I think we should keep MMP, but inrease Parliament to 200 MPs, and make 99 electorates.

The Maori electorates should stay, and remain tagged to how many voters are enrolled on the Maori roll.

For a party to get into Parliament, it should take at least 1% of the party vote - how any votes it would take to get 2 MPs. This would make it easier for minor parties to get into Parliament, making Parliament more representative. It would lead to parties like Aotearoa Legalise Cannibis and Destiny getting into Parliament, but I think if they get 1% of the vote they probably deserve to be there. Hell, Libertarianz would probably make it, as well the Alliance. I think the more parties we have, the better - it would put pressure on Labour and National to deliver. At the moment, we have a situation where if three of the Minor parties get 4% of the vote, and one of the major parties get 45%, then the major party would rule alone. 45% is not a satisfactory mandate for me.

I would also look at introducing a rule, by which the votes which don't go towards a party aren't used against those peoples intentions. There was the spectre this election of ACT or the Greens getting 4% of the vote, but that vote being redistributed towards all of the rest of Parliament (especially Labour and National), which would have distorted their voting intentions.

What we could do is look at not redistributing votes that don't go towards Parliamentry parties., so if Party A is entitled to 33% of the vote, but all other parties are below the 1% threshold, Party A only gets 33% of Parliament of the list seats in Parliament. As there are 99 electorate MPs, we would be Guarenteed of a Parliament that has some representation, and the List aspect of Parliament couldn't be used to Gerrymander Parliament, but simply ensure that one party couldn't rule unfairly.

Interesting ideas. Don't agree on the 200 MPs/1% bit, but I do support not wasting votes.

I'd prefer we had a Transferrable Vote MMP system where you order your top X preferred parties and MPs. That way people would be less worried about making strategic votes and more worried about who they actualy want to vote for.

STV on the Party Vote would be an insane nightmare a) for people voting and B) for people counting the results, but we could move to STV on the electorates.

I prefer a larger Parliament, with a Cabinet to 33, but with backbenchers being paid less.

Cabinet Ministers save money - you have to hire a lot of beauracrats in their place if they aren't there, and they tend to have less oversight if there are less people overseeing them.

The more MPs we have the more represented the people are. Of course, it doesn't make much sense to go to the extreme of 1 MP/1 voter, in a parliamentry system founded on the principle of expert Government.

Further on STV, I must stress that STV suffers the exact same problem as FPP, in that across a whole nation the outcome can be very distorted. If you have 100 electorates, and Party A wins 51 of them by a majority of 1% in each, and Party B wins 49 of them with a majority of 20% in each, the people will have resoundingly spoken in favour of Party B, but Party A has the Treasury Benches.

The only advantage STV has is that people can vote for their candidate of choice without fear of splitting their vote and ultimately electing an MP they don't want.

Ok, B) turns into a smiley. Thats b ) without the space between.

Also, I missed MrT's point on strategic voting. I think if the threshold for parties is at 1% (Thats less than the amount of people in one electorate if you have 99 of them) which means strategic voting only becomes a concern if your party is VERY VERY VERY fringe indeed.

Strategic voting for more than 99% of the population wouldn't become a problem, except for the split between local candidates and party.

Having 99 electorates would also make it easier, I believe, for independent candidates to win seats, which is better for democracy.

For a country of our population size, there is simply too many MPs, if we increase the number of electorates or MPs, there will be a lot more bickering in parliament. Less MPs also mean less taxation, since they feed off our tax dollars with their 100,000 annual income. MMP is also a load of horse shit since you bring in all these lunatic fringe groups pretending to be parties. Overall, more efficiency and less arguing should be important.

A) I said we'd pay our backbenchers less, and I also made the point that more Ministers means less beauracracy and more efficient beauracracy. Also, out of the whole tax take, which is billions and billions of dollars, $800,000 is hardly noticeble, if it is for a worthy cause.

B) There is an imporant principle here: which is that the people deserve to be represented. Rather than focus on the relatively minor issue of cost (80 extra MPs just isn't a big cost in the larger scheme of things) I think most people would prefer a Parliament in which their point of view was heard, than one in which they had 21 less MPs, and Parliament was ruled by people who represented only 30% of the population. This goes for the two issues of MMP and 200 MPs. Who would want a Parliament where the Greens, New Zealand First, United Future, the Maori Party, the Progressives and ACT could not exist? All of these parties have made our Parliament so much better.

C) Considering your fetish for guns, exactly who is the "lunatic fringe" here?

Not really. They simply made their stand, fail to make any significant differences to policy, create bickering, and dilute votes.

Hey! I'm not advocating some bullshit 'guns for everybody' idea. Lunatic fringe groups are the parties that concern themselves on single issues or one set of ideas to solve all the problems, NZ 1st and the Greens are examples.

I'm not a fuckin' libertarian, but I know about their organized turkey shoot in order to woo votes.

It's a shame that for every one decent small party MMP brings in, you get another five retarded parties.

I think thats the most out of touch assesment of MMP I've ever heard. Everywhere you look you can see the Minor Parties influence on policy and law. The CUA, the PRA (Green), Kiwibank (Alliance), Foreshore and Seabed (NZF), Family Commission, tax bracket adjustments 2008 (UF), Economic development strategy (Jimbo's PC), Putting Crime, the Treaty and Taxes on the agenda: (ACT).

It enables people to elect a Parliament more representative of their opinion.

"Dilute votes"? Only if you were already voting Labour or National. But frankly, the idea a vote can be "diluted" is antithetical to the entire concept of Democracy, and is fascist.

Well, there are six new parties in Parliament. Which is the good one (to you) and which are the five retarded ones?

My guess is that you like ACT, outside chance NZF.

Without MMP, those minor parties would be standing in some street corner protesting. With the MMP option, they manage to take votes off National and Labour. The former system of almost strictly two parties was certainly not fascist as many democracies have two distinctive major parties that represent the interests of the left and right (theoretically, at least).

Representation is the cornerstone of democracy, however if it's totally representative like Athenian democracy, then I'm sure it'll be even less efficient than it is now. In terms of infrastructural developments, we've managed to let a country in the Far East called China outshine us.

A Chinese city would have built ten bridges by the time construction even begins for a second harbor bridge for our beloved city. The problem lies in the way where everybody's fuckin' opinion needs to be heard and it's always those who pretend to be victims that get the best out off this system of RMA bondage.

We want more power, now we've settled for a cleaner option of wind farms, but down near Wellington, some locals oppose the greater good of the turbines that shall bring to this country. I'm sure the rest of the bloody country wants sdtrict electriticy rationing like in pre-nuclearized Japan as much as those lunatics do.

When there's too much representation in democracy, it's only the voters that get hurt!

I actually think we should pay them all a lot more in order to provide incentives for good/skilled people to come on board.

Although I would never want them to be the majority party (and that will never happen), yes it is Act. I wasn't being exact with my numbers, to be fair the rational:retarded ratio could even be as low as 1:3.

The only parties that I like that have managed to get into parliament this time are National, Labour, and Act.

"In tens years time, you will not be able to recognize Germany."

- Adolf Hitler


From the level of bickering your changes would make, I'm sure NZ would head into a path of destruction.

ACT is only different to National by name. LOL

Both of these issues are simple matters of technology and can be easily minimized via computer based voting.

Wouldn't hired people be more qualified/skilled for that particular position rather an a politican? Yes, MPs can have relevant background but it doesn't automatically make them suitable for the job.

Are you talking party or electorate vote here? For electorate vote, this is no different from the existing system or a system with more MPs. For party vote this won't apply.

I propose a new system of electing public officials, whereby we vote for who we DON'T want in parliament.

Hang on, wouldn't there be a list of those already there and how will new members be replenished? I can so imagine your 'Survivor: Parliament*'.


*Out vote, out bribe, out play.

=====================================================

Well, look on the bright side, at least this country ain't got a Communist insurgency happening like Nepal. LOL!

I'd love to be able to cast negative votes, but I hate so many of the parties that it would be hard to choose.

Eventually, you tick every option off and leave the last one (or two) to show your true vote. This is just like the current method but only working backwards (in a mathematically negative sense).

Negative votes would be good if you don't really mind who wins as long as one party in particular loses. It would also allow tards like Destiny NZ to end up with a negative vote total as the entire angry atheist population downvotes them.

Scuzza, I think that what you are saying is fair enough, but it may complicate things....From what I can gather alot of people dont fully understand MMP as it is. Stick with it as it is I say - no system is perfect.

Thank your lucky stars that you don't have to put up with FFP.

Yes, it's true that countries without any real checks on state power are able to do things rather quickly. Since you know so much about totalitarian systems, this may not be news to you; but you might wish to bear in mind that some people might be willing to have increased bureacracy and slower development for the sake of having fairer representation.

And gee, it always makes me smile when I see people bitching about the RMA as state bondage. Over 2003 and 2004,

(from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/an...port/page6.html)

Whoa! Those RMA people are really throwing their weight around!
:bullshits:

i agree that adding negative votes would be interesting but would it really work? all that would happen is that labour supporters would downvote national and national supporters would downvote labour leaving new zealand first to run the country...

:imaracist: - I win because everybody forget about me...MWAHAHA!

If a totalitarian system develops a country, gets things done, improves living standards and protects its land and people then it should be praised instead of frowned upon, which is why I admire Singapore. Hail!

We know there's a lot of tinpot dictatorships out there in the Third World, but let's see, comparing China to India, the Chinese have industrialized, improved on education and healthcare and developed their economy much faster and earlier than the Indians, despite the two having similar population constraints. Even a few American scholars believe that democracy is not the right answer for much of the Third World. There's a plenty of supposed democracies in Africa, but from their independence to the modern day, sweet nothing has improved.

India may be a democracy, but like it's democratic counterpart in Asia, the same bloody party governs for most of the last 50 or so years! India has been incredibly corrupt since the time of the British, China was relatively free of corruption under Mao.

Overall, if democratic representation hinders progress, the system needs a thorough review.


As for the RMA, they always oppose the big ticket items like the wind farms and a second harbor bridge. If it ain't the RMA that's responsible, then it must be some other bondage of bureaucracy that's giving us grief.

Singapore is hardly a fair example. It has had a priviliged trading position with the western world thanks to its proximity to Malaysia. The Government has done a lot to encourage business, but it didn't have to be a Lee Kuan Yew personality cult to do that.

If Singapore were isolated 900 miles due east of NZ, it would be an impoverished hellhole, even with the same leadership. (Or maybe particularly with the same leadership)

Democracy is not a formula for economic success. It can be a way for people to ensure their Government represents them in a fair, uncorrupt way, and doesn't make decisions (like going to war) without a clear mandate.

The question is what you see as progress. I don't see China's meteoric rise as being very sustainable, given the intense social injustices being committed and the environmental damage being laid waste upon China.

At least in NZ when you get a job, you know you have a court to go to when your employer doesn't pay you. You know their is a accident ward that will help you if you break a limb. There is a health system which checks young kids for dental problems. The police system is vigerously watched over. There are basic food standards, which prevent producers, from example, boosting their Baby Formula with rat poison, talcum powder or sawdust (that has happened in China).

People like to have their say, when they need to, and thats why Democracy remains so popular.

There's a good quote out there by Winston Churchill (I think) which I can't remember exactly, but here's the gist of it: A dictatorship works better than democracy, but is less reliable. You run into big problems if the dictator dies or is a fuckup, but on the other hand a democracy decides too many things by committee which really bogs things down.

I don't for a second think Winston Churchill was very much of a philosopher that anyone would want to seriously quote (he wasn't even very much of a military strategist, which is saying something for someone who spent 40 odd years planning wars) but Churchill also said something to the effect of:

"Democracy is the worst of all possible systems of Government - except for all the others."

Also, I failed to really comment on Adolf's objection the RMA:

Well, people like to have their say. You may think the Three Rivers Dam in China is progress - it wasn't to the 1 and a half million people forcibly moved from their homes with little or no compensation to create the damn (!) thing.

This year we have had a very public example of those who perenially complain about the RMA using it: the farmers over the massive pylons that were going to go over their property.

A good principle of Governance should be that Government's consult with the people on these kind of projects, to find acceptable compromises, if possible.

I'd want to have a say too, and thankfully we live in a country with the foresight to give us one.

I don't care much for Churchill either, but his quote I mentioned does make a lot of sense if you know your history.

Well, most dictators in history are good at one thing: taking over a country, and then massacering people to stay in power.

With Democracy you have the flexibility whereby people who disagree realise a) public opinion is against them B) the public is against their opponents, who will be punished by the public.

Well thats quite ridiculous, on several levels. The most important aspect of all though is that Democracy is the competition for ideas, not a race to demonise others.

Ie, you vote for what you want, not what you don't want, otherwise Jews like me end up getting screwed.

I agree. But when you end up with a dictator who actually gives a crap about the welfare of his people or country it can work pretty damn well, and cuts out a lot of the overhead that a democracy would produce, many Roman emperors are good examples of this. Even Hitlers Germany, while being very bad for a few minorities, did a great job of getting Germany on its feet after the depression, certainly a lot better than the democracies of the time managed with their countries. If only he had stopped invading his neighbours before Poland it could have worked out very well.

The 3rd Reich illustrates very clearly both the pros and cons of a dictatorship.

Umm, I can't remember who it was, but as long as we're quoting people, 'when someone advocates a benign dictatorship, you know you're in the presence of a madman'.

And I invoke godwin's law (does it work if you're using Hitler to support your argument?)

I'm not suggesting we switch to a 'benign dictatorship' because there's no way to reliably produce it, but I do recognise how well it works.

No, it's only when you're using the Nazis to degrade someone elses argument.

What if a party makes a policy that all jews must get screwed (at least once a week) then 51% of the people who vote vote for that party. Then the jews like you would be screwed under a democracy

True, but I like the odds of the second one better.

This could be solved by a constitution enshrining rights you do have - the principle of "voting against" would be like having a constitution enshrining rights you don't have. (Scarily, the US seems to be trying to amend its consitutions against minorities in exactly this way)

I emphasise again that Democracy is more than just voting and electoral system, it is also the spirit of competition for ideas, liberty and justice for all.

An electoral system where you vote against someone (and if our democracy were particularly vibrant, and 10% of the population were candidates, this would make it very difficult to make an informed choice of what you were voting against) is against those principles, of competition for ideas and freedoms etc.

I, ledge of apleigiance to The United States of America
with Puberty and Nachos for all.

Yeah nachos.

Social injusticies had been around for as long as there has been a China. The Chinese get used to it until they can stand no more. The gigantic population makes law enforcement very difficult. In comparison to Maoist times, social injustices has decreased a lot. If the tables had been turned and it's the Americans that struggle with such a gigantic population, the various strains on the land would make democracy unworkable.

The Three Gorges Dam shall become the marvel of the world. It has the power output of 5 to 6 nuclear powerplants, enough concrete that no conventional explosive can bust and an extraordinary feat of civil engineering. A few million at the most will be relocated, but the government don't dump 'em in the middle no nowhere as new housing is built for them for the long term, if you squash more people into an already cramp area, more crime and poverty will erupt.

I came from a city that's more than twice NZ's population. Relocating a few million because of the world's greatest dam is not a significant issue on a scale of magnitude. If some dickheads like the Greens are ruling China, dams and nuclear power plant development will be halted and the poor yellow men will have even more blackouts.

A dictatorship results in corruption, a working democracy allows for the transparency that prevents corruption. Due to population constraints neither a democracy nor a Stalinist secret police will be able to function properly.

Like I said before, China has one of the world's lowest police ratios, making enforcement of anything a very difficult task. There's regulation, but those that do not completely obey it, and corrupt it is an entirely different matter. It's not easy making a living in a country of 1.3 billion people and there are always misleading businessmen, some with sinister ideas (like the various examples of substandard and poisonous foods).

Why don't you ask some poor ass in Africa? His voice is heard (he gets to vote) and ignored. Democracy needs enforcement (the U.N. doesn't do enough of that), democracy can only be achieved if a nation's people are honest enough for its realization.

Since someone mentioned Churchill earlier, here's what he said:

"Democracy is the worst form of government."

If you look at Singapore, that's one clear example. There's also no corruption primarily because of its small size and freedoms of the press (as watchdogs).


In conclusion, democracy isn't suitable for every nation, you can't transplant a pig's head onto a man's body. In many cases, a dictatorship results in corruption, but its collapse descends into complete chaos.

You clearly haven't read through all the posts on this thread, because I've already talked about Singapore, and as for:

To Finish the quote (again): "Except for all the others"

Geographical location does not hinder the drive of a people to succeed. Singapore is a fine example of what the Chinese race can achieve.

It is because of the brainwashing and institutionalization of living in a social democratic nation that you fail to see the positive side of dictatorships.

Here's Scuzza's reaction to the idea of a foreign dictatorship:

"OMFG!!! D1CKT0rSHIT!!!! NOEZ!!!!!!!!!!!111111ONE!!!!"

It'll be worth staring down a rifle barrel if a dictatorship is hard on all forms of crime.

Except for the fact that whatever the dictator doesn't like - including saying naughty words about the dictatorship - will shortly become a crime. So if you're willing to keep your mouth shut, and ignore your neighbours being dragged off for 'rehabilitation', life would be pretty sweet under a dictatorship. Is that the tradeoff you're advocating?