News
Who to vote for?!?!
reporter: Jonathan, 29.6.05
I have been thinking, due to this post, who I should vote for.My first reaction is to say that my main goal in the future of New Zealand Government is that Labour be removed from the position where it can do more damage.
This can only be done one way.
National.
Let me explain my reasons.
Under MMP there is no point voting for small parties. The chance that they pass the 5% needed to get into parliment is too low. In the last 2 elections under MMP approx 5% of votes have been discarded due to this. This means the voting %'s are redistributed meaning bigger parties get more MP's. If the votes allocated to smaller parties were actually given to the party they were intended for at the last election, then Ashraf Choudhary would not be in parliment. His abstention in the Prositution reform bill allowed it to pass.
So unfortunately parties that are not yet in parliment will struggle to get there. Which is a shame because I would like to vote for a party like christian heritage or maybe destiny but doing so will waste my vote, as i have done at the last 2 elections!
Of the parties already in government. The Greens and Progressives both support Labour unquestionably. So they are ruled out.
United future seems to have some good ideas and a seeming christian base to it, but they also supported Labour. Which is a decision I'm sure they regret now, but never-the-less I will not vote for them because of it.
The Maori Party... well i'm not Maori... sorry i don't know much about them but won't be voting for them as I would like to see an end to treaty claims, race based funding, etc.
ACT. They unfortunately may fall below the 5% and with no promised electoral seat, voting for them could also be a wasted vote.
So that leaves NewZealand First, and National.
And after viewing a pp slide showing different party views (voting) on matters of national moral significance. National came out on top. Actually they came out on top of every other party except for United Future.
__________________
Just as an aside... I have been also thinking, because of this post, that I should vote Labour. As it would be better for Labour to be in power when the country crashes down around us.
Just a thought!
17 Comments:
oh thanks nathan... you reminded me of another point. National is the only party who has promised a referendum on MMP. As Scott has pointed out a transferable vote would be far better. I'm not saying in a normal situation i wouldn't vote for smaller parties... but i'm sayin in this situation we need to remove labour from power. We need to vote where our vote will be effective. logically National or NZ First are your only safe options.
reporter - 
Jonathan, at 7:30 am, June 30, 2005
Never mind I just read why- they only support Labour on confidence and supply issues
reporter - Anita, at 4:04 pm, June 30, 2005
Yes but their support of Labour allowed it to take power completely unchallenged. With Labour and the greens they only had a 61 seat majority. which when you need take away the speaker lasve a 1 seat majority. they needed UF.. and UF shouldn't have supported them.
reporter - Jonathan, at 6:07 pm, June 30, 2005
Yes but then we would have spend 3 years with an unstable government or have forced a reelection. But saying they shouldn't have supported Labour you are not giving any credit for the positive things they have been able to do through their relationship with Labour.
reporter - Anita, at 9:29 am, July 01, 2005
Personally I would've liked to see a re-election.
This last labour government has allowed our country to new moral lows... it shouldn't have been supported in any way.
reporter - Jonathan, at 9:45 am, July 01, 2005
Anyway I should say that I really appreciated this post! It really got me thinking about the whole subject a bit better
reporter - Anita, at 2:46 pm, July 01, 2005
I deleted those comments because they didn't make sense...blah blah
reporter - Anita, at 2:54 pm, July 01, 2005
I think a re-election would have changed a few things... Alot of people who i've talked to who voted UF who did so because they didn't want labour in power but didn't want to vote for national/act. I think we would've been plesantly suprised at the result of a re-election at that point. But anyway. That's my thoughts and I'm glad they've helped you to think about who you're gonna vote for. Any decisions or leanings yet?
reporter - Jonathan, at 2:54 pm, July 01, 2005
Yes I think I might post something on the weekend, rather then keep hi-jacking your comment:)
It is cool to be about to get lots of opinions- I hope more people blog on their election thoughs too.
reporter - Anita, at 4:54 pm, July 01, 2005
If you go round saying 'your vote with smaller parties isn't safe', then less people will vote for smaller parties, and those who do will lose their votes. If on the other hand people are prepared to take the risk and go with small parties, its not so risky.
Its all about hype really. Which is sucky
reporter - Nathan, at 11:38 am, July 04, 2005
I do see what you're saying. And agree in principle. But it's not my reasoning that stops parties crossing the 5% threshold. It's just the reality of the system. For the last 2 elections my vote has not counted! I may as well have not bothered.
This time I want to make my vote count!
reporter - Jonathan, at 1:30 pm, July 04, 2005
An attitude like that will guarantee small parties don't get in.
MMP is better for small parties than the previous FPP.
reporter -
Nathan, at 5:54 pm, June 29, 2005