Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Can you wear boots on tentacles?
I make no apologies for my harsh language. In a democracy, the people should rule. I think it is fair to say that some people in this thread are not interested in that, but rather in shutting out voices they consider "irritating" and limiting the people's choices (and in the process, stacking the outcome in their favour). Those views are bad and horrible and undemocratic, and if people don't like being called that, then I suggest they change their minds.
-
I think that a threshold (say 4%) sets a minimum bar that is more likely to mean a substantial movement is required to get elected rather than single issue irritants, which I'm happy to put my hand up and say, should not in and of themselves justify representation in parliament.
Then you are not a democrat. Sorry, but you're not. And language such as "single issue irritants" makes that crystal clear.
Whether our Parliament consists of a few big, broad parties or many smaller, narrower ones is properly a decision for voters - not self-interested big parties.
(Oh, and full disclosure here: James Caygill is the architect of Labour's current position).
-
Removing the coattails mechanism does not make the system "fairer". It's just that instead of being unfair to 95,000 voters, we'd have a system that was unfair to 180,000 voters.
And which would suit the big parties very well indeed. Which is why e.g. Labour is advocating such changes.
-
Keir: its procedurally unfair. But its substantively fairer than the alternative of excluding everyone.
YMOV, but I prefer substance over process.
-
It might make it less proportional, but proportionality is not the be all and end all of an electoral system.
Actually, it is. Proportionality - the result reflecting the votes cast - is the signifier of a democratic electoral system. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply trying to sell you something (and usually something unpleasant).
-
Nope -- if you think its "unfair", you do away with it entirely and learn to live with the prospect of Kyle Chapman and Brian The Bish having direct influence over your life or leave it alone. It seems to me that just tinkering with it is trying to have a bob each way and as my Nan nused to say the only place you can do that is at the races.
Yeah, but you opposed civil unions too.
I'll take any improvement that I can get. And all other things being equal, any reduction in the threshold is an improvement.
-
Well there is the old chestnut of "stability" that everyone always brings up.
Yes - including the Royal Commission. But they were writing in a two-party era, where change seemed frightening. Having actually experienced six-party politics, and even ten-party politics briefly, I don't think we have anything to fear. Parties simply have to talk to one another, that's all. Again, foreign thinking to big-party supporters who see minor parties as an impediment to ramming through their programme - but that attitude is why we changed in the first place.
We've seen that governments can get confidence and supply quite easily despite wild differences with support parties. We've seen that they can govern effectively, and formulate and enact a policy programme despite those differences. We've seen that they can survive party breakups and changes of allegiance. Contrary to initial fears, we haven't seen frequent collapses or Israeli-style insanity. Our political culture does not swing that way; parties know we expect them to cooperate and keep their deals, and that we will punish Winston-style shenannigans.
MMP has given us stable government. And lowering the threshold and letting our democracy expand to its full potential won't change that.
-
It's not automatic that people who think there should be restrictions on representation are 'in' arguing against those that are 'out'.
No. But it seems to be the most common position in practice.
There will always be restrictions on representation. The number of MPs in parliament always sets a minimum barrier, of about 0.8%. Anyone who gets below that won't make it under any system you set up.
Indeed, and I explicitly acknowledge that. But people aren't arguing about that - they're arguing that there should be restrictions above and beyond those imposed by the size of Parliament. And again, I think the onus is on those arguing for such limits to justify them, and say why people (and almost always people other than themselves) should be silenced.
-
Keir: you are missing the point. This isn't about whether we treat people equitably (equals "equally shittly"), its about whether we treat them equally and give everyone an equal democratic voice.
Yes, the ACT - NZ First outcome is inequitable. But that's not the question - the question is what to do about it. And here it boils down to democracy: do we respond by counting people in or out? I'm for giving people a voice. But that's because I recognise that unless I do, I have no moral basis for demanding a voice for myself.
-
Would one call the Labour Coalition a successful MMP government, I feel they did little more than stay in power for 9 years?
Yes, I would. They achieved a large amount of their policy goals, constrained intheir final term by a lack of common ground with their support parties (and even then, they found somewhere they could keep working together). In the process, they also showed what a more consensual Parliament looked like. Wheras ATM we're seeing the opposite: a government with an easy majority ramming through whatever it wants under urgency - just like they did in the 80's.