Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Greens are right!

Yes, Frogblog has made a post I basically can't disagree with.

"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.

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."

Now it IS likely that if Labour got into power it would be because some people voted NZ First and Labour did a deal with NZ First. That's a reason to blame Labour for wanting to do such a deal, and of course the retards who vote NZ First for creating the opportunity.

I'd extend it further. Voting for any party does not put another party in power. No party "owns" your vote or is entitled to it. It is as that old leftie Ralph Nader said in response to Democrats who thought he "stole" the 2000 Presidential election from Al Gore and gave it to George W Bush - He essentially said 'you don't own my vote, you're not entitled to it. I choose who I vote for, it doesn't mean I endorse any other and doesn't mean I "took" it from you. It wasn't yours".

Just because I am highly likely to vote Libertarianz doesn't mean I've stolen my vote from ACT, let alone National. It's my vote, and if other parties haven't attracted it, then that it their problem.


Anonymous said...

Obviously your vote is entirely your own and cannot be "stolen" or "claimed" by another party. However, that doesn't mean a vote for the Libz is smart politics or good for NZ.

Even though Libz policy is great the uncomfortable fact remains that under MMP rules you know a vote for them will not be counted. This functionally equivalent to not voting at all because an uncounted vote may as well never have been cast. Which means that you are leaving the decision to pick the next government up to everyone else. And you know that over 80% of everyone else is backing Labour or Labour-Lite.

I would rather have my vote count for someone I agree with most of the time than have my vote uncounted and give a free run to someone I will disagree with almost all of the time. It is a matter of playing to the rules of MMP. Imagine that we had an STV system for party votes instead. Who would be you second choice after the Libz? Now consider that under MMP the second choice becomes what everyone else picked.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with James. If you want this govt out - and who with half a brain does not - you need your vote to count towards that goal.

Otherwise you just empower Clark et al. Which Libz do already with all this JK bashing - though you are by far the most rational in that regard.

Anonymous said...

That's just dumb. Your one vote isn't going to matter a damn anyway. Voting is a complete and utter waste of time, but if you're going to do it at least vote for who you want, if for no other reason than so that other similarly-minded people have some indication that they're not alone.

Libertyscott said...

James, fair point and at the moment I might consider ACT my second choice, although it has given a couple of reasons recently to not deserve that.

My point is, what happens the day after John Key is elected, 3 years of inertia? Hallward makes a good point.

Your individual vote makes a tiny marginal difference, it is best cast for whatever set of reasons you are willing to construct. You may prefer to ensure Labour is ousted (Ruth), you might prefer encouraging National back to policies it once had (James) or vote for a clear statement of substantially less government, aware that it has a low chance of making it into Parliament.

National is campaigning on retaining Labour's legacy but not doing more (except in Telecoms and roads). I can't see how anyone who believes in less government can possibly say that is worth voting for. Let the masses show their discontent with Labour by voting National, let those who believe in less government vote for Libz or ACT. National does not believe in less government.