brooknononsense ([info]brooknononsense) wrote,
@ 2008-05-18 11:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
jesus fucking h christ
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4552547a6160.html

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH NEW ZEALANDERS??? YOU DESPERATELY WANT A GOVERNMENT THAT HATES DEMOCRACY? ARE YOU PEOPLE FUCKING INSANE??????????

i am so confused right now. by the end of the year it is likely that new zealand will be some kind of hell dimension. i've been thinking about moving to australia but kevin rudd's government is nothing short of a spineless disappointment (refer NO CIVIL UNIONS). i guess my only option is to meet someone swedish and have a sham marriage with them. anyone know any single swedes?

(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

He thinks he's in power already
[info]fireghost
2008-05-18 12:31 am UTC (link)
Key said the first referendum would be at the 2011 election and would ask voters: "Are you satisfied with MMP as a system or would you prefer a change?" If there was a majority for change, the second referendum would offer a run-off between different voting systems.

The date for the second referendum had not yet been decided.

Wanker

(Reply to this)


[info]fireghost
2008-05-18 12:34 am UTC (link)
And the Oz Rudd govt is as right-wing as fuck compared with here, almost like the Nats.

(Reply to this)


[info]aubade1984
2008-05-18 01:39 am UTC (link)
hmmm. can you explain what this means to an american?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]brooknononsense
2008-05-18 02:38 am UTC (link)
ok...i'll do the best i can.

in new zealand we have an MMP system, much like that used in Germany.

this system was established by referendum in 1993, i think, and first used here for the 1996 elections. prior to that we had a system known as first past the post, whereby whichever political party had the most votes automatically won the election. its pretty undemocratic because under FPP you don't need to have a majority to win an election. in contrast, under MMP you can put together a majority by forming coalitions and other kinds of agreements with other political parties. MMP also broadens the scope of politics to give minor parties a voice in parliament, whereas FPP tends to mean a two-party system.

historically, FPP has favoured the right wing party (national) because they usually get more votes than any other single party. MMP however has tended to favour the left because typically lefties here divide their votes between a number of parties e.g. labour (the other major player, currently in government), the maori party, the greens, the progressives, alliance, etc. Labour has proven itself to be very effective at forming a government under MMP through negotiations with smaller parties.

2008 is an election year (we have them every 3 years). the national party are very popular at the moment for no other reason than that labour have been in power for three terms and new zealanders seem to think that its time for a change, even though the national party are keeping very tight-lipped about their policies (except for repeating "tax cuts!" like a mantra).

national are aware that their popularity would wane very quickly were they to win the next election (because the reality is that their policies will favour big business and will totally shaft workers). they would very much welcome a referendum on electoral reform because, although they SAY they don't want to go back to FPP, everyone knows that FPP suits them better than MMP and would take us back to the days when they could win an election without a majority. which is totally undemocratic.

i think new zealanders like MMP though, so national are pretty out of touch if they think a referendum will bring about the electoral system they would prefer.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]aubade1984
2008-05-18 11:31 pm UTC (link)
it makes sense!

that's awful that the MMP system could get replaced, though it doesn't sound like the NZ voters are likely to overturn it if the left parties get out the word about its likely consequences.

even though the national party are keeping very tight-lipped about their policies (except for repeating "tax cuts!" like a mantra).

which is very much, oddly enough, the same platform george w. bush ran on in 2000. (that and promising a "modest foreign policy").

here in america we of course use the FPP system, though it rarely gets singled out as undemocratic because the two-party establishment is so deeply entrenched that few can imagine a third party making much headway anyway.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(5 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…