Green response to Auditor General’s report
“While we respect the Office of the Auditor General, we disagree with the Auditor General’s reasoning and conclusions. We believe that his findings will make it more difficult for MPs to carry out their work for their constituents effectively.
“Obviously we are disappointed with the outcome, however, as we said earlier the six MPs and the Party will pay any money that is ultimately found to have been outside the rules. At this early stage it is still unclear whether there will be any legal challenge to the Auditor General’s report from other parties, which could result in his having to amend his findings.
And:
“We have already said we will not be supporting any retrospective validating legislation, as we do not think this is the best way to clarify the rules. We will decide whether to oppose or abstain once we have seen any draft legislation.
The full release from Musterer Metiria Turei is here.
October 12th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
in hindsight…how can green times not have been electioneering material..?
and will russell norman…as the campaign manager..and therefor ultimately responsible for this..?…be stepping up to the plate at all..?
or is the hope to draw a discreet veil around that embarrassing fact..?
and why isn’t russell fronting to the media on this..?
is that reason i’ve pointed out the reason for the co-leaders no-show….?
btw…when does he intend ’showing’..?..does anyone know..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 13th, 2006 at 8:32 am
I understand Russel’s responsibility as campaign manager was for Party funds. This was expenditure from Parliamentary funds that MPs, rather than the campaign manager, had responsibility for. So it’s entirely appropriate that an MP, rather than the former campaign manager, fronts up to the media on it.
As for Green Times, I think the MPs’ argument is that it doesn’t say “Vote Green” or directly encourage anyone to vote Green anywhere in it. What’s more, it comes out on a regular basis, not just at election time, to inform people what Green MPs are saying and doing.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Who cares?, I don’t. There is so much overspending and fixing the books going on out there that things like this are to be expected. Casting blame and seeking recompense is a waste of time. The money’s been spent and people got paid for it and the whole thing marches on. Can’t people see that it’s just strategy from the Nat’s to belittle Labour. They’ll do exactly the same thing when they get in. It’s a smoke screen.
Though it’s quite interesting that we’ve had a look at the undercarriage of the government, the party’s themselves, and realised how… poor they all are.
I personally think that the MP’s wages should pay at least two thirds of the debt, if I even cared about recompense, because if we as individuals over spend to get a job then the money comes from our pocket’s. Or maybe a vote of confidence within the party’s and the for and against vote became the quotient the sitting member’s were liable for. Taking away some of their privilege might get them thinking more about what it’s like to be us… responsible for our action’s.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Phil : “Green Times” is a newsletter sent out regularly, throughout the term. Why does it suddenly become electioneering when there’s an election on?
This highlights the ambiguities of the game. You never know when he’s going to blow the whistle, but you don’t argue with the ref, you pay the penalty and get on with it. There’s nothing shameful about it.
Unless you contest it and say you won’t pay… that is truly shameful. The pledge-card business. Getting away with it because they are the government! Bad days for democracy.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
This is outstanding..
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=73761184
October 13th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
alister..in particular i was talking about the inserts in ak and chch…
(but green times is not just it..eh..?
and would note that in the campaign before..there was almost obsessive attention paid to what money was used to pay for what..
with those parliamentary services strictures being the bible..
so…if the standards this time out were so much looser that the greens have to pay back a hell of a lot more than the green times costs..
(correct me if i’m wrong ..but my understanding is that a large part of the funding received from parliamentary services during that three month period..now has to be paid back..?..)
now..such a dropping of the ball must be..surely..down to the campaign manager..?
and i do take some delight that the spotlight is now being turned on national..
first question…how did they pay for their consultant..a brian sinclair..i believe..?..”
now we can watch national squirm…
then of course..helen will play ping-pong with their financial gonads by ending the source of 90% of nationals’ funding last election..
she will end anonymous political donations..
that will really hurt national..and for them..this little drama is just beginning…
(tee-hee..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 13th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
“Musterer”? Sheep?
October 13th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
Ah Phil
Would they be the EB leaflets you’re thinking of ?
They did have a green fern on them after all -so easy to confuse LOL.
I know “exactly” what went into mail boxes in Chch and it was “all”* paid for by money party members had raised.
I’d say, if you have proof otherwise, then put up - or shut up - rather than casting slurs on good people.
* Including design, production and delivery.
October 13th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
fastbike..don’t get off..i’ll pick up yr pump for you..
i am only repeating information that is widely available in the media..
take a chill pill..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 13th, 2006 at 11:48 pm
all you parties waste too much of our money on elections even with this rulings i tihnk you should use 0 dollars of tax payers money for your ellections, the diffenence is labour tried to CHEAT the system with their cards saying they were going to pay for it themselves and the using the leaders fund.
As for the EB i think they should release what ever leaflets they want, I would like to think i could do the same.
PAY the money back and try to RUN the country you slackers, we don’t want the slackers that LOCKE is trying to import.
Let nationals have a GO as we are losing 180+million dollars a year thru labours interest free student loans, it should ATLEAST be set at inflation.
I WANT BIOFUEL! NOW ! NOW ! NOW!!!!!!!
October 14th, 2006 at 12:28 am
Ekstatek - just to note that I posted some comments on biofuels in the climate change symposium thread, below. Have a look at the EECA site. Also - the likely percentage of biofuel in petrol would be small and much of it would come from byproducts of existing industrial processes that use significant energy. As I understand it, growing crops specifically for biofuels in NZ would require more fossil fuel than just burning fossil fuel directly in engines. I’ve heard that that is the situation with a lot of the biofuel in the US.
I think uni education should be free for students. Why start people off in life saddled with a big loan for education? We adults should be looking after our young people better, instead of exploiting their vulnerability.
October 14th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Ekstatek - I really don’t think we tried to rort the system, the rules governing our regular newsletter, it goes out whether there’s an election or not, were revised so that it cannot go out in the lead up to the election. OK… but this isn’t any advice we’ve had from anywhere anytime but now.
As for no money for elections, that’s a fools hope and to allow the EB to contribute their negative opinions while restricting the voice of the party in its own defence is still more foolish. I do not know what your game is, but you really need to quit shouting.
As for letting National have a go, that wholly owned subsidiary of the business council never met a social policy it couldn’t gut, or an environmental issue it couldn’t screw up. How about letting the Greens have a go instead? We at least, know how to make the biofuels, and our version of taxation is vastly different from either labour’s OR national’s. Have a look at it.
Also, referencing an earlier post of yours, most of us hope to limit the growth of this country as well as the growth of population for the planet. It is discussed. I know I have mentioned it in my posts, and others here as well.
But really, quit shouting… please?
Thanks
BJ
October 14th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
BJ
It is about time somebody did “gut” the ridiculous social policy this country is burdened with.
I find it interesting that you even suggest that we should “let the greens have a go”, in a democracy (well most democracies apart from NZ) those polling 5% have about as much say in running things as their support deserves i.e Bugger all!
October 14th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Big bruv - BJ might have been expressing a wish that the Greens would get significantly more than 5% of the vote next time - not sure. Frog - Perhaps social policy could be a separate thread on frogblog. There could be a thread for each policy area.
BJ - I wouldn’t worry too much about a few capital letters or emphasis. Not everyone realises that it’s read as shouting.
I tend to rain on the biofuels parade a bit - people seem to think that biofuels are pure goodness, but as I understand it, there are potentially a lot of problems with use of any more than small amounts in NZ.
October 14th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Prim, you obviously don’t know enough about biofuels, In the US they complain that ethanol from corn has to be carried by trucks which use diesel, well why not run those trucks on biodiesel and that they have to use fertiliser made from fossil fuel, which is just lazy farming. Crops such as salix can provide all the fuel we need, growing it on marginal land which is currently growing pine, which i am told is treated with a ozone depleting gas before being exported.
As for allowing the greens a go, i say sure why not, can’t do any worse than what labour has done, but i live in the real world and understand climate change is going to have to make us all suffer ALOT more before the public votes for the greens in any numbers.
It would be nice if all uni was free, but i don’t want to pay anymore tax to pay for them, its bad enough i have to pay for single mothers who have children so they don’t have to face the real world and get a job which is what people with use uni for if it turns free.
October 14th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Ekstatek - most Greens know quite a lot about biofuels. We know you can’t eat them, we know they won’t solve all the problems of the world, we know how they’re made and the difference between the various sources of them.
The problems they do solve they solve well, and we support their development. Where we may diverge from your enthusiasm, it has mostly to do with the worry that wealthy consumers will wind up using the food of the poorer folk as fuel for their yachts. Greens seldom just address a single part of a complex issue, and we try to understand the social consequences.
Free Uni? Only for the smartest students I’d expect. Opening up the studies to all income levels doesn’t mean lowering the entrance standards, does it?
respectfully
BJ
October 14th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Big Bruv - “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits” and one of the limits is the frequency with which it occurs. Democracy is only as good as the voters, the citizens allow it to be. Shall the smartest people have no voice because they are outnumbered or should they have a chance to govern. I was responding to a post that demanded that National should “have a go”. I hadn’t noticed that they won a majority of the vote.
If we gut the social organization of this country we will be following the lead of the USA, not the lead of civilized countries.
Changing it so that it works a bit better would be a good idea, but there are better ways of doing this than gutting the support structure that exists at present.
October 15th, 2006 at 10:42 am
extatek thinks:
“its bad enough i have to pay for single mothers who have children so they don’t have to face the real world and get a job … ”
I have some startling news for him:
1) “Virgin birth” is a fable, not a fact. All babies have fathers.
It was the long term avoidance of paternal respnsibility by many men that led to the introduction and tenure of the DPB in our society. A seamless way to ensure that the carers of our next generation had a means of support for themselves and their children for “the most important work in our society”, whether or not the “liable parent” (usually the father) contributed.
The State does its best to ensure that the other parent (”liable parent”) contributes (according to his or her means). The money collected by the State, goes into the fund that pays the caregiving parent (in some cases it is enough to pay all the full amount).
Nobody sat there and said “Hey I have a great idea … let’s encourage women to get pregnat and then sit on their butts for the rest of their lives at extateks expense!”
(It would be a useful reality check, for anyone who thinks like extatek, to offer to take over the role of a sole parent for ONE day … and then in one’s mind, to multiply the experience by 365.)
October 15th, 2006 at 11:13 am
BJ
Is that why the Greens just made the 5% threshold?…the other 95% of the NZ population are not smart enough to “get the green message”.
Or perhaps it is that some of us actually like a few of the things the greens stand for but cannot possibly consider voting for the greens while you have such a hard left wing approach to social policy.
I honestly believe that if the Greens dumped Bradford, Locke and Nandoor they would be in a far stronger position with the voting public.
I suspect the greens would not even consider this as they are afflicted with a disease common to those on the left…arrogance.
October 15th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
I’m quite glad that the subject of intelligence has come up because as a person who is able to join Mensa, while also being working class, I’ve thought about the subject alot - in relation to the society, governments, the future etc.
The trouble with being intelligent, and by this I mean the ability to solve problem’s encountered and not the ability to remember information, is that a very small percentage of any population, within a given society, is actually very intelligent. In my own experience it’s akin to being able to see while most around you are blind. That being said, being intelligent is almost as much of a handicap as being stupid is and because of the distance in perceptive abilities bewteen the two extremes, the geniuses and the deficient, and the middle where the average is - the geniuses are often seen as the stupid… and occasionally vice versa.
But genius, by it’s very nature, usually has far keener insight into the future ramifications of things that are happening now as well as the ability to adapt to those new possiblities that are approaching. That doesn’t mean that they always get it right but it does mean they have a far greater chance of getting it right.
Of consideration as to whether high intelligence is a benefit to humanity is the question of the social orientation of high intelligence. Oppenhiemer and his crew could be defined as geniuses but they were lacking in social conscience and therefore the good they have done us as a race is questionable. Gandhi, though, had a very intense social conscience, as well as great problem solving abilities and it could be said that his genius will be of far greater usefullnes to the human race, both in the long and the short run, than the applied genius of that infamous group of physisists.
So if we add up the forward thinking, problem solving and social conscience quotients of each of our political parties and throw in the naturally occuring percentage of genius- the upper one percentile of any age group - it’s kinda fairly obvious where most of the high intelligence, and most often misunderstood by the avarage, is.
October 15th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
I think that to get more votes, the Greens have to either shift the curve of public opinion towards the Green views, or shift their own views somewhat, or both. It depends on how many parties are crowded into different parts of the specturm.
I think that we all agree that biofuels can be a good thing, with sufficient care to ensure that they are developed in an appropriate way. It will be interesting to see what comes to pass. The Greens are I think more likely to be in tune with the best approaches. But if history is anything to go by, a good approach environmentally is not necessarily what will happen.
I am quite concerned about anything that has potential to impact on other species, e.g. expropriate lots of habitat for human purposes. I care about human suffering too. Some days, it all seems too awful. In any case, I think we can help the situation by walking/cycling/taking public transport, so that’s what I do.
October 15th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Big Bruv - I do not think the social agenda of the Greens is as “hard left” as you clearly do. Certainly it is not far enough left to put me off as completely as you seem to be… though I do argue with my fellow greens somewhat about some of it.
My questions to you are:
Which parts of our policies do you find to be “hard left”?
Do you regard the social contract as more important than the environmental message? We are talking about survival of the species vs some part of our policy mix. Is not legalizing marijuana more important than survival of the species?
Greens made the 5% threshold. No other minor party did. I think the electoral dynamics during the run-up to the last election were too complex for the analysis you offered, and you misread my comment on our voice. My point was, and remains that being in the minority does not make our position wrong.
Who do you think would actually do something useful for the planet and for NZ, if they were to find themselves in government tomorrow? Personally I don’t think I could trust either major party, they are both firmly in the grip of the banking/investment interests, and all that differs between them is their approach to shearing the sheep who elect them.
However, I am REALLY curious to hear what policies of the Green Party cause you the most heartburn. That answer might help us all a little. You to understand that we ain’t as bad as all that, and us to understand where we are perceived to be or actually, worse than we think we are.
respectfully
BJ
October 15th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Artyone - I am not sure you are being entirely fair to Oppenheimer and his crowd… there was a little fracas going on at the time and the consequences could be computed and some were imagined but none had yet been seen. The consequences of not doing what they did were interesting at several levels as well.
Not saying they were moral… but they lived in interesting times.
I was using intelligence as a quick proxy for what I was really trying to get at, which I think I managed better in my subsequent post. I may yet regret that choice
respectfully
BJ
October 15th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
big bruv:
I doubt that your knowledge of Sue Bradford, Keith Locke and Nandor Tanczos is more than very superficial at best.
You are absolutely right that the Greens are unlikely to “dump them”!
Unlike other Parties, every Green Party Member is asked to study the profiles and personal statements of our full compliment of candidates and list them in rank order on the Party List. It is a very difficult job because there are so many talented and committed Greens to choose from, and we each endeavour to come up with a list that best represents our Kiwi society in all its diversity.
Our final Party List ranking order is the result of that collective exercise.
Thus our MP’s are in Parliament with heavy support from the Party, and most of us know them personally and respect them highly as people.
The Greens have been around since the Values Party days in the 1970’s, and we have long term plans to be around for a very long time!
October 15th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Prim: I suspect that World events will continue to “shift the curve of public opinion towards the Green views”.
October 15th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
artyone said:
Interesting point about intelligence … if we add up the forward thinking, problem solving and social conscience quotients of each of our political parties … it’s kinda fairly obvious where most of the high intelligence, and most often misunderstood by the avarage, is.
At Green Party Conference I once asked a NZ Political Commentator why he stayed for the whole Conference rather than just arriving to cover the “media events” as his colleagues did. He replied that he stayed “because it was interesting”; that “althought there are some intelligent people in every political party, the average IQ of the Greens is well ahead of the rest.”
I tend to agree. Add to this, that the Greens, being cooperative and egalitarian in outlook and behaviour, don’t “make a thing of it”, and don’t respond, except to clarify when our ideas and attitudes are misconstrued by others.
So the “Ha! Ha! those Greenies … ” will continue for a while yet!
Despite all the noise to the contrary, the Green following remains and will increase. Kiwis, now familiar with MMP, are becoming tactical voters. The last election saw a decrease in third party votes, and Greens saw a drop in our overall percentage. We lost a lot of potential “red green” voters who needed to be sure that Labour would be the Government and thus they voted “red red”, when they has voted “red green” in the previous election.
I live in what has become a “desirable” (hence affluent) suburb. Among the residents here there are a surprisng number of “blue green” voters, usually women (and mainly mothers who say that they are doing so for their “childrens’ future”, and some “don’t tell their husband”s.
So the Green message is getting out there OK !
October 15th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
bjchip - you can’t get food from salix, just fuel,plastix and some sugar, and i’m not saying its a cure all i’m just saying its a DAMN good place to start, along with nuclear/thorium power plants creating hydrogen for alternatives to fossil fuel.
eredwen- don’t pretend like i was attacking all single mothers (shoulda said parent) AS I stated i was ONLY complaining about the ones who become pregnant to stop joining the real world and working, not those that accidently become pregnant one day letting down their guard with a dumb horny male around, as for “Hey I have a great idea … let’s encourage women to get pregnat and then sit on their butts for the rest of their lives at extateks expense!” Thats exactly what Labour does, thinking a sole mother will be a labour voter for life (or atleast a few years).
big bruv- no way Nandoor ROCKS legalise marijuana 21+ and you would solve so many problems, and create NONE. as for Locke is a idiot tho who SEEMS to care more for poor immigrants who want to infect our country rather than the people who already live here ( how many of the tamper boys and their 180+ family members who arrived are still on the dpb?)
As for the greens getting in next election, i doubt it the country is so polarised by those who can see what a mess labour has made of our country and those who are too scared of nations tax policies to vote blue that green will be under 5% and have to wait for the global climate change to hit the following election to get back in. And i say fine ANYTHING to get rid of that evil witch.( who is sending all our jobs overseas)
October 16th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Land, Water and Sunlight is required to grow any biofuel, Salix included. There is at any given time and price, only a certain amount of each of those and whichever one is in least supply sets the limit on bio-production. The world has not fed itself fully in several years, in spite that some nations are grossly overweight (is this what makes them overbearing?). The unequal distribution is devastating to the poorest.
We know. We support the development of biofuels but we also know the social dimension contains a risk.
As for “anything”, how would you feel if instead of our jobs, it was our soldiers going overseas? You need to be careful what you wish for. The Greens in the USA said “anything but the status quo”, split the vote away from Gore and put the shrub in the white house. We know how well THAT worked now, don’t we.
Reminded of an old joke which requires two different voices….
The whip!
No! No! Anything but the whip!
ANYTHING????
The whip! The whip!
Be careful what you wish for, as you may get it.
I do consider odds being against us in the next election. Doesn’t keep me from working or hoping. Just keeps me realistic.
respectfully
BJ
October 16th, 2006 at 9:10 am
i think i have to eat some humble pie/ some of my earlier words on this topic/subject..
further investigation/information has just raised more questions/uncertainties for me..and most of them are directed at the auditor-general..
(a worthwhile read is going to ‘public address’ for a piece by an anonymous ‘rex’….that will give you pause for thought…)
but the puzzles for me are…
why is labours’ pledge-card ‘corrupt’..?
when the same thing from bill english in 2002 is ‘uncorrupt’..?
(i’ve asked this question repeatedly on the biggest rightwing blog (david farrar)..this to no avail…)
and a big puzzle (for me) is that most of the political parties..(one exception being national..who were briefed by kevin brady on how he planned to interpret those rules)…got it ’so wrong’…
given that from my experience…concerns around the ‘correct’ use of funding is a tightrope/high priority from those running campaigns…(with those needing to..very aware of those strictures..)
but the real ‘kicker ‘ on this one (as far as i’m concerned) is rod donald…
i hadn’t been aware that rod drove/oversaw the recent (2003?) reforms of those very regulations everyone has been found in breach of…
those reforms with the stated aim of clearing up those/any uncertainties..
so how could..the person who re-drafted those rules/guidelines..have got it ’so wrong’ in the three months leading up to the last election…?
it just begs disbelief…eh..?
and looks more and more like a “kerrs’ cur’ (c.f…the overthrow of whitlam..)..sorta do to me..
with the auditor-general vastly over-stepping his mark/powers…
(and on what/whose agenda..?….his own only..?..)
and as has been noted elsewhere…what brady has ensured is that..(like as happened to the governor-general role in australia)..the auditor-generals’ powers here will be emasculated…
so..all in all..it is a phyrric victory for the right…eh..?
yes..labour et. al. will have to pay it back….
but ‘venga-woman’ clark…is going to deal to nationals anonymous (90% in 2005) funding base in a serious way…(this in direct retaliation for this latest little ‘to-do’…)
clark isn’t going anywhere soon…despite the righties hysterical calls for another general election..(the final act in their attempt ‘to do a whitlam’ on clark ?.)
centre-left polling will hold up…
and national still have their leadership ‘issues’ to work through..
and still no ‘coalition partner’..(oh!..hang on..!..winston has just started ‘playing them’/winding them up..again..eh..?)
another factor in this whole business has been the role of the rightwing blogs in driving it along…(a key role..to my mind..)
at one stage yesterday 13 of the previous 16 postings by david farrar were on this issue..
(and for me..this has removed any doubts farrars’ kiwiblog is an unabashed national party ‘outlet’..with a direct line to/from ‘head office’..)
and the whole thing is looking more and more like a rightwing scam/dirty trick…
so..all in all…apologies are due to russel norman….for my earlier rush to judgment…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Why has the media been quoting Farrar? Honestly! I swear I’ve even seen him on TV (although that may have been in a nightmare). And the posters on that blog are harder right than the Libertarianz on Pacific Empire. It all seems a bit insane to me.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
BJ,
why do you persist in blaming the USA Greens for Bush becoming POTUSA? It’s just plain silly. In effect, you are saying that it’s the Greens fault that:
1. The US electoral college system is so undemocratic
2. The Florida Attourney-General illegally struck thousands of legitimate black voters off the electoral roll
3. The vote operation and vote count in many Florida counties was utterly chaotic and unprofessional, and wouldn’t have got a pass mark as “free and fair” from the Carter Center if it had been in Latin America
4. Tens of thousands of registered Demoratic Party voters in Florida never bothered to vote
5. Tens of thousands of registered Demoratic Party voters in Florida cast their vote for Bush
6. The Gore national campaign was so badly run it all hinged on the swing state of Florida which was always rigged in favour of Bush owing to control of the state by Bush’s brother.
7. Gore couldn’t beat someone unable to string two coherent sentences together
8. The US Supreme Court is a politically rigged and discredited institution, which chose to stop the vote recount and instead enact a judicial coup d’etat
How exactly are ALL these factors the fault of Nader/the USA Greens? As I said, trying to blame them just makes you look silly. So why do you continue with this silliness after over five years? For someone like you who is obviously very intelligent, this persistent silliness suggests a grasping at straws to rationalize blame for the traumatic and disasterous event that was Bush’s election. If this description is wrong, I apologise, but it really is difficult for me to figure out why you keep writing this silly scapegoating stuff.
October 16th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
eredwen Says:
October 15th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
I suspect that World events will continue to “shift the curve of public opinion towards the Green views�.
Eredwen - undoubtedly the case on some issues! Not sure of effect on e.g. social policy.
Perhaps the Greens could do a public opinion survey of some sort. A few weeks ago Chris Finlayson (MP) sent out a short questionnaire on a number of specific issues that were then in the spotlight. I got one in my letterbox.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Tochigi - I am relatively new to this blog group, but I feel prompted to say that I don’t think that I have seen BJ attribute any of the factors you list to the Greens. BJ’s point seems to be (from what I’ve seen) that the USA Greens had a strategy that was probably suboptimal from an environmental outcomes standpoint, in the US election context. That context may include factors such as those you list.
I do not know to what extent the US Greens’ approach may have contributed to the overall election outcome. In principle, it could be an interesting question to ask.
October 16th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Tochigi
The fault of Nader and the Greens is that they did not AT ALL take into account the facts of the US electoral system, and in particular its reliance on the first-past-the-post balloting. That “system” of balloting is probably the most likely of all systems, to deliver a result that puts a minority government in power. Greens + Democrats beat Bush handily both in 2000 and 2004. With the country polarizing, recognizing the danger of splitting the votes in an FPP system is mandatory. It isn’t optional. The Greens in the USA did not learn that lesson, and to this day refuse to accept it.
What Nader and the Greens SHOULD have done is what was done here.
Change the balloting system. In the USA an “instant runoff” process would make sense without compromising or affecting the rest of the law of the land, and is relatively easy to do through grassroots efforts on a state by state basis, and THEN they could push the candidates they chose. Similarly if the electoral system were, on a state-by-state basis, arranged so that the proportions of the electors were in proportion to the balloting in the state, the result would work to remove distortions, as there would be “Green” electors who would be able to shift the ballots to best benefit their party after the popularity contest was over. The electoral system is nothing if not flexible IF it is used properly.
They didn’t. Political realities are what that party AND this party, live and die by. The results speak for themselves.
You notice I don’t disagree with a single one of your points, I simply added the one more that puts the rest in perspective. The law of the land. The result could not have been a stolen election if the Greens had paid attention to the problem of FPP in the US system.
As for Gore’s campaign, it wasn’t THAT bad… I was there for that campaign. The US electorate is also in such a parlous state that it actually identifies with a jackass who can’t put together a sentence in any language.
Pointing out crooks and liars is not the same as locking up the family silver. The Republicans were caught pushing money into the Green Party in Pennsylvania in an attempt to split the opposition in a local election. It should be instructive. THEY are all too pragmatic. “Winning is everything”
However, political pragmatism is important. Greens tend to turn their noses up at it, both here and in the USA… and that sort of pride has consequences. We have to consider how our actions will ACTUALLY work, not simply how to make decisions based on pure principles. The argument in the USA was that Dems and Repugs were indistinguishable, and that it was necessary to cast a protest vote even though Nader had no hope in heck of winning anything.
Greens in their thousands listened to the diatribes and for all practical purposes, shredded their ballots. A few hundred votes would have made it the theft impossible.
When you understand that the political process in the USA in terms of the electoral system is well known to everyone and the results of what the Greens did were UTTERLY predictable for anyone with 3 working brain cells, the reason for my rancor is clear.
I am not scapegoating the Green party. I don’t think I’ve done that because I don’t really blame them alone. I’ve castigated them, exposed the flaw in their reasoning and made it clear that I regard them as fools, but I don’t entirely blame them for the result. Lots of people get blame and you list quite a few in your post.
However, while we don’t control the crooks and liars, we DO control our own activities. What we do in any particular political environment is what we can be held accountable for and deserve praise or blame as a result.
I don’t blame the Greens in the USA for the actions of the crooks and liars, I blame them for the thing they DID have control over and failed to do.
If you attempt something that you cannot possibly succeed at and then fail you fail twice, you fail at the thing you attempted and you fail to attempt the thing you might have accomplished.
That’s what the US Greens did, and they ARE smart enough to have known better…. but Nader? I will NEVER forgive him for what he did to the Corvair.
respectfully
BJ
October 16th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
BJ,
I appreciate your efforts in posting a long and detailed reply.
But the problem is, you are focusing on things like:
–the USA greens should (not) have done such-and-such; and
–the USA greens should accept the political realities of the FPP system;
etc etc etc
when your original post contained this unequvocal blame statement:
“The Greens in the USA said “anything but the status quoâ€?, split the vote away from Gore and put the shrub in the white house.”
So, your opinion of whether the USA greens are smart or dumb or in cloud cuckoo land are irrelevant to what I am referring to as your silliness in blaming the USA greens for Bush’s election.
In your reply, you say:
“A few hundred votes would have made it the theft impossible.”
This is more grasping, desperate silliness and simply is not true. Can you offer some credible evidence?
And why blame the Greens for a few hundred votes when tens of thousands of registered Demorats voted for Bush? Is this not pure silliness?
you also say:
“I am not scapegoating the Green party. I don’t think I’ve done that because I don’t really blame them alone.”
but your original statement WAS scapegoating the Greens and contained none of these later provisos.
And anyway, if we ranked all the reasons Gore lost, the Greens’ strategy would be about number 7,000 down the list.
And finally, in reply to your reply, you seem to suggest that in an FPP system, all third parties should throw in the towel for fear of “splitting the vote”. That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it is not the Sixth Law of Thermodynamics and a lot of people do not agree with such an opinion. Under such reasoning the Values Pary would never have participated in a NZ election in the 70s for fear of taking votes from Labour.
And surely, if the Greens feel thay are exposing the weaknesses and failings of the USA electoral system, surely this will encourage more people to campaign for change? no?
October 16th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
toghichi…of course the nader-greens gave bush that election..(and us bush..)
‘cos those who voted nader would have voted democrat..
(and we would have had no bush..do the math..!..)
some local examples of this political conundrum..that may clarify/demonstrate this for you..
are…
bob jones (rightie) bringing down a rightwing nz govt..(nz party)..(split the vote)
the greens (in auckland)..bringing us john banks as mayor…(by splitting the centre-left vote..in crucial seats..)
and the legalise cannabis party cannabilising the green vote last time..and depriving their champion of his seat on the first count..
which (’cos of the numbers)…brought us this labour/dunne/peters bastard-child….and thus ensured no cannabis law reform…
(once again..?..splitting the vote..)
i hope that clarifies that for you toghichi…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
“i hope that clarifies that for you”
thanks phil, but no, it doesn’t clarify it at all.
blaming any party’s failure to gain sufficient votes on another party “splitting the vote” is scapegoating the party’s failure to convince enough people to vote for them. and frankly it’s pathetic. it may be convenient to blame someone else for one’s failures but it is still pathetic.
phil wrote:
“‘cos those who voted nader would have voted democrat..
(and we would have had no bush..do the math..!..)”
phil, please do the maths: tens of thousands of registered Democrats voted for Bush. even more registered Democrats never bothered to vote at all. and that’s all Nader’s fault, i suppose?
yeah, right.
phil wrote:
“bob jones (rightie) bringing down a rightwing nz govt..(nz party)..(split the vote)”
yeah, Muldoon was a shoe-in until Jones showed up and “split the righties”
sure thing. whatever you say.
“the legalise cannabis party cannabilising the green vote last time”
ah, actually, they convinced a few people to vote for them instead of us. it’s called democracy. no cannabilising necessary. we FAILED to convince the voters we were the better choice. simple as that.
please don’t blame others for your own failures. it makes you look silly.
October 16th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
ok..togichi….point by point..
the splitting of the vote bringing down governments/deciding elections is a political fact/reality..
(i am unsure how you can deny that..?..)
and using non-voters to deny the premise is a canard..
those who voted green are committed voters…who..if the greens had not been there..would have voted democrat..
non-voters are just that..non-voters..
the inaction of them does not negate the actions of the committed ones..
once again..just do the math…
and um..are you denying the historical political reality of nz first bringing down muldoon..?…(dismissed with a ‘..whatever you say..’..?..)
which brings us to the aotearoa legalise cannabis party..
the leadership of that party campaigned openly against nandor/the greens…strongly running the line that both were ‘traitors to the cause’…
their stated reason..?..because the greens decriminalise cannabis policy was a cop-out..and they wanted full legalisation..
(a stance/attitude i can have some sympathies with..however..!)
that campaigning against the greens is a fact…and once again..do the math..!
the aotearoa legalise cannabis party votes added to the green vote..
would have had nandor in parliament…
and very likely the greens in government..
(and no rod with a broken heart..but hey..!..that’s a whole other thread/story..eh..?..)
as you could possibly tell..i feel the actions of the alcp were treacherous/foolish/misguided in the extreme…
but i don’t apportion that much blame to the alcp members who bought the spin from their leadership…
but ‘point the bone’ directly at the alcp party leadership..
(another important ‘consideration’ for them is the election funding formula..in that the number of votes you get for your party determines the size of the bucket of dosh you get to play with next election..
that can be a mighty strong motivation to urge your followers not to follow their instincts..and vote nandor/green…(as he/they has/have always been their champion..)..and to throw their votes away..by giving their party votes to alcp..)
i guess you’d have to ask the alcp leadership as to the effect that funding formula might have had on their (bizzare/illogical) anti-nandor/green
stance..
and while you are at it..ask them if they plan on trying on the same bullshit next time out..eh..?
‘cos if so..am i going to be on their feckin’ case..you can count on that..
now..all these facts aren’t “..blaming others for (my?) own failures..(!).”
they are just facts..
if you don’t agree..show me where i am wrong/incorrect..
relying on emotional ’spraying’ just won’t cut it..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
aarrgghh..!..i wrote a long rebuttal to the above..and said bullsh*t..without the asterix..
off to moderation limbo..
so tomorrow..dear heart..(steel yourself..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz
October 16th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
phil wrote:
“those who voted green are committed voters…who..if the greens had not been there..would have voted democrat..”
what a load of arrogant rubbish. there are a huge number of Green voters in the US who would rather not vote than vote for the Republocrat Party. who the f are you to tell them thay have to vote for the spineless corporatist warmongering zionist dems?
and you manage to blame a few Green voters for Gore’s loss when many times that number of registered Democrats voted for Bush. please explain…?
phil wrote:
“and um..are you denying the historical political reality of nz first bringing down muldoon..?…(dismissed with a ‘..whatever you say..’..?..)”
so you are really insisting that Lange would have lost to Muldoon if it weren’t for Jones? even a quick glance at the electorate by electorate votes will show that this is pure urban legend. Jones presence may have had the effect of ensuring a much bigger labour majority, but that just means we can see that he indirectly played a part in facilitating the Rogernomics new right revolution, so for him, mission accomplished. But have a look at the FPP numbers Phil, even without Jones Lange was easily the winner. almost 9 years of Muldoonism was way too much for most of the country.
Phil wrote:
“the leadership of that party campaigned openly against nandor/the greens…strongly running the line that both were ‘traitors to the cause’…”
There was nothing stopping the Greens from campaigning vigorously against the ALCP. The simple fact is the Greens couldn’t convince these ALCP voters to vote for the Greens. How is this the fault of the ALCP leadership? They have as much right to campaign as anyone else. You also seem to imply that people who voted for the ALCP are automatons who do exactly as the dastardly ALCP leadership tells them. once again, arrogant nonsense.
phil wrote:
“and while you are at it..ask them if they plan on trying on the same bullsh*t next time out..eh..?”
i’ve never voted for ALCP and do not know any of their leadership. so why don’t you ask them yourself phil?
phil wrote:
“now..all these facts aren’t “..blaming others for (my?) own failures..(!).â€?”
phil, i couldn’t find any facts, just opinions, to which you are entitled. but please stop scapegoating others for the Greens’ failure to convince them voting Green is the best choice. it’s silly and unproductive.
October 16th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Tochigi -
I do not ONLY blame the Greens in the USA, but the Greens in the USA were the only group who could have stopped Bush cold, actually had the wish to keep him out of office, and did nothing of the sort. In that sense they failed and failed badly.
All the others are simply thieves and liars doing what comes naturally to them.
I’ve seen it too often. In New York when the Liberal Party there decided to put D’Amato in office by splitting off from the Democratic Party. The Liberal Party in NY is basically a dead issue now, and partly because of the careful way they aimed at their own feet and each other’s backs.
In Florida Nader polled Ninety Seven Thousand votes. The vote tabulation that gave Bush the Florida delegation and the election was, at the end, 537. That’s how close that was and there are still massive arguments about the count, but I don’t think Florida the only state where the Green split threw the state to the Repugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_election
The point is, that Bush and his ilk are poison to the Greens. They would not vote FOR him in a fit. However, by disregarding the real world in some idealistic way, they managed to convince themselves that their actions would not matter, and by casting their votes away, they “gave” him the election. There is no other way to look at this… and there is no defense for it, they knew what would happen ahead of time. They said “It doesn’t matter which of the major candidates wins, they’re all the same” and that is an actual quote from actual greens before that election. I know because my jaw bounced off the floor a few times before I tore them a new one.
Didn’t help, but I felt better.
Yes, I DO blame them. I was there Tochigi, and I was PO’d at Nader long before the election.
There’s this thing about the theory behind elections and voting, and it is REALLY important to understand. In an FPP system like the US the most powerful vote you can cast is for the person most likely to beat the candidate you like the least.
With MPP it is a little different, you have to cast a ballot for a party that has a shot at getting over 5%. Under 5% and your vote goes in the same wastebasket that consumed the votes for Nader.
I don’t mind that we have high ideals. The fact that we have them and we honour them by trying to abide by them is one of the refreshing and satisfying things about this party… but it can go too far, just as the pragmatic pursuit of victory at the expense of those ideals can go too far. The balance has to be struck and struck at a level that does not lead us to such a whisker thin margin at the next election.
The thing is Tochigi, that it is not just that “they convinced a few people to vote for them instead of us”. It that the few people they convinced spent their votes in pursuit of idealism instead of victory, and they encouraged those followers to embrace losing in the pursuit of purity. You may call my attitude pathetic, but I call such people stupid…. and I blame them for the failures they promote.
That I also blame the Repugs for being thieves is not relevant, because they are what they are, and they were always hostile to our interests. The Greens however, are a force to be reckoned with IF they decide they want to accomplish effective change. We have MPP. The US doen’t. Greens here did that and should be proud of themselves.
And finally, in reply to your reply, you seem to suggest that in an FPP system, all third parties should throw in the towel for fear of “splitting the vote�.
Nope, but they have to be damned careful when they run, and they SHOULD “throw in the towel” when it becomes clear that they can’t win but can definitely lose. Then they should get rid of FPP… cause THAT is the poison pill that causes the bulk of the problem.
… and I still blame Nader for the death of the Corvair.
“God save me from my friends. I can protect myself from my enemies.” Marshall de Villares
respectfully
BJ
October 16th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
um..tochigi..it was rhetorical..
oh..!..never mind…
over and out..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 16th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
bjchip:
You wrote:
“However, political pragmatism is important. Greens tend to turn their noses up at it, both here and in the USA… and that sort of pride has consequences. We have to consider how our actions will ACTUALLY work, not simply how to make decisions based on pure principles.”
What arrogant nonsense!
(I’ve wanted to say that to you for a long time now!)
Why do you think we have Proportional Voting systems in Aotearoa, and how do you think they got here? The answer is because of the far sightedness, political pragmatism and the very hard work of Greens!
“We” do “consider how our actions will ACTUALLY work” and lead to “decisions based on principles” … We have had, and continue to have, “a (very) long term perspective.”
(I have been associated with some of the current Greens since the formation of the Values Party in the early 1970’s. I first associated with Rod Donald when he was a 16 year old high school student and I was a teacher. Rod came to meet me, because he had heard about the work I was doing. (It is a memory I treasure! He was already a very special person who knew where he wanted to go.)
Your constant and often patronising use of the word “we” sometimes “makes my teeth grate”! (I’ve wanted to say THAT for a long time too!)
bj: Perhaps if you stopped being an “armchair Green”, put your frequently used “we” to the test and became a worker instead of an endless “advisor”, you might find out what the “Green Party of Aotearoa” is, how it got there and why … (and then, maybe you should go back and help those who want the USA to become a democracy. They will be in need all the help they can get!)
It is meaningless to compare the American electoral systems with ours, and “we” are all very aware of that!
(end of homily!)
eredwen
(PS We are used to foriegners coming here and giving us inappropriate “helpful advice”. It used to be Brits, now, generally, it is Americans.)
October 16th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
bj wrote:
“The vote tabulation that gave Bush the Florida delegation and the election was, at the end, 537.”
No, when the SCOTUS executed its coup d’etat, the recound had Bush leading by 154.
the Wiki page you cited above says:
“A larger consortium of news organizations, including the USA Today, the Miami Herald, Knight Ridder, the Tampa Tribune, and five other newspapers next conducted a full recount of all ballots, including both undervotes and overvotes. According to their results, under stricter standards for vote counting, Bush won, and under looser standards, Gore won. [12] However, a Gore win was impossible without a recount of overvotes, which he did not request.
According to the study, only 3% of the 111,261 overvotes had markings that could be interpreted as a legal vote. According to Anthony Salvado, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine, who acted as a consultant on the media recount, most of the errors were caused by ballot design, ballot wording, and efforts by voters to choose both a president and a vice-president. For example, 21,188 of the Florida overvotes, or nearly one-fifth of the total, originated from Duval County, where the presidential race was split across two pages. Voters were instructed to “vote every page”. Half of the overvotes in Duval County had one presidential candidate marked on each page, making their vote illegal under Florida law. Salvado says that this error alone cost Gore the election.
Including overvotes in the above totals for undervotes gives different margins of victory:
* Lenient standard. Gore by 332 votes.
* Palm Beach standard. Gore by 242 votes.
* Two-corner standard. Bush by 407 votes.
* Strict standard. Bush by 152 votes.
==================================
This Florida “election” was a total farce from beginning to end. Why do you insist on blaming the result on Greens/Nader?
And why do you implicitly insist all the Green voters would have voted Democrat? A lot of them would probably rather not vote at all than vote for the dems. how can you claim to know?
sorry bj, but this bowing to Big Party B because they *may* scrape ahead of the Big Party A is not a rule anyone is obliged to observe.
people voting Nader may well have been aware that it might let Bush in. But they chose to not vote for Gore anyway. Who are you to tell them they are wrong? It’s NOT their fault in any way that Gore failed to win. Gore failed to win their votes. Gore failed to win a lot of other people’s votes too. So how is this the Green voters’ fault?
And once again, why blame the Green voters when tens of thousands of registered Democrats voted for Bush?
October 16th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Calling Gore a “spineless corporatist warmongering zionist dem” is way over the top.
It is a perfect example of how purity of purpose turns into the pursuit of failure.
Think about the true likelihood of someone like Gore sending the US Military into a war… particularly with a Republican House of Representatives. Consider too, that the man has always been dedicated to the environment itself, for all that the Democratic party is almost as much owned by the corporate world as the Republicans.
As for telling them the “have to vote” for Gore, no, I am not saying that. I am telling them that by voting their conscience rather than voting to win, they are embrace failure. That’s simply true… and I will characterize their choice as stupid if their vote actually puts their worst nightmare in office, when that result is totally predictable.
Somehow I don’t think I am alone in this attitude.
Idealism is an EXPENSIVE vice. One should check the price before signing the check.
respectfully
BJ
October 16th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Gore would have been a fine president (not only in comparison to the alternative! quite likely in his own right)
but he was a LOUSY candidate. He should have won handily, even with the Greens at 5%.
I followed that campaign closely, and what you neglect, BJ, is that the Green vote was in fact running a great deal higher, there was a real prospect of 5%, which held out the possibility of opening a breach in the two-party system (which, as you no doubt agree, is TWICE as democratic as the one-party system!)
And in fact, as election day approached, Green electors measured the danger of a Bush win and switched to Gore.
Those who voted Green on election day were, for the most part, hard-core voters who would have stayed at home if Nader had not been on the ballot.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Tochigi - Democrats who voted for Bush can be found in fundamentalist Churches throughout the South. THEY as individuals chose BUSH. They didn’t do anything against their own best interests. The thieves and liars who rorted the Florida vote chose Bush and dishonety, but they didn’t act against their own best interests. The Florida election was a farce, but it was still a near thing. Except for the Green Party acting against ITS own best interests, it would have been different.
That’s what makes it stupid Tochigi. Not that they ( or we, or the ALCP ) have principles and ideals, but that they pursue those without counting the cost at all. Even to the point of not even TRYING to choose methods to achieve our goals that don’t entail alienation of the nation.
The implicit understanding of who Greens might have voted for in the Florida election goes like this. If 80 percent of them stayed home because they didn’t like like either party, and 5% voted for Bush and 15% voted for Gore, Gore wins… no sweat. That’s hardly an “optimistic” assessment of the likely outcome.
You are over-focusing on what else went wrong in Florida. I am not interested in the details. None of it is news to me and I could probably recount from memory at least 3 other extraordinary anomalies. The wretchedness of the system is not confined to Florida, the errors happen everywhere. On a national level the errors are expected to cancel out. The outright theft isn’t being done by people who are trying to hurt their own interests, they are trying to hurt Greens interests.
So helping them is smart?
The biggest error is in thinking that you are voting FOR something or someone in the USA. You aren’t. You don’t, or you simply waste your vote. You vote AGAINST the person or thing you can’t stand. You may not like it. I do not like it. It is what it is. To ignore it is like ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. I expect Greens to be as smart and honest as I am Tochigi.
I do not expect that of Repugs, Nats, Dems or Labour, but I expect it of Greens… and mostly I am not disappointed. When I am, I feel betrayed.
respectfully
BJ
October 16th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Alistair… in the US, it isn’t 5% it is 50% or it is FPP, winner take ALL. There was no way, none at all, for the Greens to do anything but help Bush get elected. Not with the electoral system that exists in the US. The only way a third party gets in is for one of the 2 parties to self destruct. For a short period there will be 3 parties and then only two again. That is the single ballot FPP system in action. It is brutally bad, but the two big parties wouldn’t change if for the world. It is a binary selector.
But it’s vulnerable. It is policy set by the individual states that largely governs electoral processes in the US. ANY state can adopt MMP or proportional or instant-runoff if it likes. Greens COULD orchestrate a change.
respectfully
BJ
Which is why it has to change first.
October 16th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
bj,
I never called Gore a “spineless corporatist warmongering zionist dem”.
I said to Phil: “who the f are you to tell them thay have to vote for the spineless corporatist warmongering zionist dems?”
Gore may or may not be a “good dem”. I don’t know for sure. He seems to be a lot better than most of them. cf HRC (warmonger/zionist), ditto Lieberman and Pelosi seem terrible and Reid pretty bad. and the other dem “leaders” of the past several years all pretty much fit my description. As I said, Gore may not be as bad, IMO. anyway, how can Bush botch two wars and send the country into massive debt and still not be routed by the opposition? could it be that they (the dems) are spineless?
bj wrote:
“As for telling them the “have to voteâ€? for Gore, no, I am not saying that. I am telling them that by voting their conscience rather than voting to win, they are embrace failure. That’s simply true… and I will characterize their choice as stupid if their vote actually puts their worst nightmare in office, when that result is totally predictable. ”
look, who are you to say that Bush is these people’s “worst nightmare”? who are you to make such a presumption? they have NOT “embraced failure”, they have voted as they saw fit. just because your favoured candidate didn’t win and your worst nightmare did win is not their fault. Maybe the MAIN reason they voted Nader was to send a message to the spineless dems? maybe they despise the dems more than they hate Rove/Cheney? How would you presume to know?
October 16th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
bj wrote:
“The Florida election was a farce, but it was still a near thing. Except for the Green Party acting against ITS own best interests, it would have been different. ”
ROFL!!!
more silliness, eh?
bj wrote:
“If 80 percent of them stayed home because they didn’t like like either party, and 5% voted for Bush and 15% voted for Gore, Gore wins… no sweat. That’s hardly an “optimisticâ€? assessment of the likely outcome. ”
after all these shenanegans, it all has to gravitate back to those stupid Greens! It HAS to be THEIR fault… in your opinion…
bj wrote:
“You are over-focusing on what else went wrong in Florida. I am not interested in the details.”
But you ARE minutely interested in the details of what the Green voters SHOULD have done, in your opinion.
bj wrote:
“To ignore it is like ignoring the laws of thermodynamics.”
are you really an engineer?
ROFL! (again)
This is utterly circular, and has no end point. so i will end here.
October 17th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Tochigi - Gore my favored candidate? Don’t be silly. He’d probably be a good President, but I know enough not to trust him any further than I could throw him.
I am not minutely interested in what the Green voters should have done, I am telling you what is obvious to any American with the slightest familiarity with the electoral system.
The only people who don’t quite get it are soon to be disabused idealists. The system punishes idealism brutally. You do not cast your vote for a losing proposition. Many Greens there understand what happened, and the Republicans understand so well that they go out of their way to ensure that the Greens are on the ballot… even if they don’t want to be.
I’ve heard apologies from some Greens, and defiant bluster from others. I have however, not heard ONE of them say “there’s no difference” again.
(How is Bush NOT the Greens worst nightmare? Which of our principles has he NOT broken? )
Tochigi, I am an Engineer, an American, and a Green. I know.
I do agree however, that this appears to be futile. G’night
respectfully
BJ
October 17th, 2006 at 4:39 am
i would just like to note..that i have (loudly) disagreed with bj on more than one occaison..
but on his analysis of what happened vis a vis bush/gore/nader is right on the money…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 17th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
If Nader had had a realistic chance, only as good as Gore and no better, I’d have voted for him against Bush. The decision matrix is the same for me as for almost any other US citizen. We don’t vote for who we like BEST, we vote agin who we hate MOST. I reckon individuals get a free pass, to make the mistake of voting “for” someone. I don’t think that parties should make that mistake. Getting what you want out of the government and the ballot box is not accomplished by chasing perfection.
respectfully
BJ
October 17th, 2006 at 7:20 pm
The discussion above seems to be about causation when an outcome depends on several inputs.
If the US Green vote was enough to change the US election result, that would meet a “but for” test of causation. All this reminds me of the last set of Wgtn council elections when a lot of anti-bypass candidates stood for mayor. I still remember someone standing up in a public meeting at the Town Hall and saying “Why don’t you all decide which one of you we should all vote for?” I thought it was a very good question. In the end, they split the vote and we got Kerry Prendergast (pro-bypass).
The same kind of debate probably happens all the time whenever something is caused by multiple factors acting at once. Like the gun debate: what causes the deaths - people or guns? To my mind, the answer is probably “both”. Perhaps apply the “but for” test again. Eg, but for the guns, would the deaths occur? Studies anyone?
But enough on this.
I am glad that we have MMP in NZ. In the NZ context, if you want Green MPs it makes sense to vote Green! Isn’t it wonderful!
October 18th, 2006 at 12:05 am
Prim:
Yes, I agree!! Our voting system(s) are wonderful! and it was well worth all the time and effort it took to get informed Electoral support for our Proportional Voting systems, so that it all could happen!
Now we all must remain vigilant to make sure that a major Political Party
(National for example), for its own self interest, does not get the support it would need to return Aotearoa NZ to the old FPP sysytem. (Don Brash has already proposed/”promised” this.)
Democracy under a MultiParty system (which MMP enables) can be messy and more time consuming, but it certainly is much more democratic !
October 18th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Eredwen
How can it be democratic for a party (any party) that has 5% of the total vote to wield such influence in a democracy?
Oh…and please greens…give me my money back now!
October 18th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
um big bruv…do you know something the rest of us don’t..?
just what is this ’such influence’ the greens are ‘wielding’..?
correct me if i’m wrong..but haven’t the greens been shut out of power..?
again..and again..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 18th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
There are some things set out in the agreement between the Greens and the government. But the Greens’ influence seems very restricted to me, even in some areas that the Greens are particularly interested in. Eg I think the Greens have been very unhappy with the government’s climate change policy - throwing out the carbon tax - but I don’t think the Greens have been able to do anything about that. The agreement says something about solar water heating and buy Kiwi made, but those are - two - relatively small programmes. I forget what else is in the agreement; I don’t think it is earth shattering by any stretch of the imagination.
October 18th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
prim..precisely..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 18th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
big bruv:
I assume you support the “First Past the Post” system?
(Your question appears to be deliberately “nit picking”, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and answer it seriously this time.)
“How can it be democratic” … (for example) … to give TOTAL power to one Major Party, because it gets ONE more Electorate Seat than the other Major Party, even if the “Winner” has polled less votes in total than the Opposition? (In THIS scenario the MAJORITY of voters are effectively disenfrached.)
With MMP, “Party Votes” must pass a 5% threshold, then Seats are allotted IN PROPORTION to the number of votes collected by each Party. That is a much more democratic solution than FPP.
With MMP “Candidate Votes” work similarly to FPP and are the other half of the outcome.
Put both together and overall it is a much more RERESENTATIVE system, because a full spectrum of society’s opinions have a chance to be represented in Parliament … and major decisions are unlikely to be made by one group without the cooperation of other groups.
(Are you aware that we adopted MMP from the Germans. The system was devised “to ensure that another Hiltler could not rise again”.
What a shame for the World that the USA doesn’t have something similar!)
October 19th, 2006 at 10:45 am
Given the situation with Diebold and the efficiency with which the voter roles are being purged of malcontents in Ohio, MPP might not save them anymore.
Whilst we rail against the electoral college “system” it actually was quite functional until the major parties locked FPP into the selection of electors in the states. It’s a complicated topic, but it is also dirt simple. Power corrupts.
respectfully
BJ
October 19th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
bjchip - Sure our soldiers should go overseas whats the point in soldiers if not to help people who are in trouble both here and overseas, if they aren’t combating the gangs here send them overseas to combat the gangs there.
November 3rd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I don’t care, but I do care that some-one -elected MP’s gets about the business of governing the country and investing back into the people of the country. We want lower crime etc. but how can familys hold it together when the pay packet for the ordinary worker is so third world. How can the disable,the IHC cope with Income thats pathetic. How do they live in the community with a pittance not larger than a begging bowl. For all we make and the tax rake it is about time it was put back in the ordinary Kiwi garden. In their bank accounts. Not with promise etc. promise does not put food on the table.Sure some tax needs to go back into health etc. but for the amount we pay it should be returned in cash to the people.
I had a tax return of $9.00 dollars. I am still waiting for my cheque months later. The whole of parliment is a disgraceful behaviour of over-paid spoilt excecuitves that do nothing for the country and its people. The cry oh we would be paid for this and that if we went over-seas. Well bugger off then and go over-seas. Parliment today is a disgraceful behaviour of self serving pompous personal mud-slinging rethoric that serves neither good or anyhting for the ordinary Kiwi.
November 3rd, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Marie
I agree with most of what you have to say, your points about Parliament are well made, the place (Parliament) cost us (the tax payer) $8000 a minute to run, for that kind of money I want results!.
We have far to many Parliamentarians as well, this coupled with the fact that there are so many in the place who are not elected is a slur on what we laughingly call a democracy.
All we have now is the ridiculous situation where the minority hold the balance of power, that in the long run is a recipe for disaster.