Okay, this one has been set up semi-properly so don't delete it...

In the interest of seeing what everyone thinks about politics and trying out the poll system I've decided to try and create a mock election (party vote only). I'll try to get all the parties I can recall but if I miss some, let me know.

Where's the 'one vote is useless so I don't bother to vote' option? Or should I just pick the party I would vote for if I bothered?

I've deleted the old thread btw.

Ok, own up who voted act

I ran with one vote just to see where people's interests lie initially. Since voting for the party that you would have voted for if you bothered is a form of being bothered, you may as well just vote and be damned.

Cheers for getting rid of the old thread.

No what I mean is, I wouldn't bother voting in a national election because I only get one vote, which is pretty useless because every fucking hoser over 18 gets a vote so my vote is extremely unlikely to matter. I didn't mean I want to pick multiple parties in this poll.

But for a moment I'll pretend I would vote. I pick Act, because I like to keep my money, fuck everyone else. I have principles, but I don't live by them. If I did I would probably vote Labour.

I think someone should found a genuine No Confidence Party. No Confidence MPs would guarantee just one thing - that they would never show up in Parliament, thus leaving empty seats and reducing unnecessary noise and disturbance. A No Confidence majority would lead to nothing ever being passed through Parliament, creating a constitutional crisis with amusing results. I really think this has potential.

I'll take anyone but labour. Anyone at all.

you are correct. your one vote probably wont matter. but the whole population cannot take your attitude.

So from the poll so far, the outcome is a three-way coalition between National, Act, and um... The Greens.


(tee hee I said three-way)

First time in your life huh Steve? We're missing the mandatory "I touch myself at night" option :(

I'll probably vote Labour. Sue me.

wheres "national front" ?

:D

added i touch myself at night (and the whigs, just to make it more interesting)

And it's a good thing they don't, but whether or not I take that attitude has no bearing on the rest of the population.

It's now Labour and the Greens with ACT and National tied for third place... thanks for the extra options Dr Steve. This is coming along better than I thought it would.

ahahahahahahahahahha. i have principles but i dont live by them. we call that hypocrisy oob. they're not principles, then, are they?

dictionary.com 'a fixed or pre-determined mode of action.'

you dont have them, if you dont by live them. you are aware of them, but clearly find it too difficult to follow through. personally im going to save the despair and selfish attitudes until all this cynicism gets the better of me.

Well let me put it this way. We all know what the right thing is to do, but often we don't do it. For instance, most of you would have 50 bucks on you, or in your bank accounts, that you can spare. If you don't have it now, you at least will sometime in the future. Now what's the right thing to do with that money: spend it on luxuries for yourself, or feed some starving 3rd world person for a month? Most people would say the latter, yet most people would do the former.

Almost everyone is in such a condition of cognitive dissonance, the difference between me and others is that I am more honest with myself that most people. Just because I should do something, and know I should do that thing, it doesn't mean I will do it.

yeah maybe. but you said 'i have principles,, but i dont live by them.'

that sounds like a blanket comment, that you have principles, none of which you tend to live by, which by definition is a contradiction in terms.

plus, while what you're saying is true to a point, there is another end of the stick, whereby people have principles which they constantly live by, say a true believer, or someone working in humanitrian aid, or a doctor, or a teacher. while many of these people may work those jobs or live those lives out of convenienve, many would have chosen to do so with the implicit intention of helping people as that may be a principle they hold. thats a cliche example. perhaps. but nobody has ever lived a life entirely out of thought for others. nobody spends ever 50 dollars they have on somebody else. some might spend a lot of their 50 dollars, or most of their time, oout of careful consideration for their principles.

there are, however, people who spend every 50 dollars they have on themselves, because they hold no prinicples, or they are dirt poor.

please dont fool yourself into thinking you are better than other people because you are 'honest' about not living by principles you recognise as just. it makes you sound silly, quite frankly.

you neednt always do the right thing. principles are not necessarily connected with constantly doing the right thing. i can know the right thinig to do is give money to charity, but not give all my money to charity, yet still abide bby principles i hold.

can i vote for destiny new zealand?

I am going to interview Brian Tamaki

Alright, let me rephrase then, since my previous statement was somewhat ambigous, or even hyperbole. I do not make any special effort to live by my principles, but sometimes they meet with what I'm doing. If what I do happens to coincide with them, well goody.

Despite my somewhat ambivalent attitude towards my own principles, I find that I happen to live quite a moral life, despite the lack of effort I put towards it. I guess I was just raised well.

I don't think I'm fooling myself at all. In fact I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single person who knows me in person and thinks I'm a prick.

Oh, so you have 'when I feel like it' principles. Kinda like me.

Is it a recognised party this time around? Okay, I'll pm Dr Steve and get him to put it on there.

i never said you are a prick. and you have ignored what i am saying. they are not principles you hold, if you do not live by them. they are principles you are aware of, perhaps even princples you quite like, butt unitl you live by them, they are not your principles, as you keep calling them (by definition alone, aside from my own beliefs)

i can only assume your thinkiing of 'principles' as anything other than doing things which suit your self. well you are exactly like a lot of people, if this is the case, and it is quite understandable, but i am suprised given the intellect you seem to have according to other topics, that you have not dedicated the same efforts to issues of morality. or is that, you have dedicated the effort, but find the best solution is a 'me first' attitude? fair enough.

please dont patronise me. if you dont understand what im saying, read it again. they are not sometimes principles, principles need not be absolute. for example, if person A lives by the principle that you should help people in need, that principle is not tied to the idea of giving EVERTHING you have to help people that need it. surely, you can see that is illogical?

but they might consider, owning nothing more than they need, and dedicating every friday night to aid work in bus shelters, or old peoples homes, as helping people in need. that is not to say they should spend 50 hours a week doing so, and failing to do this does not equate to a 'sometime' prinicple.

that is all extremely badly explained, but i think the idea is evident. i dont think people spend enough time thinking about other people. i think someone that says 'i have principles but i dont live by them' is actually saying 'i dont have prinicples.'

how are you interviewing brian tamaki? can i come?

I'd define my own stance as "I have principles, but I recognise that I'm not going to meet them all the time but that they are worth holding to". I try to act morally as much as possible but don't beat myself to a pulp for breaking those principles.

And it is a risky game taking anything the oob says seriously btw. Read that sig again...

My own definition of principles is 'ones own perception of what is right and what is wrong'. I have a set of opinions on what is right and what is wrong, so I have 'principles', even if I do not live by that set of opinions. If this doesn't meet the dictionary definition, well then my bad.

They're 'sometimes' principles in that you only 'sometimes' stick to them.

hahahaha. im kim hill and you're winston peters.

they're 'always' principles, that do not involve unlimited application. you are entitled to different morals, and values.

there are, i might add, prinicples that involve 'non-application.' for example, it is my principle that the death penalty is wrong. it is my principle that violence is, in most cases, wrong, and therefore i am not violent, as a principle. In my view, eating mcdonalds is wrong, and i thereby live by the principle not to eat mcdonalds. hmm. just a thought.

As I've warned you in another thread, keep it civil, I don't like being associated with racists. I will start handing out warnings/suspensions to you where appropriate from now on for such comments.

They would be 'always principles' if you were to stick to your principles in every decision you make, which I very much doubt. Otherwise you are maintaining a set of principles but acting otherwise when it suits you, much like myself.

Okie dokie.

what makes eating McDonalds 'wrong' as such? I could certainly understand a "McDonalds tastes like crap so I aint eating it" stance, but calling it 'wrong' implies that there is something wrong with people who eat there.

i didnt mean that implication. no offence intended. but to me, by eating at mcdonalds i would be supporting a behemoth multi national that makes money from selling unhealthy food, by targeting young children with catchy advertising. melodramatic? perhaps, but i like the idea.

oob, no intention to assosciate you with peters in terms of his racist attitudes, and im glad you feel that way about him. i meant in the argument structure, from what i saw last nite on kim hill. actualy that might be more offensive, i dont know, did anyone see it?

Put two people with exactly the same hairdo in one studio and you are bound to get fireworks.

Bad news pal, if you're on the internet, your supporting telecom, who broomhandles businesses and residential customers alike. (and yes, wireless is transmitted to the skytower, which is inturn sent out of the country via Southern Cross). So a moral ground on McDonalds is all very well..but think about it.

believe me brother, i do think about it. and what you're saying is detached from the fact that mcdonalds makes huge profits, paying their workers only mediocre amounts, and making people fat. telecom may make silly profits, but they do so providing a service most people believe is now essential. is it? probably not, but its certainly more necessary than fast food. does using telecom take away my right to oppose mcdonalds? i dont know, is that what youre saying? i dont think it does. plus, id expect more support in opposing something as obviously bruttual, and vicious, and silent, as the mcdonalds global empire. the fact that there are other global empires out there should not make you despair. but thanks, ill take a think abou just how bad telecom is, and how one might act in opposition.

dont worry buddy, youre not alone in your'e quest, I too buoycott McD's these guys just like to pick apart what you say sometimes :D

Ofcourse I mostly buoycott McD's cause I dont fancy crapping my pants 5 mins after a meal there.

Only commies boycott McDonalds. You don't want to be a commie do you?

a good point. :rolleyes:

mmmmmmm cheeseburger.

ok despite the results of this poll, Im getting a little paranoid reading the varsity forums. Paranoid at how many people want National to win.
Im not questioning anyones voting choice but I dont know I couldnt stand to see Liz's smug face when they win

Hehe good one sam, although I'd have to say Kim Hill's wig looks much worse than Winnie P's. :lol: Did you know she "styles" it herself with a pair of kitchen scissors? :blink:

what?!?

I think that food is more essential than communication.

Based on the facts at hand it looks as though National will enter into a coalition government with NZ First.

however, it will very much be a tight race between the two oppositions.

I don't think Labour have what it takes to enter a third time, their policies are becoming old and tired and people would like to see a change.