Labour got $1.3 million to spend on their campaign.
National got $900,000 to spend.
The other parties got $200,000 each.

Winston Peters has accused the employee at the electoral commission of being bias towards the two major players. He says that National shouldn't have received so much considering they did so badly int he last election.

So do you think it was bias?

i for one would like to know the reasoning behind giving labour more money than national.

Yes the distribution is biased, but i think its justified.

THe money allocated to each party is proportional to the number of votes (precentage) they received in the last election.

Winston Peters is up in arms because he got 13% at the last election, whilst National only got 20.7%.

I am a very active National supporter and a Winston supporter, but yes, I do feel that this was biased.

I am not however complaining, because it strengthens National's campaign activities and advertising campaigns.

Liz, that makes virtually no sense whatsoever.

I can understand why Winston might be upset, as it doesn't seem like he received a proportion based upon the number of votes received. I'd like to see a source confirming that this is in fact the case.

However, the part that doesn't make sense is that you don't care because it will strengthen National's position. They received less money than Labour. By this logic, Labour's position will be strengthened further, thus increasing on the lead they already have in the polls and thus DECREASING national's position overall.

What?

What Winston is complaining about is that he got 13% at the last election but the other parties got a smaller amount so therefore they should get less and he should get more.

He is saying that the proportion National got is too close to what Labour got because there was a huge difference is votes.

Yes I understood that bit. This was denoted by when I said "I can understand why Winston might be upset"

However, you failed to address any of the parts of my post where I actually asked you to prove something or explain your logic.

I was getting to that point and then my internet disconnected.

My logic is that National received way mroe than they should have so therefore will be able to run a more featured election campaign.

Which fails to address the other consideration, in that Labour still got more.

I don't think there is anything to address there, Labour got more votes and therefore a higher amount. It makes sense.

and thats my unbiased opinion.

Let's start again.

Their campaign will be strengthened from a purely subjective viewpoint, yes.

However, relative to Labour, their position will not increase at all - using your money = campaign strength logic.

Hence, your comment holds little stead and makes little sense. Which was my point in the first place.

Clearly I speak another language.

National got more than they deserved in relation to the other parties which will strengthen their position.

I didn't comment on Labour because there was no point in commenting on it.

I was actually commenting on fair allocation of funds and as Winston stated, it was unfair that National got such a huge amount more than NZ First based on the last election.

Not complaining though.

I. know. exactly. what. you. were. saying.

As a confessed supporter of National, you said you were pleased that this disproportionate funding would strengthen National's campaign.

My above post points out that this, as you have written it, is completely fallacious when considered in a greater political context.

Now just to clarify something else, National are able to fund campaign activities using their own funds if they wish to. There is nothing wrong with that. Now it is unlikely that National would gain another 400,000 dollars through supporters/members but it is likely they can run a campaign with more than the $900,000 allocated.

$400,000 isn't that great a difference when you consider that it is pretty much a two horse race.

Here's a question, should all parties receive the same amount to make it a fair race?