Voting for the wrong party
I don’t want this to turn into a boring blog feud but can I just highlight how outdated and nonsensical this kind of thinking is. National’s been trying it on for quite a while with it’s ‘a vote for Labour is a Vote for New Zealand First’ theme. And now Labour’s fanboiz, 08wire, have responded with the equally nonsensical ‘a vote for National is a vote for Act’.
No it’s not. Giving your party vote to a specific party increases that party’s proportion of seats in parliament and thereby diminishes every other party’s proportion. Vote for what you believe in. It’s that simple.
There is a good chance that Act could have no bargaining power after the election and National will have no need of doing a deal with Rodney.
If you want to get complicated about it you could argue that a vote for National is a vote for Labour in the sense that John Key’s ‘no deals with Winston’ pronouncement technically now makes it easier for a minority of Labour MPs than a minority of National MPs to put together a coalition by doing a deal with NZ First. See how silly it can get.
I would have thought the only certain thing is that that, no matter who you vote for, Peter Dunne will be scratching around looking for a ministerial post.
In the end we should stop trying to play the FPP game where the big parties pretend each of the small parties is actually just a faction of them. Assess each party on its policies and past history and vote accordingly. If you’re looking for a moderate centre-left party with a dash of ‘cling to power at all costs’ realism, vote Labour. If you’re looking for a ‘don’t worry there’s no secret agenda, we’ll keep things the same but say we’re offering fresh change’ party vote National. Otherwise look around. If you get Act or New Zealand First in government and didn’t want them, blame the people who voted for them, not the people who voted for something different.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Frog
As much as I despise tax payer funded blogs such as no8 and the standard the facts are that they are right.
A vote for the Nat’s is a vote for ACT and vice versa, the same can be said of the left and center left, a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour and a vote for NZF should they return.
Despite what party leaders may say in the run up to the election this is the first time we will actually know where the minor parties will head if there are going to be post election coalition talks.
The Greens will only go with Labour, the same can be said of NZF.
We also know that ACT will only ever go with the Nat’s as will Peter Dunne.
This election is going to be about left v right more than Lab v Nat, the left is clearly defined as is the right, this time more than any other one can confidently say that a vote for ACT is a vote for the Nat’s and a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:16 am
A vote for Labour does get you a side order of Greens & NZFirst. The public have learned this, and will surely vote accordingly.
Bit late to claim separation now….
September 17th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I think BP is right (there’s a first!), but I have a lot of sympathy for what Frog is saying too. Yes, the Greens will be in the picture if Labour can form the next govt, and much less so if its the Nats, but the ultimate influence on either depends on their numbers. Many have commented on the Greens lack of influence on environmental matters with the current govt, so its not enough just to talk about the block of parties, but also need to consider the relative influence of each. The same argument could be made for Act. So Frog’s “vote for who you really want” is still the right way to go.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I’m voting Green, and encouraging others to, for two reasons.
1. to prevent National from forming a government
2. to get environmental and social justice issues more on the mainstream political agenda.
That’s different from being a vote ‘for’ Labour. I see it more as the Greens using Labour to do important and essential work.
If I was wanting to support Labour, then I’d vote for them instead. But I don’t support them. I support a left government that strongly protects the environment and the people within it. Unfortunately the only way to do that at the moment is working with Labour
Like Valis, I see how many MPs the Greens get as crucial. They need enough to have some real clout this time, it’s not enough to just enable Labour to govern. I’ll be interested to see how the Maori party fits into this too.
The Standard isn’t funded by tax. I doubt that 08 is either.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:53 am
A vote for National is not a vote for ACT, cos if they have enough, they don’t need them. ACT will have to be nice to National if they want anything in a coalition, because the Nats could just go with UF (depending on numbers). A vote for ACT is a vote for National though, it just depends how much ACT gets in to National.
Surprised no.8 wasn’t bring up the Douglas Monster!
September 17th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Yes, good point, one could apply that to what I just said about ACT/National.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Weka
I applaud your honesty, finally we have a Green who is prepared to tell the truth.
Can you tell me where you think the Greens would look to “improve” social justice?
September 17th, 2008 at 9:58 am
StephenR
“Surprised no.8 wasn’t bring up the Douglas Monster!”
That’s a bit harsh don’t you think?, that “monster” is the man who saved NZ from bankruptcy.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:02 am
“I applaud your honesty, finally we have a Green who is prepared to tell the truth.”
big bro, which truth are you talking about that no other Green will speak? There’s nothing in weka’s post that hasn’t been said before.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:04 am
big bro, it’s capitalised like personal pronouns (names) always are e.g. the Loch Ness Monster, the Yeti, the Boogy Monster etc…was having a bit of fun. I meant i’m surprised they didn’t remind people that Douglas is high on the ACT list.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Valis
Weka is the first Green I have seen say they were voting Green “to prevent National from forming a government”
While I know this is the unofficial stance of the party (you only need to read Frog’s daily anti National posts to see that) it is refreshing to see somebody finally admit the truth.
The Greens should be brave enough to tell the voters that a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labour.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:21 am
They are going to say before the election, IIRC.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“Weka is the first Green I have seen say they were voting Green “to prevent National from forming a governmentâ€?”
big bro, the Greens have said already that they will state clearly their position before the election. As this is a decision for the Party, not just the leadership, there is a process to follow that looks at the policies and programme of the two parties.
You may see this as cynical, but we actually believe the Nats should have a chance to show their views are changing, particularly with regard to the environment, as John Key would have us believe. My own view is that they are showing clearly that little has changed, so I predict great difficulty working with them.
Weka’s view is held by many Greens, but would not be the main reason most would give for voting Green! While the Party will state a preference, it will not take a position that it can never work with National in any way. But we’ve never said we might join National in coalition. You’ve made such claims several times and I’ve asked that you back it up with proof, but this hasn’t materialised.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Who said “No matter who you vote for, the government always gets in” ?
BJ
September 17th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I assume that everyone is talking about their Party Votes here?
A well thought out COMBINATION of Party Vote and Candidate Vote (to have maximum influence on the final decision about who will represent you and who will sit on the Treasury Benches) should be every voters aim.
Not all voters fully understand how MMP works, and what the best options would be (for their given Electorate) to deliver the overall result they want … and most of the Political advertising does not make this clear.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:34 am
In our civilization, and under our republican form of government,
intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from
the cares of office.
– Ambrose Bierce, “The Devil’s Dictionary”
September 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Hate to be a stirrer … but I’m coming across an increasing number of people who like the Green Party and are considering going green with their party vote - but are more interested in seeing the Green Party work with a National Govt to ensure it has some heart, conscience and sustainability than they are in seeing the Green Party support another Labour Government.
This is, of course, totally anecdotal and not in the least a scientific survey - but I’m curious about how many others are coming across the same opinions as the elction draws nearer?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:41 am
ouch
September 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am
that was to what BJ said
September 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Eredwen, I agree more needs to be done to get people up to speed with tactical voting. In my electorate the party vote is the important one (safe Labour seat). The Greens need to be getting the message out to left voters that if they party vote Labour instead of Greens then National is more likely to get in.
Can you tell me where you think the Greens would look to “improve� social justice?
BB, I suggest you try the Greens website if you want to know their social justice policies.
Weka is the first Green I have seen say they were voting Green “to prevent National from forming a government�
Just to clarify, I was speaking as someone who will vote Green, not as a Green party member (although I am that too at the moment, but what I said is irrespective of when I’m a member and when I’m not).
But, yeah, I don’t know why some people think that the Greens would ever support a National govt. I didn’t realise that was a big secret.
Obviously the Green Party is going to take an approach of good relationships with all parties, because that’s just how they operate (that’s how MMP works too, or at least should do when Peters is out of the picture). Good relationships make for better government not matter who is in power.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
but I’m coming across an increasing number of people who like the Green Party and are considering going green with their party vote - but are more interested in seeing the Green Party work with a National Govt to ensure it has some heart, conscience and sustainability than they are in seeing the Green Party support another Labour Government.
They’d be voting for the wrong party then. If the Greens went into a coalition with National, they’d gut the Green Party. There’d be many that wouldn’t vote for them again. In years to come, as the Greens becomes more mainstream, that might be worth it, but at the moment the Greens can’t afford to lose their core voting base which is on the left.
some heart, conscience and sustainability
Not sure why you think that would come with a National coalition, that’s pretty weird. It doesn’t come with Labour either of course, but that’s because it comes with the Greens and they haven’t had enough MPs to have enough influence in the last few parliaments.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
kiwinuke, Greens see great urgency in the many environmental issues facing us and also realise the winds of change are blowing rather hard at present. I implied above that many Greens would like to be able to work with National if needed and so do not want to shut all doors prematurely. (This does not imply coalition!) But the hurdles are significant. First is that they must understand the issues. I personally see very little evidence of this. Second is that they are trustworthy. I see little evidence of this too. I think the only chance is if the Green Caucus is really large enough to have real influence, so the advice to the people you’re talking to is to go with their gut. A big Green Caucus would have an even bigger effect on a Labour led government, so it won’t be a wasted vote in either case.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Part of me wants to see a big Green influence on a fourth Labour led govt, only then will we be able to see what the real Green agenda is.
If there is a L/G govt I predict it would not last 18 months and that we would see near riots on the streets.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Weka, he did say “work with”, not go into coalition with.
I agree that no sort of formal agreement is likely with National the way their policies are unrolling, but the Greens have always worked issue by issue, and it’s possible there may be some issues on which they could improve a national government policies through the select committee process and other consultation, IF they have enough MPs to be taken seriously.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Snap, Valis : )
September 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
So, if I follow Frog’s advise and vote for what I beleive in…. I guess I’ll vote Labour again.
Which is a shame for Frog, as I was considering voting Green to get a left coalition while sending a message to Labour about how I disaprove of some of their shenanigans over the last term and a bit…. It also had the side benefit (to me) of the posibility that if Greens went into coalition, or abstinence on supply/confidence with National… it would give a lefter result than National alone.
If National hadnt ruled out Winston, that last one would never happen… but if they seriously wont have him…. it could be a possibility?
September 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Pingpong, it’s true that he said ‘work with’. In that sense the Greens will potentially work with anyone, because they take that approach of building relationships (and as such are the champions of MMP). But I see some people talking about the Greens supporting a National govt, and I just can’t see how that would happen.
I guess I also just can’t see how anyone who truly believes in green politics can vote on the right. It’s just lip service.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
“I guess I also just can’t see how anyone who truly believes in green politics can vote on the right.”
I guess those of us who thought that the Greens were all about the environmental issues might feel a bit ripped off then.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
The Greens have always been about other things in addition to the environment.
The more power they get, the more mainstream they become, the more compromises they have to make. I find them disappointing something too. But they are still the only party in NZ taking the environment seriously.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
“I guess those of us who thought that the Greens were all about the environmental issues might feel a bit ripped off then.”
Only if you’re deluded enough to believe that unrestrained growth and unlimited use of natural resources is compatible with the environment.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
>> I guess those of us who thought that the Greens were all about the environmental issues might feel a bit ripped off then.
Sadly, it is ironic that, as the inter-dependency between mankind and the remainder of the environment becomes more and more apparent, our local pro-environment party is tending to regard the environment in a short-term anthropocentric way. It is a pity that we fail (at least try ) to consider the environment as an end itself, rather than how useful it can be to us. At base, the vast majority of us still have the ‘people before anything else’ mentality.
Isn’t blue closer to green than red on the colour spectrum?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“I guess those of us who thought that the Greens were all about the environmental issues might feel a bit ripped off then.”
don’t know about you, but my environment is full of people and the more of those people that are not facing poverty and are empowered to contribute to society the better that environment.
the idea that economic and social policies aren’t fundamental to our impact on the environment reflects a limited understanding.
any party seeking to govern society needs to have policies across the spectrum of social issues. social change is integral to changing our impact on the planet…
September 17th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
The Green party is firstly a party of the LONG view. The hundred year view. The 7 generations view. That is what makes us an environmentally aware party, but it affects many issues beyond that. Consider Peak Oil related issues for example. So far it is playing exactly as predicted here.
When you try to constrain us to only the environment, you’ve made an error. We worry about ALL the debts and liabilities we leave to posterity, not just the ones that involve the Ice Caps and the pH of the ocean.
Nor are we all the same. This isn’t the usual organized political party… it is the Green party.
Hell, this mob even let ME in.
respectfully
BJ
September 17th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Tory trolls, don’t brush me with the assumption that I’m left wing simply because I vote for the environment. And BlueGreens, you are setting yourselves - and the environment - up for disaster and tragedy.
National and Labour are both pre-occupied with a single dimension: left - right. As long as you know where you are on that spectrum, all policy follows, from tax, to foreign affairs, to building codes. BORING!
Environmentalism is far more agile, and politically agnostic.
As the Greens policy pages show, personal wealth is important, and there is much in there about personal and corporate tax relief. There is also much about higher taxes for bigger polluters. This is all about fairness: those who impose costs on society (such as clean up costs) HAVE to pay those costs themselves.
That is fair. And has nothing to do with left or right.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
BJChip: *snap*
Me too! They even send me stuff to comment on. Can’t get fairer than that.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Just like to acknowledge the tory trolls here, who despite their wayward opinions, at least allow themselves to be subjected to an education every day.
More than I could stomach on the equiv tory blogs.
Like the Patricia Bartletts of NZ democracy, they subject themselves to the filthy views of a smelly, evil, progressive, social underbelly (Yeeehaw! Squeeel!) in the name of a decent, just society.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
If you say so, but I’d like to see some evidence that anything has been learned first.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
“but at the moment the Greens can’t afford to lose their core voting base which is on the left.”
I’d say the Greens can’t afford to NOT loose the left.
I want the Greens to take my party vote and use it to pull whichever ‘big’ party towards sustainable legislation.
If I can’t trust them to apply the thumb screws to National or Labour without prejudice, then I might as well not vote for them.
I’m with kiwinuke on this, because the Greens are so busy looking left they just don’t seem to be able to spot the large pool of support on the right.
Kjuv, brilliant post.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
If I;
PARTY VOTE GREEN
+ switch to Maori roll and vote for Tangata Whenua as candidate.
Am I still supporting Labour?
September 17th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
>>Like the Patricia Bartletts of NZ democracy
L-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n.
>>see some evidence that anything has been learned first.
I’ve learned that the Greens are more pre-occupied with a social agenda than an environmental one, and that Green voters are utterly naive.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Well I was thinking about voting for the Green party but I just can’t bring myself to vote for a communist party, So I guess ACT will get my vote instead.
Of Course I am now living in the U.S.S.A (United Socialist States of America). Here in the US we have Socialist Sundays, Where the government steps in every sunday and nationalises some stupid company).
September 17th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
What green issues/policies do ACT advance that you approve of turnip28? If i’ve interpreted you right…
September 17th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I agree with ACT on flat Taxes and reduction in compliance costs/ I agree with the greens on passing costs to the polluter.
Remember i’m an advocate of a free market economy, note their are no countries in the world that have a free market economy, all of them have far to much government intervention.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I’m sorry, but you can’t really choose to vote between ACT or the Greens. They’re both fundamentally opposed to each other. If you expect the Greens to remove its policies that conflict with the right then you’re being very unrealistic. Go set up a bluegreen party, if there is enough support for it it won’t hurt NZ for there to be more than one party with environmental policies.
I’m with kiwinuke on this, because the Greens are so busy looking left they just don’t seem to be able to spot the large pool of support on the right.
Samiam, the reason the Greens look left is because it’s made up of people who are generally in the left politically. If the Greens changed their policies substantially, they’ll lose a lot of their core vote. At the moment they’ll make parliament again, but I can’t see how they would after that if they become bluegreen.
I agree with what was said earlier about the Greens something other than fitting in the left/right spectrum, and I seem to remember that when the Greens were doing really well they were promoting that idea alot. Unfortunately at the moment they are being forced to hold the ground on the left, because of the actions of Labour and NZF.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Hey turnip28, is there a way to act on climate change within the context of a (truely, or at least very) free market economy? All I hear from Libertarian types is ‘individual property rights - if your property is being damaged, sue them’. Seems like a messy way of doing things.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
weka, the Greens solution to a lot of issues seems to be more regulation, which is certainly-bloody not the right wing way of doing things. Probably why they aren’t very compatible. Although they seem to be slowly heading towards ‘user pays’ on resources…
September 17th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
The whole idea of the Greens fitting somewhere in between the left/right spectrum falls flat on its face when you see who the Green parties MP’s are.
You have Sue B, Russ and Keith Locke who all have socialist/communist leanings.
Any party that includes them as MP’s is firmly on the left and any attempt by the Greens to suggest they are not is deceitful
September 17th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
The greens are communists, who are an insult to the integrity of NZ.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
He’s back! Hide the children!
September 17th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
And welcome to big bro’s black and white world.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Although they seem to be slowly heading towards ‘user pays’ on resources…
What do you mean?
The whole idea of the Greens fitting somewhere in between the left/right spectrum falls flat on its face when you see who the Green parties MP’s are.
I don’t think people are saying that the Greens fit somewhere between the left/right spectrum (they obviously don’t). But they used to fit outside of that spectrum entirely and offered a different way of doing politics.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
weka, well, water, at least for farmers in rural areas, allied with tax breaks, I think it was. Maybe carbon too, but perhaps that isn’t a resource…but the stuff that releases GHGs into the earth’s atmosphere, so i suppose the carbon tax with tax breaks is a case of user-pays too.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
>>”But they used to fit outside of that spectrum entirely and offered a different way of doing politics.”
we still do!
September 17th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
>>(they obviously don’t)
They’ve tried to argue that before, on this forum. With a straight face, I might add.
What is curious is that National and Labour are pretty much identical these days in terms of policy.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Its really not that hard. The traditional left and right agree on one thing at least - use natural resources as if they were unlimited and grow the pie as big as possible. The big difference between them is how the pie gets carved up and their policies reflect who they believe should be rewarded. The Greens have come along and said unlimited growth in a world of limited resources is not possible, so you both have to rethink your approach. Some on the right buy this argument to a degree, but are suspicious of Green motives because they are afraid that social policies will be put first. Similarly, the left is also suspicious that environmental goals will be put first before people, and of the Greens general acceptance of markets.
That’s a bit simplified, but shows why the one dimensional left/right spectrum doesn’t capture Green political philosophy. That the Nats and Labour have become so similar is another great reason not to be trapped in this (or any other) single dimensional mode of thinking.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Stuey, I agree. I just think the Greens are forced into representing the left because Labour and NZF have behaved so badly. But that’s a whole different topic
BP, do you mean Frog and the MPs have argued that the Greens are in the centre of Labour and National?
As well as what Valis is saying I think another reason why the Greens don’t fit the spectrum is that they’re a both/and party, which is why they seem to have grasped the positive aspects of MMP so quickly and so well.
The Maori Party are another party that don’t fit the old L/R spectrum.