Posts by Steven Peters
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Brent Jackson,
I agree with your frustration regarding the Electoral Commission. However,t MMP was a 'mistake' on the part of politicians, and who have tried to practice infanticide at any opportunity. I do not think the three person Electoral Commission, one former judge, one bureaucrat, and one professional company director (who happens to be have Maori ancestry), will do much different, as they themselves are exemplars of the existing establishment, and that boat rocked should be rocked without 'great caution', I mean, it might sink, and how would all of you in the river manage without us in our boat watching over you, benignly?
The maturation of a fairer electoral system in NZ owes much to a few politicians, Sir G Palmer particularly, and John Terris, and notably Phil Saxby and others in the Electoral reform coalition, and of course, to the NZ people.While there is a real sense of loss at a wasted opportunity, I think it will be up to the people again to to assert their belief in a fairer electoral system, notably a lower PV threshold. I think people ho support this idea need to start thinking about how we can organize ourselves to work making that an achievable goal.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
the importance of possible changes to MMP. The more I read from back-blogs and news paper pieces (notably John Armstrong and Bryce Edwards), the more Machiavellian the whole thing becomes.
in your comment,"My support for it is more from the “right to representation” - do you mean "to 'equal' representation"? -
Ah we are in agreement - The right to representation. What comes after, in my view, is in the lap of the gods, but as long as it is not stopped from happening (within reason) .
I liken having a high threshold, preventing smaller groups from being represented, to the model of 'power and control' used in domestic violence. It is the more powerful figure controlling the options and natural wants and needs of the less powerful. As they say, all oppression has to be maintained by some sort of violence, overt or covert. -
"I guess I’d call an ethnic minority party a single issue one, to the extent that they make their only point of difference that they are the representatives of that minority, and don’t make it clear what their intended policy is"
Their policy would be derived from the same source as the dominant parties, their particular world view, and interests - which they are entitled to hold.
"Harawira broke off when it became clear to him that it wasn’t really about representing Maori as the poorest people in this country, and more about furthering the interests of tribal power".
Yes how
Yes the Maori party will have divisions within it, particularly given the difficulties they face balancing working for Maori, and at the same time with a coalition arrangement with National, the diametric opposite of historical Maori representation. Ideally there should be room for these divisions to flourish, and be represented somehow either in Parliament, in a broader church of 'Maori parties'."ironically, put in place as a reaction to Brash’s alarmist reaction to the absence of such an Act"
I would say put in place cynically, as a naked grab to maintain power. It was also an act of betrayal to Maori who (foolishly) continued to put their trust in Labour patronage. Its quite humorous really. Very loosely, Brash stuffed up Labor's chance of govt, lost national an election, and stuffed the ACT part. He is the Monsieur Hulot of NZ politics, long may he entertain us. .Yes the need for coalition is a great leveler. The more parties in parliament to add to the coalition mix, the richer the recipe, the larger, more equitably shared and more nutritious the pie.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
I don't claim to have all the right answers, but is it is correct to say that because a party seeks to represent an ethnic group, it is thereby defined as 'single issue', as you assert (I would call that a glib Helen Clark neologism).. Such a party sees many of the issues that face us all, through the lens of its own particular world view, which is something other, so called representative parties, which were established by, and for, the world view of another ethnic group, cannot do. The established parties in NZ have done an appalling job of 'representing' the interest and aspirations of Maori in NZ. That's why we have the Waitangi tribunal, I would have thought, to uncover the ways and means that were used to disinherit Maori, and how we may reimburse what has been stolen (although that is not really possible).
I don't find it difficult to understand why minority ethnic groups are under represented, and majority groups over represented.
I would not be so bold as to say the weed party may never get a representative, or become part of some sort of alliance, and get someone in that way. They had a very sobering harvest of votes one particular year.I don't believe the system has worked well for Maori, just as an example, and still doesn't. Its going to take more than ' a while' to address the issue of Maori inequality, and the racism in our society. The best party(s) to keep it on the agenda are those with that aim as touchstone. I am not sure exactly what Labour and the Nats have as their basic modus operandi, but it ain't that, as history shows.
-
Yes I think Maori loyalties are divided across party lines. Its quite a complex subject really, the Maori vote. The Maori party recently decided to change their strategy, and not ignore the party vote in future, as they have been doing, which may go some way to explain their low party vote. A party vote for the Maori party would (have0 been seen as a wasted vote. Given the lower turnout of Maori, they are probably not over represented in terms of electoral population.
dont take my word for it, as the points I have been making about the poor representation for minorities, particularly Maori, have already been made by the Royal Commission. They said the existing system of separate Maori representation, and its monopoly by the Labour Party, did not serve Maori well. Hence the reason they wished to see the 5% threshold dropped for them, and also suggested the same may be desirable for Pacific Islanders. They also suggested the abolition of the Maori seats, of course, and were fully aware of the role the seats had in signaling Maori tangata whenua status (which of course, must be preserved at all costs, I am sure you agree). I don't think merely dropping the threshold did that for Maori and special treatment for Maori on the threshold would have been palatable to pakeha. Still wouldn't. However, if the Maori seats are abolished, which is getting more probable, it might be a sweetener. -
I personally don't blame Maori for their representational, or any of the other inequalities they face in our society. It is the dominant sections of pakeha society that have determined the social and political structures of our society, not Maori. To me that's basic NZ history.
The Maori party, the first time such a party has appeared in Parliament, have to compete for the votes of Maori against all other parties. On top of that, they have to pass 5%, yet the population of Maori voters is only about 10% of the electoral population, and their vote is split between the Maori, and General roll. These are sum of the reasons it is discriminatory. I mean, that's politics, or rather, racist politics. . -
Of the three main minority ethnic groups, only one has made it into parliament, and that via the Maori electorate (the Maori Party - which is struggling). I think this points to the underlying racism of our society, and our electoral system.
"but in the end, we’re in agreement".
That is definitely a misrepresentation of my position. -
I was interested to read this morning, in The Politics of Electoral Systems, that Arend Lijphart opts for the Danish system of PR as the closest to his ideal model. Very low threshold (about 2%) - but a more complex system than NZ. Very stable, and still not many parties in the parliament.
I was also interested to read in the same volume that "proportional representation correlated with higher numbers of parliamentary parties, but it is not very strong"..Isn't the Electoral Commission due to submit its final proposals to parliament about now?
-
"Or indeed, might not ever happen. The need for this has been urgent for 50 years now".
It will happen. I am aware of the continuing calls for reform of the UN security council, but am not aware that it has been 'urgent' for 50years. In the last 20years, the security council has proved impotent time and again to act against gross abuses of human rights, and is losing its losing its legitimacy within the UN, the community of nations, and civil society. This undermines the legitimacy of the UN system, and hence its continued existence. I don't see a ground swell for the abandonment of the UN system, but I do for the security council."I didn’t question that, I question whether it’s a useful model for a democratic nation"
I think one equal vote per individual participant in national elections is an excellent model for democratic nations.
"Yup, it’s a forum, not a parliament. This is also a forum and some of the things we discuss pass into law. Eventually, if the actual governments decide to do so.
OK, its a forum. But if the governments decide to pass regardless of what the view of the wider forum is, they don't have much future.
"Except…it has happened several times. They just have to win an electorate".
Electorates are first past the post - I though you were pro MMP?. Parties shouldn't have to win lotto to get into the house, and if the Electoral Commissions views, and the public's, are heeded, it will no longer be possible (unless you win lotto, and it stays around for a while, but ultimately, it isn't MMP, and will go, because it will keep on creating unfairness in election results)."One’s ethnicity is surely one of the most important factors in deciding whether one represents an ethnicity"
Hell no. I do not believe claiming or belonging to a particular ethnicity, is sufficient grounds to believe that someone 'represents members of this ethnicity'. That is a very dangerous assumption to make, IMHO. The most crucial factor, and arguably the only genuinely democratic one, is when "a pol. party claims that they seek to represent the interests and aspirations of (our) ethnic group", and then see what sort of support they get. In this country, it would be very difficult for any ethnic group, except of course pakeha, to be able to do this and reach the 5% threshold."women have increased their presence in the halls of power, but how has that translated into equality for women?" I think this proves my point in some ways. It doesnt matter how many women pms we have had, or how many women you put in the house, unless their politics is based on representing women, it is only make-up.
.
There’s never been any guarantee that being able to elect a representative that represents you will improve your lot. The electoral system can aim only for equality of representation, it’s up to the representatives (and everyone else, for that matter) to be seeking other kinds of equality"Well I think the history of our political system proves that if you are able to elect a representative that will represent you will improve your lot. The figures show who have not had much improvement in their lot, the unrepresented
The only thing I ask of the electoral system is exactly what you say, equality of representation (Don't forget, my threshold for 'representation' is higher than yours)..
And this is what MMP was designed to deliver for electors. It was the aim of the Royal Commission that our electoral system give a. Fairness between pol parties. – in the interests of fairness and equality, the number of seats gained by a political party should be proportional to the number of voters who support that party. b.Effective representation of minority interests.and also
c. Effective voter participation – the votes of all electors should be of equal weight in influencing election results.