Posts by Steven Peters
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Keir Leslie,
I agree Leslie - very good points. the same ideologies that drive national level politicians and politics, operate at the local level - but a bit more 'down home and folksy'. It would be better if candidates and local body 'groupings' were more transparent in their allegiances. However, the convoluted STV voting system would not enable voters to divide power in ways that reflect the diversity in local communities, particular in providing representation to marginalized groups. But maybe that is its real
purpose. -
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to BenWilson,
Yes I took what you said at face value. So you want to see independent MP's who can act according to their 'own' conscience, and not part of a collective conscience ie a party. I would argue that a collective conscience can integrate a far larger amount of information from all its parts than can any individual conscience. A collective of individual consciences, working upon one another, can produce better social solutions ' than any individual conscience can, because it is more attuned to the collective, or society. A collective conscience is far greater than the sum of its parts. That is not to say that individual conscience is not important, as it is the fundamental unit of our society (or should be), but is just less 'social' than the collective, less complex, and less integrated with 'society', and it is also more influenced by the 'anti-social' individual ego.
Secondly, is not the so-called 'independent' representative, just an embodiment of his/her constituents, just like a party is a body which is representative of its own constituents?
I said above that the left right electorate cleavage is still dominant, but it is not the only one. Others, such as the social liberal vs conservative, and environmental sustainability vs consumption are also present, but are either loosely related or subsumed by the traditional economic.
how would it be possible to include 'every dimension' within a a representative polity. Isn't that a theory form of anarchism in that, every individual view and its opposing view, would have to have a representative? Or failing that, we do not a 'representatives'in a social polity, as each individual is there own 'representative? Society is dead? -
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to BenWilson,
Yes it was addressed to you, as in '.the most horrifying thought of all is that the party system might break down completely, and individuals might vote according their own views of right and wrong'. I am not sure that 'representative government' prohibits parties from acting as representatives, as you assert. I thought MMP came about because of a strong desire on the part of some to improve on our FPP plurality system, which was unfair to parties in terms of seats gained for votes, and therefore highly disproportional, and excluded minority groups/small parties.
The left-right dichotomy is broken up somewhat? I would argue it still is the dominant electoral cleavage, Nat on the centre right, Labour and Greens centre left, and NZ First traditional centre. The proposals by the electoral commission proposals entrench this 'choice', in my view. -
From what you are saying, are you in favour of a lowered threshold, or against it? I personally wouldn't have any problem with 60 individual parties or independents in the House, because in theory, each would be different from any other, and have their own basis of support, or voters who want that person/party to represent them. But this is highly unlikely to happen in practice, as MP's with similar fundamental principles would wish to gain strength in numbers, and coalesce..
But is this the issue, as even with a 4% threshold, theoretically we could have 13 or 14 parties in the house, or is it more than this? So I don't see what the panic is about reducing the threshold, unless it is set in order to preserve the status quo of parties, and therefore existing unequal power relationships between social groups within society. In my view, our democracy doesn't belong to parties, it belongs to voters. -
Not all are opposed to more parties in Parliament Ben, if by that you mean a lower threshold than 4% (a lower threshold does not necessarily mean more parties in Parliament) . Mana, wants a one seat threshold, and the Maori party wants it lowered also. Besides, other parties who are opposed are responding to the electoral commission tandem proposal to remove the one seat threshold, and retain a high pvt at 4%. Nat has relied on one seat parties for coalition partners, and there is nothing in the EC proposal for Act or United to support, and everything in it to oppose. It says something about the Electoral Commission, proposing self destruction for parties already in the House - guaranteeing hostility.
Your analysis of engineering party support for a reduced pvt (What exactly is the threshold you are proposing Tussock) if fairly thorough, but it doesn't seem to include what the electorate thinks would be desirable, or how the issues around the party vote threshold might be aired so that they could make more informed judgments to communicate to the parties. -
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to tussock,
The evidence from last election shows that vastly Increased expenditure per vote does not translate into significantly more votes (i.e. Conservatives and Act). I agreet that we will end up with four parties, so its FPP lite, which is a continuation of our long history of two dominant parties, unfortunately. If you think we will get to five, who is the fifth?
You suggest an organised 'movement' (I agree), but what you propose comprises four difficult challenges 1. Increase participation (good luck - decreasing participation is a world wide trend, is inevitable given our high threshold, and arguably, non participation is a legitimate expression of the electorate). 2.Deliver 100k votes to one of the two major parties (an onerous undertaking) . 4. Get one of the two main parties to ''promise' to fix the system (yeah right). 5. Get the 'no seat' parties on board (once ejected from parliament - small parties tend to dissolve).You also argue that you would like to support 'giving small minorities a voice', but then say that they would be ineffective in parliament. So you think it is a waste of time?. I could never agree with the 'small parties are ineffective'' argument because they provide representation to their voters, a political voice of their own, which to me is a basic democratic right.NZ has a history of small parties that have had significant, sometimes crucial, political roles, not withstanding the fact that they provide representation for voters. Every vote in the house is an effective vote, sometimes one vote is crucially important in what is, after all, a numbers game. Furthermore, every voice in the house contributes to the 'sui generis' nature of parliament, and as such, is a more accurate reflection of our society.
Your intuition is spot on regarding what we are going to end up with in the house, with Winston Peters enjoying a powerful role between the two dominant parties. But is this a true reflection of our diverse society, and its values?
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to tussock,
Well said tussock. I agree with your the basic analysis for a better democracy. However as I see it, the problem is that the current MMP settings favour the continued National AND Labour centrist oligarchy. Both sought to stop MMP and hence a better democracy. I expect they, as well as the Greens and NZ First (the significant players next coalition government negotiations), will resist more meaningful reductions to the party vote threshold than 4% (or even 3%), as it undermines their own vote. If my take on this is correct, what is your solution?
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to BenWilson,
Thanks for this Ben, will reply more fully later (still waiting for Graeme's comment).
Meanwhile, can anyone confirm for me that any changes proposed by the Electoral Commission review, would require a 75% (absolute) majority to pass in the House to be enacted, and not merely an overall majority of Government over opposition. -
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Why do you support 'no party vote threshold', Graeme, given the prevailing arguments, as advanced by the Electoral Commission, that this will/might lead to a multiplicity of parties in the Parliament, 'fragmenting' it, making government 'less effective' and allegedly making coalitions more tenuous.
-
'There does not have to be consensus about the meaning of consensus, especially in politics. Besides, its a c word, like 'consultation'.