From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Referendum Results
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 11:07:20 GMT

In article <Bvn5u2.3GL@comp.vuw.ac.nz> chris@tahi.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Chris Johnston) writes:
> 
> Well the technique of concentrating on the line by line detail 
> instead of the general message continues. I decide to try it 
> but frankly it got far too personal so the following is a 
> short list of comments followed by a speal designed to try and 
> wind this debate into something a bit more constructive.

Chris, your original comments were completely wrong. I deliberately said in my
.sig that 88% of NZ *voters* had voted for *proportional representation*. This
is quite correct. If I became frustrated with you it was because you were
arguing apples while I was talking oranges......I said voter and you said
population......quite different things (as you are well aware).

> 
> *****Steve*****
> You have not addressed the issue of peoples short memories 
> which is a political reality. Everyone has to campaign and 
> sell their policies now and under every other system except 
> communism and dictatorship.

I don't remember short memories being mentioned in any of your posts.....

Sure, all the parties campaign.....but only two are usually ever successfull
at electing anyone....
 
> 
> A lot of your comments seem to argue for PR rather that MMP
> in particular. Two party club etc is still broken under STV.
> There are still safe seats under MMP *as well as* safe party 
> tickets for the people at the top of the list. In fact in 
> Germany many people go for a seat and get lidted on the ticket
> to ensure representation!!! I think I will submit this to the
> Oxford Concise as the new definition of safe!!!!

The list seats aren't as safe as you seem to think. If a party wins a lot of
local electorates, they may get NO LIST SEATS AT ALL. If they don't get many
votes, the list seats aren't that safe, either. This is what I meant by your
applying the logic of the present system to a hypothetical MMP Parliament....
The first 6 list seats *might* be safer, but after that, it can get pretty
dicey, depending on how many local seats were won - especially for candidates
from larger parties.

> 
> I am fully aware of mass psychology and game theory I assure you.

Oh......are they relevant?

> 
> The deadline was made by people. The Law is not god given. (Any 
> references to Moses will be ignored).

There is a deadline......and it may as well be from God as it is extremely
unlikely to be changed......

> 
> Please don't bother to speculate about what I have or have 
> not read. You do not know. I find that a highly arrogant attitude. 
> Please argue the issue. 

Your statement about how wise STV voters are got right up my nose, too. Your
statements about MMP reveal that a careful reading of the Royal Commission's
report would be of some benefit. I certainly don't consider it arrogant to
suggest you research your arguments further in light of the obvious gaps in
your knowledge. I'm doing you a favour and sparing you further embarrassment.

> 
> ********************************************************************
> I seem to remember pointing out in my initial mail that the figure 
> of 88% was misrepresentation of the situation. Qiubble with english
> if you will, but essentially my point is valid.

I'm not quibbling with your English.....you were ignoring mine! I have dealt
with this above.

> The majority 
> of the population of voting age did not vote for PR.

A similar majority did not vote for the present government, either......so
what's your point? They aren't really the government?

 I was 
> one that did, but I favour STV over MMP. I think MMP will work
> in terms of electing a different mix of MP's but believe STV
> has advantages that MMP does not. MMP has qualities that STV 
> does not, and I recognise these, but do not value these as highly 
> as those which recommend STV to me above MMP.

OK.....so McCully and Co. have caused you to waste much time and energy by
resurrecting the dead STV voting system for the purposes of confusing the
electorate......I'm sorry you have had to suffer this.

> 
> NOW *whether or not MMP is better than STV*,(see I'm not one-eyed),
> MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT it seems that MMP was presented as the 
> only alternative and a considered analysis of other options (STV
> being the only other credible alternative in my opinion), was not
> carried out in a considerable section of the public mind. 
> 
> I would not feel so agitated about MMP being the winner if I did not
> have the feeling that we had gotten rid of one steam roller by being 
> driven over by another. This point can be seen by the ignoramus off
> the street, let alone the people who have contributed to this topic 
> who know as much (if not a little bit more) as yours truely.

This is precisely my point. STV never should have been on Sept. 19th's ballot.
It was never even in the running. You feel steam-rolled because you fell for
the red herring hook, line and sinker. There is nothing terrible about
STV.....it emphasises some things, while MMP emphasises others. Many think
that MMP is the best mix. Certainly, the Royal Commission thought so. I think
so too.

You feel steamrollered be cause you got suckered into supporting a system that
never had a chance by people who don't want reform.

> 
> The campaign for electoral reform started as a action group to 
> implement the royal commission's recommendations and had had
> a good deal of time to make MMP, PR and electoral reform synonymous.

As a former National Secretary of the Electoral Reform Coalition, I can
assure you that the fight leading up to the Sept 19th referendum was niether
easy nor sure. I know first hand how opposed most MPs - of both major parties
- are to PR (be it STV or MMP). The Royal Commission's report was the
linch-pin for the whole campaign. STV was simply not viable as it had been
rejected by the Royal Commission and virtually all MPs. 
 
A campaign for STV would STILL be looking for a referendum.....and not getting
one. Perhaps because I have invested 4 years in the fight for PR and MMP, I am
more likely to take umbrage with people who come to the debate late and want
to turn the whole process on its head.  

> 
> Hence when anyone dares to crititise MMP they are cast as a FFP 
> supporter or worse still a National MP!!!! My God!!! (They're all
> bad bad people aren't they?? I hear Labour is being taken over 
> by the communists again).

I said you could be a NAT MP based on your "wise-folks-vote-STV" claim....not
because you have decided you don't like MMP. Again, you have taken simple
English and turned it on its ear.....like you did when you mis-read my .sig in
the first place.  

> 1) Being called ignorant or uninformed.

I didn't call you ignorant. You are - or were - clearly uninformed.....it's
nothing to be ashamed, of and easily rectified. Getting angry about being
identified as such is a waste of time....

I call'em as i see'em......go ahead.....make me change my mind....:-).
 
Steve



-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for proportional representation. It
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | looks like we may get a more  
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".
Newsgroups: nz.general