New Zealand electoral system referendum 2011

I have to admit I have had some difficulties deciding what to do about this one. This will be my second electoral referendum this year, having voted for the UK electoral referendum, which was a straight choice between FPP and a form of PV (FPP won overwhelmingly).

In the 1992 referendum I voted for no change, but also voted for the Preferential Voting system for change. Why? Well having experienced eight solid years of reformist free market governments, I was pretty happy with first past the post. I also saw the minor parties that were heaving in the polls being what they were. A xenophobic personality cult called NZ First and a lying mass of Marxist reality evaders called the Alliance. I also saw the Christian Heritage Party as the only other one sitting on the sidelines and wanted to avoid Graham Capill like (well you fill the gap). FPP looked like it delivered strong stable government, and MMP was backed by everyone who opposed less government, by those who opposed reforms largely now taken for granted. Preferential Voting was the “least worse” option, and after all it could be argued that a representative electoral system ought to have every MP gaining at least 50% of the vote. 

Much has happened since then, but I am hoping that simply writing this post will clarify my own thinking, as I have not yet decided how to vote. Given I studied electoral systems as part of one of my degrees, I think I have a fair background on all of the options, so here goes. 

The first point to remember is that electoral systems are about counting heads, not what is in them. Some people, across the political spectrum, laud democracy as something rather special, when it is, as Winston Churchill once said, the worst form of government ever devised – except for all of the others ever tried over history. The reason for that should be obvious. There is nothing inherently good, right, whether pragmatically or morally, about what the “majority think”. After all, if you accept that the bulk of the population has average intelligence and abilities, then the majority involves pandering to average people. Indeed, it also means that the most successful, able and intelligent (not always the same) are valued as much as the least successful, able and most dim-witted. It doesn’t take too much to figure out that untrammelled democracy can mean the majority vote to oppress the minority and take from them. 

A simple view is it is like three wolves and a sheep voting for what they’ll have for dinner, but if you look at most politicians, most of what they promise during elections is to take from someone to give to another, although they are usually astute enough to focus on the giving, and ignore the taking. If governments can just spent and borrow and pass the bill to the next lot, then inevitably someone will have to make tough decisions. Greece and Italy are examples today of democracy failing, because people voted for politicians who gave them what was unaffordable. Now they don’t want to vote for politicians to make them face reality. Democracy isn’t good at getting politicians to make difficult decisions, or rather decisions that involve not giving people bribes. Mencken said elections are an advance auction of stolen goods. He was right. Imagine if Churchill had asked the British public if they were willing to go to war against Germany. 

So I take a dim view of democracy anyway, in part because I know my opinion has a higher value than anyone else’s. If you don’t think the same way about yours, then you’re probably right as well. I simply don’t accept that my opinion can be reduced to it being counted the same as some half-brain dead nitwit who votes for John Key because “he’s pretty cool”, or who votes for Winston Peters because “she doesn’t like the Asianisation of the country”.

However, democracy DOES have a useful role – which is to remove governments. It is a limit on government because ultimately it offers one control on what governments do, by giving voters the chance to boot them out. In fact, if you look at recent elections, it is clear that 1999, 1990 and 1984 elections were exactly about that. Politicians and activists about electoral systems are almost always driven by their partisan views. The left love MMP because of the success of the Greens and the various Maori parties, the right don’t because it has seen the likes of NZ First emerge, and because ACT has done badly (and the conservative right has failed miserably too). So ignore them all, they are self interested wanting whatever system helps them gain power or blackmail power or whatever.

I have a different approach. To be honest, it is not something I get enthused about, beyond the basics of how the systems deliver different outcomes for the same votes, but also encourage different behaviour. Yet it is a chance to shake things up a little, so what is it I want from an electoral system?

I’d like an electoral system to enable individuals to be removed from Parliament, and MMP isn’t very good at that, because of party lists. Look also at what MMP does to electorate votes. In most seats, they are now considered irrelevant. However, in Epsom, Ohariu and the Maori seats, they are critical. Indeed they allow for an overhang for the Maori Party that over represents its support. Now supporters of MMP will say that these can be dealt with by tweaking it - such as removing the electorate threshold to let party votes count, or abolishing the Maori seats, but these aren't on offer. 

So I will vote to change the system, but what to?

First Past the Post is easy, but it does create constituencies where MPs win with a minority of the vote, and others where they are so dominant that it renders the voting by others to be irrelevant. Electorate boundaries are artificial constructs anyway, so FPP is far from satisfactory. Why should your vote be less valued because you are on one side of the road and not the other? It would make the National Party comfortable, but why is that a good thing?  FPP did bring Muldoon and brought decades of stagnant do nothing government.  It also brought Social Credit as the stubborn third party of weirdness.  However, FPP most of all means that a lot of people who got a minority of votes get power.  No, I'd rather not support that.

Preferential voting does away with the minority voting for a representative, and it also means every vote counts. You can choose someone who doesn’t win, but then rank your options. This has some appeal, but even at best I can’t see me ranking more than 3. Again though, it becomes a matter of electorate boundaries as to whether this works. Yet it would deal to the Epsom, Ohariu, etc problem. In Epsom, those who don’t support John Banks wouldn’t have to vote for the National candidate, but could vote for the candidate they prefer. Similarly those who would prefer the National candidate but would rank Banks second, could do so as well. Ohariu has a similar scenario. Maybe National voters would rank Peter Dunne second and keep him elected, or maybe most Ohariu voters don’t want him and would rank 1st and 2nd those who oppose him. Tauranga could have got rid of Winston Peters quicker as well. So you see, there is some appeal in this option. 

Supplementary Member is a watered down version of MMP, so on the face of it less list seats, but all this does is reduce the effect of the smaller parties. The main advantage I see is that the list seats will reflect party votes, but this wont be affected by the electorate seat wins. Electorates suddenly become important again, and it gets rid of the “win an electorate, get some party seats as well” distortion that exists now. ACT, NZ First and others would apparently need to get 3% of the party vote to get a seat, but as Parliament would be dominated by FPP seats, it would make only a small difference. 

STV gives you multiple member constituencies, but rather big ones. Some will baulk at huge constituencies, but frankly I couldn’t care less. It will make constituencies a little less partisan and parochial, but also means people can call upon multiple MPs to “help them out” (something I haven’t really understood, because I largely wouldn’t trust an MP to fix anything for anyone in a way that would appear to be neutral). It will mean that all MPs are actually accountable to voters directly. Party lists will not predetermine who gets elected, but voters will. What that really means is voters can remove them as well. STV means voters can rank candidates in preference, just like PV, or can just vote for the party’s list of candidates for a constituency. Candidates who get a majority of votes get elected, just like PV, whereas the remainder get elected based on preferences. In conclusion, I believe STV would be worth voting for. It makes all MPs people elected directly, even if from preferences, rather than MPs selected from lists developed by parties. In other words, voters can remove those they don’t like. It makes electorates important again, but greatly increases their size so that parochialism becomes less important. 

There is one test I haven’t applied. Would it get more Libertarianz candidates elected? Well actually no. I am certain FPP and PV would not help that. SM might, because the threshold for a seat would be only around 3% compared to 5% today. STV I don’t believe would make any real difference to MMP on that front. However, I believe the advantages of STV, more generically, outweigh MMP enough to make it worthwhile of some attention.

Finally, what about the concern of coalitions vs one party government? Frankly I don't care that much. One party government can achieve good or bad, coalitions can as well. What matters is who gets elected. Yes MMP and STV both give the Greens a better chance than SM, PV and FPP, but they do the same to ACT and Libertarianz. I'm not sufficiently enamoured by the two big parties to want to trust them with one party government, besides would Helen Clark have acted any differently had she not been in coalition? I doubt it. So I'm going to say vote for change and vote for STV. If you want preferences, then an honourable second choice would be PV, as it would give constituents a bigger chance to remove MPs they don't like than either MMP or FPP. I'd rank SM in third place, as a way of reducing the threshold for small parties, though it also reduces their influence. Finally, I rank FPP last. I simply don't believe returning to two party politics would help advance freedom any more.

To AV or not to AV

As part of the coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party agreed that there be a referendum on electoral reform in the UK. The Liberal Democrats as the UK’s long standing third party has always sought this in order that it get a more proportionate share of seats in the House of Commons. However, whilst it has always supported a form of proportional representation, the best it could get is a referendum on perhaps the smallest possible change to the electoral system – it is called the Alternative Vote or AV, and is similar to the Preferential Vote system in Australia.

Of course New Zealand went through electoral reform in the 1990s, because Jim Bolger was willing to hand it up on a plate for no good reason at all, in the midst of the economic reforms being continued by Ruth Richardson. New Zealand’s electoral reform process was complex, and was undertaken in a period of heightened anxiety about the economy and distrust of politicians (mainly because Jim Bolger lied in the 1990 election campaign, fully aware that the Nats had to backtrack on promises to abolish student fees and the superannuation surtax because of the massive deficit Labour left it with).

The electoral reform debate in New Zealand was ably driven by a coterie of leftwing politicians, celebrities, activists and a compliant media, all dissatisfied that both Labour and National had policies that today might only be seen with ACT. The left drove the Electoral Reform Coalition, and opponents to MMP only campaigned late in the day, with Peter Shirtcliffe (and later his daughter Janet) arguing largely on the basis on what was wrong with MMP. National and Labour both had no official view on the matter, whilst NZ First and the Alliance, with their pinups of Winston and Jim Anderton self-servingly advocating MMP (although the media rarely challenged that self interest).

In the UK it has been quite different. AV is NOT a proportional system. It simply means every MP would need a majority of preferences to get elected. Constituencies where the leading candidate gained less than half of the first preferences, would see the second preferences of those who voted for the bottom candidate get reallocated. This would continue until one candidate crosses the 50% threshold.

The real arguments for and against change are actually quite simple. A strong argument can be made that in a fully representative system an MP should have the support of the majority of voters in a constituency. That can either be done by having a runoff ballot (as in the French Presidential elections) or some sort of preferential based voting. If the highest value in an election is that majority counts, then AV can be supported.

The argument against is that people’s second or third preferences shouldn’t decide who gets elected. What AV would enable is for people to vote for whoever they like as a first preference, including any small party, safe in the knowledge that given the low probability that minor candidates could do well, second preferences could be given for the least offensive major candidate. It gives those with views not represented by major parties a better chance, which may be seen as benefiting those parties unfairly.

However, the debate has not been about that. The Pro-AV campaign has been claiming it will “change politics”, make MPs more accountable and should be supported because the Tories oppose it. It has been supported by the Liberal Democrats and some in Labour (including Ed Miliband), largely because they think a majority of UK voters are leftwing oriented.

The anti-AV campaign has been pushed by the Conservative Party based on a whole host of erroneous reasons. It is claimed AV is a lot more expensive, which it isn’t. It is argued that it is wrong to support a system only adopted by Australia, PNG and Fiji (with a quasi-neo-colonial/racist overtone that such countries are inferior). It is claimed first past the post is popular, yet the only developed countries that share it are Canada and the US. It is claimed AV is too complicated, yet somehow the Irish can get their heads around STV and continental Europeans all have far more complex systems. Most stupidly an analogy is drawn between an athletic race and the person who came third winning.

In other words, the argument has been infantile and insulting. It is presented either as a radical change that will make a big difference (which it wont), or as a complex, expensive system that only Australians use.

The Conservatives simply think they cannot get a majority of support and will lose if AV is put in place. The entire campaign for first past the post is based on retaining strong single party government (which outside the context of the Thatcher administration is hardly welcome).

So the question for me is what to do? Most of those who I have some broad political alignment with will say “no” to AV, because it will benefit the left. Yet, inherently any system based on representation should, at least, gain the endorsement in some way of a majority of voters in any constituency. Whilst AV may benefit the Liberal Democrats, the truth is that the party faces serious losses because it is in coalition with the Conservatives, so the future political map is difficult to predict. UKIP came third in the last by-election, comes second in the European Parliamentary elections and is a serious alternative for those who want less government.

So I am going to vote for AV. Primarily because, in principle, I want to be able to vote for a smaller party and for that vote not to be wasted by enabling me to choose a tolerable second best option. I think it may enable politics to be more diversified on the “right” by giving UKIP more of a voice. It will do the same for leftwing parties like the Greens and BNP (nationalist socialism), but I am NOT beholden to thinking that the Conservative Party really holds the monopoly on political sanity in the UK – it needs to be challenged. It is a rather inept and bumbling advocate for capitalism and a highly inconsistent supporter of freedom and less government.

However, I do so holding my nose – because as much as the left in the UK will take solace from an unlikely win for AV (polls are strongly against reform), I think it is a misguided measure of an electorate that is actually more conservative, more euro-sceptic and less keen on government than they may think.

So if it isn't about race... then what Metiria?

Metiria Turei claims on her Twitter account that the call for dedicated separate Maori seats on the Uber Alles Auckland Stadrat is NOT about race.

"Not about race. Its about being tangata whenua and manawhenua. The Treaty creates the right to structures for representation." she said at 9:14 AM Apr 15th from txt.

Is this just Orwellian doublespeak? I wanted to get to the bottom of it. After all, the Treaty doesn't say there should be parallel political structures, each one reserved by race. However, there are clearly two very distinct views of what is going on here, and I want to know why some Maori think this is not about race, when to everyone else it so clearly is.

Tangata whenua is literally “people of the land” which is a mystical concept based on the idea that “land is regarded as a mother to the people”. Some people believe this, but it is hardly helpful for an objective definition to be based on whether you believe in something supernatural. That would be ridiculous surely.

So what makes someone a “person of the land”. I was born in New Zealand, which surely makes me a “person of the land”, why wouldn’t I be? Well, apparently I am not. In fact nobody who does not claim "Maori identity" can be "tangata whenua". Am I wrong?

I can never be tangata whenua, neither can my offspring or their offspring. It IS about race. Race DEFINES “tangata whenua”. Metiria Turei IS engaging in Orwellian doublespeak to justify a race based definition of political separatism – it’s just HER race that benefits.

What about manawhenua then?

According to TPK it means “the exercise of traditional authority over an area of land [whenua]”. So what is “traditional authority”? If you own land, or are part of a collective that owns land (which is Iwi or Hapu owned Maori land), then of course you should authority over it. That is about property rights, and is protected by the Treaty of Waitangi, as are the property rights of others. However, you don’t need special representation on a local authority to do this.

Maori should have traditional authority over their land, but then so should we all over our own land. Local authorities should not be a tool for Maori to have special representation to also exercise control over other people’s property. Unless, of course, you believe that YOUR property rights are subject to mana whenua by "Maori".

Is that what you expect from the Green Party or the Maori Party, that you should have consent from Maori politicians for what you do on your land?

Metiria presumably believes that local authorities should have authority over everyone’s property, it is, after all, Green policy to use the RMA to control land use. However, she also believes that ethnic Maori have some special right to be guaranteed to be part of that political control.

How can this NOT be about race? Well, if you believe you can inherit rights over others because of who your parents are then what she says is legitimate - but hold a second, isn't that very concept wrong? Why SHOULD anyone have different civil and political rights because of their parentage?

That IS what this is about. It IS the source of the difference. If I am born in New Zealand, and own land in New Zealand, why is it that my neighbour, who has some ancestors of different racial origin gets different political representation and rights from me? Why is HE special? Why should HE assume that because most councillors look like they are of a similar race to me, that they somehow "represent my interests", when they vote to increase my rates, regulate my land use and have contrary political views to me?

It's because those advocating for separate Maori representation identify race with political power. It is the idea that there is a "Maori world view", you know like there is a "Serb world view" to Serb nationalists. I have a world view, you have yours, we only share one if you give your express consent for it. Race does not give you a "world view". Your brain does. It is an individual choice.

Conclusion

So when Metiria says it is not about race, but about tangata whenua and manawhenua what is she saying?

She is saying it is about “people of the land”, which doesn’t mean people born locally, but people who have a “spiritual connection” to the land – and the only ones she recognises as doing so ares Maori. She is saying it is about “exercising traditional authority over land”, she means Maori being guaranteed representation at council level to have authority over everyone’s land.

So if the only people who can be “people of the land” (a concept not unlike how virtually all racist-nationalist groups see themselves) are one race, and if they have a right to guaranteed political representation so they can exercise control over land that isn’t there’s, then what is it if it isn’t about race?

Nobody I have seen who opposes race based local government representation wants to deny Maori any political rights, none want to deny Maori political candidates being successful if they can convince sufficient voters to select them. They particularly reject being called "racist" because they want all political institutions to be non-racial.

If the Green Party, Maori Party and others want race based representation for Maori, then they should first be honest about it, secondly admit that in granting race based political privilege, it is racist, but then justify it on objective terms. Not having enough Maori in councils is not a reason, because there are probably not enough people of a vast range of backgrounds, in some councils women, in others Pacific Islanders or Chinese. The list can go on and on about types of identity not represented.

Individualists want race to be irrevelant and unimportant in politics, for it to be something personal, private and a matter of voluntary association, rather than have anything to do with the state. Why should it be any other way?

Electoral Finance Act strikes again

The sycophantic bottom feeders who inhabit the world of the Labour party didn't listen when people from left and right told of how the Electoral Finance Act would suppress political speech.

So how will they react with the report from the NZ Herald that Rodney Hide has now received a letter from the Electoral Commission stating that his yellow jacket might be an "election advertisement" requiring an "authorisation statement".

Never seen Helen Clark's red clothes needing one of course, but she doesn't have a logo on it. Hide has the ACT logo on his jacket.

Apparently some tiny minded little prick made a complaint in July about it. Rodney is ignoring it, thankfully.

Trying to steal another election with other people's money?

Well desperation isn't the word for it.

According to the Press, using your money, through the Labour Party Parliamentary research unit, to dig dirt on John Key should be a turning point for how people with any sense of morality consider the Labour Party.

Labour should spend its own money on digging dirt, not its taxpayer funded policy unit.

Of course given Labour supports compulsory taxpayer funded of political parties, you shouldnt' be surprised. Labour thinks it is good for the country, so you should be made to pay for it.

I think political parties are clubs of like minded people who seek power. You shouldn't have to pay for any of them. You should choose who you pay for.

Remember, Labour believes in making you pay for the party.

Libertarianz unequivocally believes political parties should be funded voluntarily, and broadcast advertising for political parties should be funded and broadcast voluntarily.

National?

What will happen to the Maori seats?

So let me get it clear. Let's assume National forms a government after the election. There are several configurations, but the following appear possible. However, what will happen to the Maori seats under these options?

1. National majority government: Maori seats stay until Treaty settlements process concluded. So no change over that term.
2. National coalition/confidence & supply agreement with Maori Party (or Greens): Maori seats stay.
3. National coalition/confidence & supply agreement with ACT: Who knows?

Only Libertarianz explicitly has as its policy (I can't find it on the ACT website, so am happy to be corrected) to abolish the Maori seats and Maori electoral roll, so Maori votes can be counted as with all others, in both electorates and the party vote. So that's where good National Party policy came from in 2005 and has gone again.

Oh and if you think it is racist, then ask the Royal Commission on the Electoral System which saw implementing MMP as rendering the Maori seats as unnecessary, with a 4% party threshold that could be suspended for Maori political parties (hmmm).

National electoral law policy holds glimmers of hope

National has released its electoral law policy which does distinguish it from Labour in a handful of ways, although is also a backtrack from 2005 - again.

First, its press release said it would abolish the Maori seats once the historic Treaty claims are settled, which it anticipates being 2014. However the policy statement (PDF) says "start the constitutional process to wind up the Maori seats". That's not doing much. Better than nothing, but not much more. A future confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party may be why this policy isn't much more, but why give away so much BEFORE negotiations?

Second, it wants a binding referendum on retaining MMP in 2011. Now I don't care either way for this, but interesting how this is more important than doing away with the racially defined Maori seats.

Finally it will repeal the Electoral Finance Act, reverting to the previous Electoral Act 1993 in the interim, before further reform before 2011. The repeal should be celebrated, and is perhaps the biggest reason to vote National in itself, but what comes next remains vague.

Libertarianz principled on NOT spending your money

The law prevents political parties from spending their own money on broadcasting advertising, and forces you to pay for them to do so, that's whether or not you agree with any of them. The Electoral Commission has released how it will be spending your money to advertise political parties most of you probably wouldn't have given a cent to. The results are here.

.

Libertarianz is refusing this year to take the money, on principle. It believes that you shouldn't be forced to pay for it to advertise to you, at all. However, clearly every other political party is content with its hand in your bank account taking your money to make ads for you to hear or watch, without your consent.

.

Of course that leaves it at a disadvantage compared with all other political parties, but then again it was at a disadvantage anyway. You see Labour and National both get just over $3.2 million to spend on advertising to you. How democratic is that? How fair is that? Why should the two dominant parties both get substantial amounts of money to advertise to you?

.

While I fundamentally oppose taxpayer funding of political party advertising, I happen to agree with Idiot Savant at No Right Turn that if the parties are not going to get equal funding, those that get less funding should at least be legally allowed to spend their own money up to the amount Labour and National have got. Why not? Why shouldn't at the very least, ACT, the Greens, Libertarianz, Maori Party or Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party spend as much of their own money as they like, up to the $3.1 million?

.

Why are Labour and National so special? Where are the MMP advocates pushing for breaking this duopoly? Perhaps they fear ACT could raise the money more readily than parties on the left, though I'm not so sure - the Greens are good at fundraising. National says it is fair, well they would wouldn't they? Happily protecting the state enforced duopoly on broadcasting.

.

So if you object to being forced to pay for political parties campaigning for your vote, only one party qualified for funding and refused to spend your money - Libertarianz.

.

You should be able to choose whether you fund a political party - forcing you to do so is undemocratic and nothing to do with political freedom.

Nats want to revisit MMP

So says the Sunday Star Times. Actually the Sunday Star Times (which has tended to be friendly towards Labour) said "MMP Future in Doubt undr National", implying the Nats would abolish it, rather than hold a referendum. Bit of spin there that Labour will be happy about.

.

Well frankly I don't care much either way. Why? Because I can't get very excited about the different ways you can count heads, rather than what's in them. I opposed MMP for the same reason, and because most of its advocates were Alliance retards, xenophobic Winston groupies or academics. The fact the NZ media didn't for a moment ever probe how organised leftwing support was for MMP is a damning indictment on how uncritical it was in the early 1990s. The truth is the switch to MMP was a reaction to the reforms of the times, a referendum on politicians which ended up putting more in Parliament!

.

What's crazy is that talking about abolishing MMP hands Winston Peter another "conspiracy of those rich bastards" story to wind up the talkback listening economically illiterate xenophobic mediocrity mob.

.

Of course if the Nats want to make a serious difference with electoral reform they could just abolish the Maori seats - but that would require having courage of your convictions, but there is neither courage nor convictions with the Nats nowadays. Abolishing the Maori seats would improve proportionality, and better match constituencies to constituents, but it wont happen. The Nats aren't prepared to answer the inevitable gutter comments from the left of "racism".

.

Another worthwhile option would be having runoffs or preferences for constituency seats. This means that any seats without 50% of the vote to a single candidate would see the top two have a runoff. Clearly if MMP remains, this could be bolted on and make little difference, except for parties below the 5% threshold relying on a single constituency (4 do at the moment).

.

Meanwhile, the polls are showing the Nats may get a whopping majority. Of course this wont quite happen. The polls underestimate the support Labour has from those who don't answer polls as often as angry middle class voters - low income Maori and Pacific Island voters - the people Labour likes to frighten. Don't forget how National's win on election night 2005 was eroded away when the large south Auckland constituencies came through.

.

It's worth noting some of the poll findings though. Clearly voters on the left have started to be a bit clever, with the Greens at 6%. Leftwing voters may have got the idea that if Labour is bound to lose, they may as well cast a vote for a party that reflects their beliefs. This could be the Green's best election in a while.

.

By contrast ACT has inspired no one with only 1%. You'd think ACT could also take advantage of the same trend in reverse, as the Nats are guaranteed victory a vote for ACT could better reflect values of smaller government and reform. It isn't working yet.

.

The more telling result is that the vast majority of voters want tax cuts, income, GST and fuel. Now setting aside the arguments about GST and fuel (which I think deserve greater scrutiny and I do not support as such), it shows a strong majority in favour of government taking LESS money from everyone. Those on the left who think the opposite may pause to think, whereas National and ACT might just wonder why they can't simply reflect, in one way or another, what people want?

Labour's Zimbabwe election tactics?

If anything should justify universal outrage about Labour it is the report in the NZ Herald that it plans to sidestep the Electoral Finance Act, by using YOUR money through the once politically independent state sector. These come from confidential strategy notes apparently distributed at the Labour Party Congress.
.
According to the NZ Herald "in a private session on the election strategy, run by president Mike Williams, delegates were advised to distribute pamphlets on KiwiSaver produced by the Inland Revenue Department and on Working for Families produced by Work and Income. They were also advised to tell voters when handing out the pamphlets that National voted against both measures."
.
So Labour wants to use taxpayer funded leaflets about government policy to campaign - how very convenient. Of course all public servants are expected to declare to the Chief Executive their political affiliations - all such public servants should simply not be permitted to remove from their work large numbers of publicity material for political purposes.
.
This, of course, was always the problem with the nonsense about "buying elections" with private money. The incumbent government can always "buy elections" with the resources of government departments directly or indirectly, and it is compulsorily funded by taxpayers whether they support them or not.
.
So will Nicky Hagar write a book about Labour's strategy to buy the next election? Oh no, that's right, that "journalist" wants Labour to win. Meanwhile, watch Labour's blogging lackeys deny it, say the Herald is a rightwing rag or claim that it's been misinterpreted. Anything for power right?

Tribalism of supporting the EFB

Jordan Carter's vituperative response to Garth George (who yes is largely someone I don't agree with) speaks volumes about the lack of thought when supporting your political tribe - after all, those you respect and like politically can't get it wrong. Can they?

^

Jordan said "The people who are trying to subvert New Zealand's democracy are the various right-wing extremists out there who are portraying perfectly reasonable changes to clean up the financing of elections as some kind of totalitarian suppression of free speech".

^

That includes Not PC and myself you see, both members of Libertarianz - a party that manages to campaign and stand candidates without huge amounts of money, and arguably may even benefit perversely from the EFB - why? Because if the Nats and ACT find it harder to campaign, it probably reduces SOME of the competition for votes from those who believe in less government. So we're not motivated by any self interest politically, it is a point of principle - the EFB is an abomination if you believe that peaceful people have the right to free speech.

^

Jordan thinks election financing needs cleaning up - but then one who stood by Labour as it used taxpayer's money to finance the pledge card, and couldn't actually blink when Labour insisted it was NOT about helping Labour get elected - has an association with the truth that is perhaps only similar to that of ardent supporters of Marxist Leninist governments. If Labour said 1 + 1 = 3, then you may wonder if he simply would believe it. If National had used government money to pay for pledge cards, you can be certain without doubt you'd never hear the end of it from the likes of him. He would, of course be right in that case too - but it is political tribalism.

^

He goes on "For them, freedom is the right to buy elections. Democracy is rule by the moneyed. Fairness is screwing the scrum for your own team. A level playing field is tilted at 89° with National and the forces of the right at the uphill end. Justice is making sure that there is no chance of a fair fight at the next general election."

^

Arrant nonsense. Buying elections is about bribery, and as has been said on more than one occasion, an election is itself an advance auction of stolen goods. Labour is very supportive of using taxpayer's money through policy to prop up businesses, and groups of individuals knowing they are more likely to vote for them. Working for Families could have been about trying to reduce poverty - but that wasn't the target, as beneficiaries pretty much sleepwalk their votes to Labour anyway. The target was swing voting families that would also be interested in a tax cut - but a tax cut was offered by National (giving people back their own money). Labour preferred to tie them in longer term by saying Labour has given you something - for being a working family, so isn't that nice? What's giving Tauranga money to fully pay for its second Harbour Bridge instead of it being a perfectly viable toll road if it ISN'T about buying the election - or rather buying the support of NZ First after the election - with taxpayers' money. Who authorised that? Doesn't matter - it's Labour (oh and National would do it too if it had to).

^

He claims we want rule by the moneyed (sic). So why has ACT never been in government? Why does National not win election after election, it has lost three in a row now - did Labour claim the 1999 and 2002 elections were unfair? No, just the last one when it nearly lost - as much because people liked tax cuts and straight talking about the state being colour blind, than National's electoral ads (though you have to admit, the billboards spoke volumes).

^

Remember also every incumbent government has an enormous advantage by using, carefully, departmental advertising budgets to promote existing policies and market how to take advantage of them - but to Jordan that isn't campaigning. Money spent advertising Working for Families in election year couldn't be, could it now?

^

He claims that his political tribe is so good and honest and would never ever want to tilt the playing field in their favour. However, he sees those opposing the EFB being so motivated. In short, Labour is the party of angels, and National is the party of satan. Yes, there are Nats who think the exact opposite. The truth is they are both - but tend to be dominated by one motive - getting and staying in power. Jordan is part of that, and it would be sad if it didn't affect so many people. At best it is the height of political immaturity to support your own tribe without exception, and regard the others as fundamentally evil - at worst it IS evil.

^

He continues "try and claim the moral mantle of those good people who were fighting for the very democracy, the very freedoms that the legislation is designed to uphold, and which were threatened by deceitful and outrageous abuses at the 2005 General Election by National and their Brethren mates? How dare they?"

^

How laughable, almost hilarious. The "good people" who spent taxpayers' money on a pledge card, denied it, changed the law to legalise it because "they made a mistake", which JUST happened to help them get elected. Imagine if the party I belong to made such a mistake on such a scale, could we change the law because "sorry judge, we made a mistake in interpreting it". My arse we could. Jordan doesn't like National getting more donations than Labour, pure and simple envy - because people with money are evil and just want to hurt others. The sad sad bigoted world view of the avowed Marxist, so much blood spilt in the name of that envy. Or does Jordan simply think voters are stupid and get swayed by the amount of advertising, not the content of it? The "deceit and outrageous abuses" at the very least can be thrown back at Labour too - and funnily enough even the polls seem to indicate the public don't think there has been deceit and outrageous abuses - the Nats outpoll Labour consistently, or is that the stupid voters who don't vote Labour again?

^

If Jordan really supports fair elections then maybe he might support the following small list of potential changes (setting aside NOT passing the EFB):

- Prohibiting ANY government department spending money on advertising or promotion in election year, given the risk it can be seen to be advocating the incumbent government;

- Privatising TVNZ, Radio NZ and Maori TV, so that the state does not have any media outlets;

- Ending state funding for broadcasting advertising, so that the two major parties don't get state sanctioned domination of political advertising on the most influential media.

^

Of course this wouldn't give Labour any advantage, so why support it?

^

Finally he says "If the Electoral Finance BIll was truly as these people describe, everyone under the sun myself included would be ripping it to shreds. But it is not! "

^

Well it's not totalitarianism no, but the bill does NOT ensure each of us has an equal voice. It protects the incumbent government, and continues to advantage the two major parties, and suppresses the freedom of peaceful people to campaign how they wish, and with their own money. If you want an equal voice, then use your own money, and attract it from others. If you can't get people to choose to pay for your political party and point of view in campaigning, then why suppress the right of others to do so?

^

Unless, of course, you're a Marxist who thinks that those who have more money than you have it unfairly or unjustly - in which case, you don't believe in freedom, and don't really believe in democracy, you think voters vote for whoever has the flashest ads, and those who spend the most at elections must be suspicious, and have bad motives. That's the bottom line philosophical difference:

^

- Some people believe elections are about voters making their own decision, after being bombarded with propaganda from umpteen parties. They believe voters are smart enough to know when they are getting tricked, and that a vigorous campaign means accusations from left and right against each other are out in the open. They also believe that people can choose to support and fund parties or not, and that people should neither be forced to support parties, nor suppressed from doing so. Parties may be born or die according to support. It's called freedom, and trusts that people supporting parties and voters can make their own minds up.

- Some people believe elections are dominated by big parties who have to sway a lot of rather stupid, kneejerk reacting ordinary people to give them their vote. They think the average voter is pretty dumb, largely votes according to the loudest message and biggest spin seen in propaganda, not voting on self interest or belief in policies or the integrity or likeability about candidates. They don't think voters can be trusted to sift through all that parties might say. They also believe parties are good in their own right, so essential to government that everyone should be forced to pay for political parties, and their propaganda - especially the bigger ones. They think election should be about different playing fields for different parties - they talk about fairness, but think Labour and Libertarianz must be treated differently. After all, Labour's in government - it's only fair isn't it? National can't be allowed to get more donations than Labour, that would be unfair that more people want to donate more money to National than Labour - the fools, the evil ones, they can't be allowed - it undermines democracy because, remember, voters are stupid, they don't know what's good for them. That's called the arrogance of statism.

^

Statism vs. freedom. That's it.