Or 80% of the population would get 50% of what they want, as opposed to 51% of the population who gets 80% of what they want.

The maximum good for the maximum people.

Damn utilitarians!

Mrt, it's misleading to say that people actually vote for party's because of their policies, especially in the case of National which historically has had a very strong support base no matter what, unlikely that many of National's voters actually expressively voted for the specific policies that National outlined, specfically tax cuts. National's supporters historically are very solid (where Labour's are a lot more fluid) and even in campaigns that are utterly awful (as in 2002), you get a lot of the population voting for them simply because they identify with National historically (particularly from nostalgic experiences under the National governments of Holyoake/Marshall/Muldoon under their youth.

National and Labour do have one big thing in common: they're both moderate parties. A coalition between them would be great, if it worked (and as Mr T said, we should look to Germany to see how feasible this is), because it would shaft all the dicky little parties with their stupid radical agendas. Of course it would probably fuck over the larger parties in the long term.

I like having the smaller parties in opposition, but not in power.

Indeed, they have strong beliefs, and they'll do whatever they have to in order to see their will be done.

Historial references mean nothing in this context. Especially given the recent historical 2002 lowpoint for National, which you pointed out.

Also, why bother voting if they don't believe in the party?

What! Historical voting patterns have HUGE implications here, considering the majority of National voters voted in previous elections.

Why bother voting if they don't believe in the party? They do believe in the party, they often just don't give a shit about it's policies, they just vote because National (Or Labour or others) feels right for them, I have no idea, but this is something that is extremely prevalent in voting systems across the world (voter identification with parties). It's why farmers support National and why people in manual jobs support Labour. This is why you have entire families that vote National or Labour, and why you have people vote for Muldoon then quite happily vote for Don Brash, and likewise with Lange and Clark.

That historic low point in 2002 (20.93%) is an amazing performance for a party that had a useless leader, an awful campaign, no clear policies, a hugely powerful left wing and three minor parties taking votes off it (ACT, New Zealand First and United Future). That election proves that National has a very hardcore base of support that supports it no matter what.

And you have evidence to back this up?

There are entire books written on this subject. Just like 'free markets' in economics, 'free markets' in politics (i.e. multi party systems) are actually very deceptive, especially when you began them with a dual party system. If people actually voted according to policy at each election, making it a 'fair' choice, I guarantee you there would not be two party dominance.

Like...

This article by Colin James discusses it a bit (http://www.colinjames.co.nz/herald/Herald_...at2_05Aug22.htm)

For more detailed analysis and to avoid giving you book lists, here is a quote from a paper 'What happened at the 2002 Election' by Jack Voles and Peter Aimer (avaliable at http://www.nzes.org/exec/show/research#Reports)

"A well-aligned party system is assumed to be stable: that is, based on a relatively large proportion of voters choosing the same party
from one election to the next. This stability will be anchored in various ways: by high
turnout, which is based on voter commitment to the system, and on the ability of
political parties to mobilise the vote. Stability will also be anchored in high levels of
party identification. That is, voters will feel an emotional attachment and/or a
cognitive commitment to a particular political party. Such attachments and
commitments will be in many cases inherited from voters’ parents. And such
behaviour and attachments will also be underpinned in the social structure: that is, the party system will be shaped by the social cleavages that express differences within a
country. Such differences may be rooted in occupational class, religion, ethnicity,
and/or region."

This is what is redeveloping in NZ after MMP was introduced.

Hmm that is quite an interesting discussion.