2000-08-06, 13:30:19, and old political rant

     Subject:  Re: [I] could use a little advice here...
        Date:  Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:10:13 +1300
        From:  Sockii 
 Organization: @)--'--
   Newsgroups: alt.fan.pratchett

> I reckon you should two votes, one for your representative, one
> for the party you'd like to see in government and then this
> situation could not arise and people could vote for who they'd
> actually like to see in charge

*cynical snigger*

MMP! (Mixed Members Proportional) For the record of the current history of NZ political system, all it does is allow the few politico wannabes to show what an ass (apologies to asses) they are.

M. Politician, you say you have mana? You want to keep your mana? You can't *understand* what mana means! (For instance, it does not mean keeping your silence so that you don't have to say that you perjured yourself in front of the legitimately elected Parliament.)

(*sigh* and I'm not even Maori, so I can't vote him out of the Parliament). Pontificating, egging his constituents on to break laws, *and* still expecting to have political credibility!

Yes, I realise that politicians must be populist to become elected representatives of their people, but then why, _why_ do NZ populist leaders have to stir xenophobia and witchhunting beneficiaries *and* then decry the reactions of the people to xenophobia and the witchhunted beneficiaries?

As for "who they'd [the electorate] actually like to see in charge":

last time NZ had an election using MMP system, the people voted to keep the National Party out of Government (National and Labour are the biggest parties, smaller parties were ACT (don't ask), Alliance (please, *don't* ask), NZF (I am thoroughly ashamed..please don't ask), and United).

At least that was my conclusion when the election results came out, and National and Labour were evenly matched (with National slightly ahead), NZF had approx. 6%, Alliance had 5%, and ACT and United had only one person in Parliament. _And_ the fact that NZF had run on the slogan 'only can keep National out of Government'.

In case no-one else noticed, NZF held the balance of power in Parliament and decided to put the National party *back* in Government. Thusly was a hard, yet useful lesson learnt by the voting public (a high percentage of voting aged NZers and residents actually voted that year). Politicians do not care for their constituents, only for their own political careers.

'Jump ship'? It's bleedin' 'Leap Frog'! See who can jump furthest from their elected political platform!

Now, call me an uneducated voter who couldn't see the potential in another 3 years of privatisation, market-rent Government housing for low-income families, and inflicting debt on a generation of students, but when NZF supported National didn't that invalidate their slogan? (can I sue them for false advertising, I wonder? Misrepresenting a product? Treasonous acts against the New Zealand people?)

From own personal disillusioning experience:

the majority of people from my electorate voted for a Labour candidate and for a National candidate, and partially for a NZF candidate "who was formerly in Labour but left the party because he wouldn't have gotten into Parliament on the list system".

(Remember, NZF ran on the slogan 'only can keep National out of Government') The National candidate got elected (which increases the National numbers). The NZF guy got into Parliament via being a list MP (via 'party vote', and because NZF had a very short list).

ok, here's what's sticks me. The people who voted for the NZF candidate were the people who, in previous years, would have voted for Labour candidate (to kick out National). Because those voters voted for the NZF candidate, this means the Labour candidate lost out. The voters who normally voted for the National candidate did so anyway, and they won by a *small* margin. And the NZF candidate had the temerity to actually feel *smug* that at least he got back into Parliament! (Not naming names, but this guy was the Minister of the Police-type stuff.)

 </rant>

The sad and rather depressing part is that the assumptions of politicians are probably correct. The ones who bother to vote are the ones with a short memory, or have only short-term goals, and thus tend to return the same, unrepentful politicians back into Parliament.

And don't get me started on newly minted politicians who suddenly discover their mana and iwi and want to desert their party *and* want to stay in Parliament (when said politician had gotten into Parliament via party list) *and* keep their nice pay rise. [1]

[1] ok, given that it *is* in NZ$, it ain't as much as, say US$, but the idea is there somewhere.

--
Sockii

**sigh**

Next:statistical hint#306 | Prev:belated new year thoughts
(c) Sockii