we!

Tell you what. Let’s go back to voting on THE ISSUES and POLICIES, make this a REAL DEMOCRACY – a thing that hasn’t been done before, and get on with restoration of the highest standard of living in the world, as opposed to the repressive regime in a land of free elections.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Ari

“Big bro- support for a referendum is VERY different from support for any of the alternatives. Many MMP supporters don’t particularly mind a referendum. I fully expect the referendum to be blown out of the water now that we’ve actually tried FPP, but if a referendum is what it takes to shut up the FPP agitators who think proportionality is somehow undemocratic, (lol) or that the quality of MPs overall has gone down (lol) under MMP, then let’s waste some money on a referendum.”

Please do tell me how on earth a party with 5% of the vote should be able to force legislation on the people that 82% do not want and how can anybody describe that as democracy?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Well the problem with our MMP system stems from the lack of seperation between the cabinet(executive) and the parliment(legislative). Winston whines and complains because he wants to be in the cabinet since that is were you can effect the most power. We can fix this by de-coupling the cabinet and the parliment, you can’t be a member of both the cabinet and the parliment any more.
Each cabinet post could either be elected via STV directly or we could elect the prime misinster via STV and they could then appoint the cabinet.

Any legislation still needs approval via the parliment before it is passed into legislation. The parliment is still elected via MMP as it represents the people.

It is entirely possible for the country to elect a parliment with 41% National, 34% Labour, 5% Greens, 10% New Zealand First, 5% Maori
and 5% ACT.

We could also have elected John Key using STV as our Prime Minister.

Winston Peters doesn’t hold as much power as you think as their is no way for him to get inside the cabinet as the people have decided that John Key is going to be in charge of the executive branch of power and Winston is just another back bencher along with everybody else in Parliment.

This is entirely how the US system works and it actually works you can often have a democratic president and a republican house, legislation still gets passed. The issues and corruption of the US system have nothing to do with its sharing and division of power.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BP, much as it is hard to swallow, ( suspect as hard for you as for me) Winston does actually represent a significant number of New Zealanders. While I find the views of his constituency abhorrent, they do have a right to be represented in Parliament.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I don’t necessarily want to go back to FPP, however I don’t think this brand of MMP is suited to New Zealand. Why do we always seem to get our elections decided by Winston First?

We need to avoid the situation we have now where small parties punch above their weight (read: mandate).

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Here is my referendum campaign slogan if Key gets his wish.

A vote for FPP is a vote for George Bush.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Anyone in NZ who supports FPP needs to live here in the US. Living here as opened my eyes I mean the US are FPP gone very very wrong.

For example why are bio-fuel subsidies being pushed here well Iowa just happens to be a swing state and under FPP swing states get everything they want or need. So no presidential candidate would dear piss off the corn-lobby, why it will cost them the state and presidential election.

If you are a republican living in NY you don’t need to vote and if you are a democrat living in Texas you also don’t need to vote. Maybe that explains why only 50% of registered Americans bother to vote.

Why would NZ’rs want to go back to a system which excludes people. I have only ever voted in MMP elections and I have never voted for National or Labour. I like the fact my vote counts, if NZ heads back to FPP I will registor my protest by no longer voting.

If NZ heads back to FPP that is an example of the majority seeking to force their will on the minority. The only recourse for the minority is to take up arms and defend their freedom from the tyrany of the majority.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Big Bro: Show me a poll in the past 2 years where most did not support MMP? There aren’t any.

Ari: Don’t under estimate the power of the media to hide the truth and distort what they cannot hide. Add to that the millions that Hunt, Shirtcliffe and others will again spend to get rid of democracy if they can.

People are whining about tax cuts, not realising the RBNZ can transfer them straight to the banks by deeming them inflationary and raising interest rates. The oil companies will soak up the rest. Tax cuts a re a HUGE con….and the sheeple of talkback land will lap it up.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I flew to New Zealand in order to do a documentary on MMP to bring it back to America with me. I don’t think you’ll find a greater fan of the MMP system than myself. I think it is the best system for democracy that we have. It has flaws – what system doesn’t – but the advantages are absolutely amazing.

That said, a referendum on MMP isn’t a bad idea. I wouldn’t make it a campaign promise, and I would have waited 25 years on instead of 15, but now that NZers have had both first past the post and the MMP system, it makes sense to revisit the issue.

I see nothing to fear in an electoral system referendum – better too many than too few.

Besides. You’d have to be completely daft in order to vote against MMP in favor of First Past the Post. I could see perhaps someone moving towards STV, considering the Commonwealth tradition but think MMP is better.

At any rate, perhaps what NZ should be doing is commissioning another Royal Commission in order to evaluate MMP 15 years on before you have the referendum.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

err, now that we’ve actually tried MMP, even.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Big bro- support for a referendum is VERY different from support for any of the alternatives. Many MMP supporters don’t particularly mind a referendum. I fully expect the referendum to be blown out of the water now that we’ve actually tried FPP, but if a referendum is what it takes to shut up the FPP agitators who think proportionality is somehow undemocratic, (lol) or that the quality of MPs overall has gone down (lol) under MMP, then let’s waste some money on a referendum.

I’d also like to point out that almost every government is likely to force through legislation that is opposed by a majority of the public- (the specific example doesn’t matter- we could pick out a bunch of National, Labour, Act, UF, Green, or NZF policies that didn’t have public support if we wanted, and even several that passed) if we didn’t believe that our elected officials had the right to override us now and again, we’d have some sort of direct democracy instead.

Zippy- STV is in no way proportional. It’s an improvement over FPP voting (mildly) in that it doesn’t suffer from third-party spoilers, but it also has some weird complications- for instance, in some cases, voting someone as first on your list can actually cause them to lose the election, when voting them second or not voting at all would have allowed them to win.In terms of single-candidate voting systems, I’d say Range Voting (where you essentially rate each candidate out of 10 or 100) is your best bet. That said, systems are only proportional when the entire nation votes on the same thing. The idea of electorates itself attacks the principle of one person, one vote, and the fact that electorates don’t trump proportionality in MMP, but actually still count for something, is to me one of its best achievements.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

what do you say fwog,
maybe we let the people vote,

http://peterquixote.blogspot.com/

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No Toad

I am sick of people like Sue B forcing legislation on us that 82% of the people do not want.

The minor parties do NOT have a mandate for this, do you really think we need to spend an extra $600 million on diplomats Toad?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

So you admit that the Labour and National Parties are both dogs, BB?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I wonder if it might not be better to consider the policy implications of the old, current and potential future forms of election?

In the old world, people put up an election platform and you voted for the one you liked best, with the majority winning through and seeing a lot of what they voted for happening.

In today’s world, people put up the election platfor they think the most people will vote for, you vote for both a person and a platform, and you get the person with the most votes AND no publicised or promoted policy platform. (Let’s face it, everything is up for grabs in the post election bribefest that sorts out who forms a government. A better name for what we have would be Last Past the Post, as that, under MMP, has been the party that has the biggest say on the next 2.5 years’ programme of work in the House of Representatives.)

Under a future scenario, we could have a truly democratic approach, where MPs are elected in electorates based on their reliability and attraction to the local electorate, and the public also votes for the 30 policies they would like to see implemented, perhaps out of 20 each party is allowed to put up for consideration. (Yes, I know that’s a lot of work for the party, but heck, if we’re going to go full hog on democracy let’s do it right.) Ministers (there would be 30 of them forming the cabinet,) would be appointed by parties based on the number of ‘their’ policies that were adopted by the public, and the PM would be the leader of the party with the most selected policies, settled by a coin toss if there’s a tie. Elections could be held every 5 years to stretch the actual working time of parliament to 4 years, and would always be held on a holidey on the working day immediately after Waitangi day. The only way to reduce the term of a ‘government’ would be by a special motion to replace all members of cabinet carried by a 75% majority of the House of Representatives; at that point, a new cabinet is formed with the same proprtional representation as before, but with none of those from the prior cabinet able to be appointed.

Now wouldn’t that be an interesting political environment to live in, and what’s more, it would be in the finest traditions of New Zealand, where we do something brave and bold that has never been done before!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)