|
9th November 2008, 13:57 | #1 | |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
MMP lulz
Spotted at No Right Turn:
Quote:
I guess we can also have metalulz at the fact that, now NZ looks like having a centre-right government elected under MMP, left-leaning commentators are decrying MMP as being TEH EVIL!!1. |
|
9th November 2008, 14:16 | #2 |
Love In Vein
|
happyish with the result, but it needs to be fixed for sure
|
9th November 2008, 14:53 | #3 |
|
So working on No Right Turns logic Bill & Ben should have a seat in Parliament? I'm in agreement that MMP needs to change. STV or a derivative of that should be looked at.
|
9th November 2008, 14:54 | #4 |
|
don't forget maori party - 2.2% with 5 MPs
|
9th November 2008, 15:18 | #5 |
|
Don't ACT get in only because they won an electorate?
|
9th November 2008, 15:22 | #6 |
|
yes, as do maori party
|
9th November 2008, 18:08 | #7 |
|
Of course it's a lie of omission to just say it that way, or just simple trolling. We all know how it works.
__________________
Kevin: You know, when we actually do unleash the dragons... Mike: When we do, right. Kevin: Oh yeah, when we do, I would hope that we're smart enough to attempt a doctrine of appeasement with them, you know we offer them, I don't know, New Zealand in exchange for them not burning down my house,.. Ah, I mean our houses. Mike: Good Kevin, that's real brave. Mike Nelson & Kevin Murphy - Reign of Fire Rifftrax
|
9th November 2008, 18:11 | #8 |
|
I don't think its broken. You get in with either winning your electorate or if your party gets 5%. Winston got in last time because his party reached the 5% thredhold, not because he was voted in.
|
10th November 2008, 01:41 | #9 |
|
And time before that he only got in cause he won his electorate by 68 votes. His luck finally ran out.
MMP isn't perfect, its just one of the least imperfect systems out there, a lot better than FPP. Last edited by Dalcon : 10th November 2008 at 01:42. |
10th November 2008, 01:44 | #10 |
Stunt Pants
|
I want to vote FPP on a binding referendum. I say this because it is my hope that most Green supporters will instead support Labour and thus marginalise the Greens.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
10th November 2008, 01:52 | #11 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
MMP is great where the Greens are concerned. Because their supporters are so fucking retarded, they don't know the difference between electorate and party votes.
|
10th November 2008, 01:59 | #12 |
|
Question, i know its not really the place but it didnt warrent its own thread.
Can some of you intellectual types please explain to me why a party has to be left/ right wing and why they automatically have to reject the “opposite” .
Being of the lowest common demonstrator I can’t understand why I have to pick a party that polarizes the other. (all thou I have to admit this year everyone’s going “centralist” ) Often I find my self leaning heavily towards one or the other, depending on the subject matter. For example I would gladly vote for a party that was pro capital punishment, yet I would not sport one that was pro life. Is it possible for such a part to exist or by this definition (I.e. extreme left + extreme right) dose it make it center? Why cant say the Labor party and the National party decide to enter a coalition together? Is that even possible, or am I dreaming the impossible. |
10th November 2008, 02:00 | #13 | |
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|
10th November 2008, 02:04 | #14 | |||||
Stunt Pants
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not an intellectual explanation, but I need an excuse for not going to bed now despite having to be up a 6.30 tomorrow. La lala lalala laaaa.
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
|||||
10th November 2008, 05:54 | #15 | |
|
Quote:
It's great for me as I don't like my vote being thrown away in a futile effort to get rid of Peter Dunne. (voted green) |
|
10th November 2008, 06:14 | #16 |
|
It was unlikly NZF would make it in before the election, but it was likly that the leaders of Act, UF and possibly a few others would. This left the greens, Labour and National as the key partys to deal with. So where some would normaly vote for NZF for example, it was infact better to place the vote with Labour instead to limit Nationals power to try and force them into a minority position which would help keep them in check.
Unfortunately the old folks didnt figure that out and voted for NZF wasting a good chunk of votes which could have been well used in Labour instead. MMP is a fantastic system, pitty most poeple dont know how to use it...despite voting for it. Im guessing national will try and get rid of it, along with many state assests. |
10th November 2008, 08:23 | #17 | |
|
Quote:
|
|
10th November 2008, 08:41 | #18 | |
Here be dragons
|
Quote:
__________________
Peace. |
|
10th November 2008, 09:17 | #19 |
|
Meh, gotta get used to fucktards like him that try to calm their own guilt by hating on the only non selfish party out there. While they return Roger Douglas to power. Nice.
Anyone that thinks FPP is better than MMP shouldn't even be allowed to vote because they certainly don't want any kind of real representation. AB proves his denseness by trying to point out a tiny blur in representation in MMP, while in FPP that vote change would be so much larger. Any kind of ranking system is just terrible and leads to far less representation. Anyone that whinges about too many parties almost always votes National, simply because they have an almost monopoly of the right. If a couple large parties turned up on the right it'd be no different. And it's just more representative of the population. |
10th November 2008, 10:29 | #20 |
|
under FPP, people would vote who they really want to govern the country, not play the political games of "we need a couple of those to keep them honest", etc. If FPP was in place, the results would be vastly different.
|
10th November 2008, 10:59 | #21 | |
Raptus regaliter
|
Quote:
|
|
10th November 2008, 11:14 | #22 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Ξ √ Ω L U T ↑ ☼ N وكل يوم كنت تعيش في العبودية |
|
10th November 2008, 11:26 | #23 | |
Nothing to See Here!
|
Quote:
You just have to look at the current results. Labour got 33.8% of the party vote, they should have got 41 seats after rounding, instead they get 43 because of the votes that "don't count" under the threshold. If the threshold was reduced, those 2 extra seats instead go to one of the minor parties, which in this case would have been NZF (ugh). |
|
10th November 2008, 21:07 | #24 | ||
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10th November 2008, 21:22 | #26 |
|
YES! Kill the threshold!
|
10th November 2008, 23:49 | #27 |
Stunt Pants
|
That's it. I'm running for the Bill & Ben Party in my electorate - Helensville. That's right, FUCK YOU JOHN KEY!
__________________
I just want to understand this, sir. Every time a rug is micturated upon in this fair city, I have to compensate the owner? |
10th November 2008, 23:56 | #28 |
|
I wonder who they would decide between them as to who gets the seat... Bill or Ben?
Or maybe they could jobshare? |
11th November 2008, 00:41 | #29 |
|
That kind of counterfactual analysis is pretty unrealistic, mainly because if there were no 5% threshold, the campaign strategy would have been very different, and that would probably mean completely different outcome. If there were no threshold, Winston Peters probably wouldn't bother with his electorate and just campaign nationally, it is possible he could get more party vote that way.
It is like the American election, people ask what would happen if US president is not decided by electoral college but popular vote? They say Gore would have won in 2000 if it is decided by popular vote. (As a matter of fact Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.) I say there is simple no fact of matter to answer that question, because if there were no electoral college, the campaign strategy would have been very different, they wouldn't 'give up' on any state (e.g. Republicans gave up on California, Democrats gave up on Texas). The outcome, therefore, would have been very different and would be quite different from the actual results. In fact, I think 2008 election is overwhelmingly Obama, even though the popular vote is reasonably tight (I think it is 52:47 to Obama). Obama won the electoral vote by a country mile and a half, and because each campaign was DESIGNED to win electoral vote and not popular vote, therefore the electoral vote majority really shows how far Obama is ahead. |
11th November 2008, 05:27 | #30 | |
Word To Your Motherboard!
|
Quote:
|
|
11th November 2008, 12:21 | #31 |
Nasty Butler
|
I don't have a problem with MMP other than maybe the threshold is too high (or should be removed, shrug).
While I don't like Winston it seems a bit unfair that NZF got the 4th largest number of votes but didn't get a seat. Also, removing the threshold would change the way people vote and thus wouldn't give ben and bill a seat (well maybe) because people would know that they wouldn't need as big a percentage to get in. While this election didn't turn out they way I would prefer, MMP is still vastly superior to FPP. While it would be quite nice to have a purely "party vote" system I do like having a local mp as your channel into government (keeps em honest when they've been voted in by the locals) and so MMP is a good meet in the middle for me. I also have no trouble with electorate mp's getting in when they didn't receive the equiv in party vote. If they're an individual that a region wants to represent them then sweet as, the current problem is that they might bring others in which would be moot if the threshhold was removed/lowered. |
11th November 2008, 12:27 | #32 |
A mariachi ogre snorkel
|
...unlike a couple of thousand Green supporters in Ohariu :/
|
11th November 2008, 13:08 | #33 | |
Word To Your Motherboard!
|
Quote:
|
|
11th November 2008, 13:16 | #34 | |
|
Quote:
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
|
11th November 2008, 13:24 | #35 |
Word To Your Motherboard!
|
Ōhariu Candidates
CHAUVEL, Charles LAB 10080 DUNNE, Peter Francis UFNZ 11250 HUGHES, Gareth GP 2229 |
11th November 2008, 13:28 | #36 |
|
I thought it might be something like that. That is weak. Why did the Greens run an against Labour there for? Surely they had poll data suggesting it might turn out like that.
__________________
Stay shook. No sook. |
12th November 2008, 17:32 | #37 | |
|
word
Quote:
|
|
12th November 2008, 17:34 | #38 |
|
I wanted Nats to win and I still think MMP sucks balls.
|
12th November 2008, 20:29 | #40 |
Word To Your Motherboard!
|
I quite like STV but I'm not sure the average voter would get it.
Also I think as long as NZ has one 'house' of representatives MMP is a good option. Under FPP the leading party could do wtf they wanted for then entire period. Last edited by Farmer Joe : 12th November 2008 at 20:31. |