General Election 2011

[Xt1ncT_old]

Yeah both of the referendum results stumped me. I would have thought after the anti smacking law that that may have been the straw that broke the camels back with MMP.....but 30%+ wanting FPP????? Stunned by that really.

I voted SM - but if I were to hangs MMP I'd change it so to get more members you need either the electorate and 5% or two electorate seats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dingleberry_old]

Yeah both of the referendum results stumped me. I would have thought after the anti smacking law that that may have been the straw that broke the camels back with MMP.....but 30%+ wanting FPP????? Stunned by that really.

Nah, there's a fair bit of skew in that. Given that the referendum got minimal coverage, I think most people who voted FPP voted for it simply because it's what they knew, even those who voted to keep MMP.

Also, there was a tactical vote going on with people supporting MMP, where you vote to keep MMP and have FPP as your second choice, so that if MMP came up against anything, it would come up against a system it's already beaten.

 

[dingleberry_old]

High point of the election and in Helensville no less.

On a sad note, mini-Shipley looks like she'll take Waitakere after Carmel was 500 votes ahead only 30 minutes ago. Stink.

John Key doesn't live in Helensville...

 

[Jesbass_old]

Nah, there's a fair bit of skew in that. Given that the referendum got minimal coverage, I think most people who voted FPP voted for it simply because it's what they knew, even those who voted to keep MMP.

Also, there was a tactical vote going on with people supporting MMP, where you vote to keep MMP and have FPP as your second choice, so that if MMP came up against anything, it would come up against a system it's already beaten.

Yeah, I thought it was likely a "we know FPP so let's vote for that" type scenario.

How would the tactical vote work, given we only had one choice in the referendum? Why vote for FPP and not just have everyone vote for MMP?

 

[playdaball_old]

John Key doesn't live in Helensville...

Phil Goff doesn't live in Roskill

 

[Northern_Union]

Out of curiosity, how did you vote in the referendum, NU?

I went with SM. In theory, I actually like preferential voting, but that relies on the average voter actually thinking and prioritising their votes, and I think that's a few bridges too far!

Me and Mrs NU both voted SM for the same reasons as you.

 

[dingleberry_old]

Phil Goff doesn't live in Roskill

I know this, but the poster I quoted seemed to be of the impression that the warriors fans outside JKs house were in Helensville.

Yeah, I thought it was likely a "we know FPP so let's vote for that" type scenario.

How would the tactical vote work, given we only had one choice in the referendum? Why vote for FPP and not just have everyone vote for MMP?

I'm not sure I follow JB? We had two questions in the referendum, which were (with the following options)

The first question was "Should New Zealand keep the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system?"

I vote to keep the MMP voting system
I vote to change to another voting system


The second question was "If New Zealand were to change to another voting system, which voting system would you choose?"
I would choose the First Past the Post system (FPP)
I would choose the Preferential Voting system (PV)
I would choose the Single Transferable Vote system (STV)
I would choose the Supplementary Member system (SM) [14]

So the tactical vote was the vote to keep MMP, and then choose FPP if another system was chosen. You can answer question two regardless of whether you want to keep MMP or not.
If the referendum shows that NZ wants to change MMP, then the next referedum would put MMP against the next preferred option. Of course, there's a bit of a presumption behind the tactical vote, but the theory is that MMP would beat FPP head to head, should NZers want to change to a different system in the first place. It's kind of like hedging your bet - you're betting on MMP to win the first time round, but if it's going to lose, you want to put it up against a (presumably) weaker opponent.
Hopefully that explains the theory behind the tactical vote. Here's an analogy. Your wife asks you if you still find her attractive. And then says, if you could sleep with any other woman, which out of these four would you choose? Tactically, you say yes, and then you'd pick the ugliest of the four.

 

[Jesbass_old]

I know this, but the poster I quoted seemed to be of the impression that the warriors fans outside JKs house were in Helensville.



I'm not sure I follow JB? We had two questions in the referendum, which were (with the following options)

The first question was "Should New Zealand keep the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system?"

I vote to keep the MMP voting system
I vote to change to another voting system


The second question was "If New Zealand were to change to another voting system, which voting system would you choose?"
I would choose the First Past the Post system (FPP)
I would choose the Preferential Voting system (PV)
I would choose the Single Transferable Vote system (STV)
I would choose the Supplementary Member system (SM) [14]

So the tactical vote was the vote to keep MMP, and then choose FPP if another system was chosen. You can answer question two regardless of whether you want to keep MMP or not.
If the referendum shows that NZ wants to change MMP, then the next referedum would put MMP against the next preferred option. Of course, there's a bit of a presumption behind the tactical vote, but the theory is that MMP would beat FPP head to head, should NZers want to change to a different system in the first place. It's kind of like hedging your bet - you're betting on MMP to win the first time round, but if it's going to lose, you want to put it up against a (presumably) weaker opponent.
Hopefully that explains the theory behind the tactical vote. Here's an analogy. Your wife asks you if you still find her attractive. And then says, if you could sleep with any other woman, which out of these four would you choose? Tactically, you say yes, and then you'd pick the ugliest of the four.

I misread the second question. I took it to say "If you voted for change..."

Sorry that you went to all that effort to explain things when the explanation is so simple from my end!

 

[Viking_old]

John Key doesn't live in Helensville...

Yeah I forgot, he's in Parnell right? Should've realised that when they said his house was worth 10 million. Were the kids supporting the Warriors, locals you reckon? Looked like it.

If Key doesn't live anywhere near Helensville and it's doubtful that he has time to be in Helensville, who looks after local electorate stuff for them?

 

[Viking_old]

I'm not sure of the reason for the West Coast situation, but apparently Labour normally win all 5 seats in Christchurch, and National have won 4, with Christchurch Central of course tied.

I expect Labour to win that one though, as special votes are (I think) for people in rest homes and so on who can't get to polling booths, and older folk tend to vote the same way every election.

Actually Labour won Wigram, Port Hills and Chch East comfortably, Brownlee got Ilam for National as you would expect and Chch central are a dead heat. National got the party vote in all 5 electorates which what you could've been looking at Dave.

Did National handle the earthquake well do you reckon and would Labour have done anything differently for better or worse?

 

[Jesbass_old]

Actually Labour won Wigram, Port Hills and Chch East comfortably, Brownlee got Ilam for National as you would expect and Chch central are a dead heat. National got the party vote in all 5 electorates which what you could've been looking at Dave.

Did National handle the earthquake well do you reckon and would Labour have done anything differently for better or worse?

Oh right...yeah, must've been the party vote they were referencing.

Having been in Tauranga since before the first earthquake, I don't consider myself in any position to comment on National's performance in the wake of the tremors, except to simply say that it appears they did a good job amidst an economic crisis from the outside looking in.

Locals would be able to give a better insight on this, and to be frank, we'd just be crystal ball gazing playing "what ifs" with a different party at the helm. I just don't think we can assess how someone would deal with this kind of crisis without making mere assertions and postulations.

 

[Viking_old]

Oh right...yeah, must've been the party vote they were referencing.

Having been in Tauranga since before the first earthquake, I don't consider myself in any position to comment on National's performance in the wake of the tremors, except to simply say that it appears they did a good job amidst an economic crisis from the outside looking in.

Locals would be able to give a better insight on this, and to be frank, we'd just be crystal ball gazing playing "what ifs" with a different party at the helm. I just don't think we can assess how someone would deal with this kind of crisis without making mere assertions and postulations.

I feel the same, I have some relocated Cantabrians at my work but I haven't thought to ask how well they felt National handled it and there's nothing to compare it against anyway. They have voiced their frustration with the speed with which some decisions have been made but I have no idea of whether or not it could've been done any faster.

 

[JonB_old]

I feel the same, I have some relocated Cantabrians at my work but I haven't thought to ask how well they felt National handled it and there's nothing to compare it against anyway. They have voiced their frustration with the speed with which some decisions have been made but I have no idea of whether or not it could've been done any faster.

They were too slow, every governmental agency was too slow. Council, the district health board etc
If it wasn't for a church on the east side creating a refuge centre things would of got apocolyptic out there, the people saved the governments ass