http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/06/t...a_overhang.html

I found this quite interesting. Thoughts?

Reading Kiwiblog makes me feel about the same as when I’m reading Indymedia.

Edit: More accurately, the comment threads on both

Maori Party tells the Greens to f*** off (paraphrased with generous licence )

Scoop story

Procyon wrote: I'd like to read something about it that isn't on Kiwiblog.

Read it from the Greens blog then you noob.

http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php...ical-conundrum/

The real question is why are people allowed two votes in the first place?

Aside from the obvious.

Why are people allowed to vote for a different candidate as their local MP? Local MP vote should equal national party vote (not the National Party).

You have to ask, when is it beneficial to vote for a different party to your local MP vote. Either you're trying to skew the vote in favour of a certain local MP, or you're trying to skew it against them.

Skewing the vote against someone (Nicky Wagner). To be fair I should have said 'skewing the vote against someone'.

Surely the local MP for a region should reflect the overall disposition of the local constituency.

So you feel he represents ChCh, even though you don't support his policies?


Surely you would rather have your local MP follow the same policy as the government you prefer.

i.e I want a National/Labour/Green govt, so I want my local MP to be a National/Labour/Green candidate. Why would you vote for a local candidate who has policy you differ with, unless it is a spite vote or a cult of personality?


(to be fair, I spite voted against my local MP last time in the local election. But I'm not entirely sure the party I voted for ran a local MP (which of course, under my system you would allow a party to nominate their vote for a different local MP)).

edit-
actually I wouldn't allow that. They would have to run as with local MP.

Procyon wrote: But as to Farrier's mock outrage, who really gives a shit? Considering that all political parties have people working for them called strategists, why is he acting all shocked that the Greens might be looking for strategies to get into power? OH NOES, TACTICS.

Because I think next election, if we still have MMP, other parties are going to try to abuse this 'hole'. Like he points out, it is of concern. Imagine if National did something like that?

Like Act/Nats already have.

It actually seems like a good idea, electorate vote for the Maori party, party vote for a Maori friendly party more representation for your views.

No different to anyone else tactically splitting their vote. There will always be overhang with the Maori seats.

MysticNZ wrote: Because I think next election, if we still have MMP, other parties are going to try to abuse this 'hole'. Like he points out, it is of concern. Imagine if National did something like that?

FFS its not a new concept. The first MMP election in 1996 when I got to vote I split my vote, Candidate ACT and party National. I was aware that it was possible to maximise your preferred parties position by splitting the vote. You will also note that we have an overhang in this parliament. Because the majority of Maori party voters went Maori Candidate and Labour party you got the Maori party winning more electorate seats than their percentage entitled them too. It happens, everyone knows about it, the Greens are just the first to make such a concerted effort to push for it.

Cynic wrote: FFS its not a new concept. The first MMP election in 1996 when I got to vote I split my vote, Candidate ACT and party National. I was aware that it was possible to maximise your preferred parties position by splitting the vote. You will also note that we have an overhang in this parliament. Because the majority of Maori party voters went Maori Candidate and Labour party you got the Maori party winning more electorate seats than their percentage entitled them too. It happens, everyone knows about it, the Greens are just the first to make such a concerted effort to push for it.

No it's definitely not a new concept. I recently decided to reeducated myself on our voting system etc etc, and this is the first thing that gets said about MMP on every informational website.

Couch wrote: You have to ask, when is it beneficial to vote for a different party to your local MP vote. Either you're trying to skew the vote in favour of a certain local MP, or you're trying to skew it against them.

Or when your party doesn't have a viable candidate in your area and you vote for the next closest candidate.

It also gives each electorate representation in parliament. Isn't it pretty much that simple then to explain why it is the way it is? So clearly if there is an MP who is great for your electorate, you want them to represent you andy our electorate on a national level.

I didn't say it was a new concept. I just just linking to the fact that the Greens were blatantly saying they are going to try and abuse it.

It's not abuse. Everyone has been doing this since the start of MMP, it's a key feature of the system.

l2MMP IMO.

Sure they have done it, but not to this extent. If everyone was pushing for this it would **** the MMP system wouldn't it?

It wouldn't do anything because the result would still be proportional.

Examples from last election were:

The Epsom electorate and the "keep them honest" campaign/meme by all the minor parties, getting people to vote split.

MysticNZ wrote: Sure they have done it, but not to this extent. If everyone was pushing for this it would **** the MMP system wouldn't it?

Not really. That was obviously a possibility when the separate party vote was introduced, otherwise they'd just take the local candidate you voted for and used that for your party vote. It's all an intended part of the system, based specifically on the idea of proportional representation.
Which is worse:
Under FPP, 10% of the country could support a party, but unless they won an electorate seat, they get nothing.
Under MMP, A party can get no electorate seats, but if 10% of the country support them, they get a few MPs.
I'd say the former is much worse. It's what makes a third party almost impossible in the US system.

Fine if you guys want to be dicks about it you only get one vote and it is the party vote. No local MPs.

Couch wrote: Fine if you guys want to be dicks about it you only get one vote and it is the party vote. No local MPs.

Yeah see list MP's are the thing I hate about the present system. They are parasitic prats with no direct accountability to the public. I know why you have to have them but I just think they are less accountable for how they act then electorate MP's. After all they are there to toe the party line. So lets do this, sack all the list MP's, give each party enough 'votes' that can be voted by the leader of the party. You still get proportinately, you get a better outcome re people voting for party policies and we get to save millions in wages and perks:P

That's actually not a bad idea. But what about parties that wouldn't otherwise get their leader in parliament? How do they proportionately vote when they have no MP's?

Let the leader sit in the house but in a section reserved for those parties who do not have an electorate seat. You could also lower the limit then, all you would need is enough percentage of the vote to hold one full vote, so that would be 1/120th of the general vote.