From: chris@kore.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Chris Johnston)
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Referendum Results
Organization: Institute of Statistics and Operations Research, VUW, Wellington, NZ
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:12:14 GMT



|> > Well the technique of concentrating on the line by line detail 
|> > instead of the general message continues. I decide to try it .....
|> 
|> 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
|> 

voters can be interpreted as the general voting population. Precisely speaking you
are right but both interpretations are valid in the ebb and flow of the english
language. What I said relates to how I interpreted the word and it was right
*excepting* for the fact that you did not mean it that way.....if you follow.
I realised this shortly after people began replying but have the statistician's
cynicism regarding how people manipulate numbers for their own ends.


|> |> > The majority 
|> > of the population of voting age did not vote for PR.
This is my point, whether or not its what you said.


|> > *****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.....

It was regarding whether it would change behaviour of MP's. Unpopular 
policies at the beginning of of the term so people forget by the end. (expanded
and clarified)
This is not an argument for STV at all. A point to check unrestrained optimism in
anyone who may read this.


|> > 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 understood all this long before now. This is what I was thinking of when I 
mentioned game theory.
Economic concept where people try to maximise their gain in a contest against
others and uncertainty. Pretty much like an electoral process really. 
Mass psychology relates to how people perceive campaigns, what they get convinced
by and things like divide and rule which you claim I am a victum of.
Hence you get .........

|> > I am fully aware of mass psychology and game theory I assure you.
|> 
|> Oh......are they relevant?

which is a product of excessive editing. Sorry 'bout that.

|> > 
|> > 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......

How right you are, but this is because MMP won with a huge majority. My point is
that if the same proportion of the country voted for change and was evenly split
between STV and MMP, then there is no general consensus. It is better to then have
a vote between MMP abd STV. Now this is *totally* hypothetical because of course
the vote has been and gone, as all of us know, but I was simply trying to provide
an example of how voting for STV does not fustrate change at all. We were not
going to be using the new voting system next election so there was plenty of 
lee-way if the situation arose. 

To be a bit picky STV *is* reform.....just not MMP reform.


|> > The majority 
|> > of the population of voting age did not vote for PR.
|> 
|> 
|>  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.
|> 
I made up my own mind by reading about the systems. As I've said before no-one
convinced me. I, and others, made up our own minds. Please remember this when
you next feel the urge to patronise.


|> > 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. 

Your point is not my point as far as I can see. I say MMP was *portrayed* as the
only option and you say it *was* the only option. 

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

Am I right in assuming you think I thought STV would win??!! I think it is better,
.....thats all! Don't try and tell my life history from this fact ..... !!!

|> I know first hand how opposed most MPs - of both major parties
|> - are to PR (be it STV or MMP).

So here you claim how misguided most MP's were in oposing PR......

 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. 

.....but now you are claiming we should take heed of 'virtually all' MP's 
views in opposing STV!!!!!!!!! oops!!!

Very selective view of the world you have!!!!!
Not everyone has to agree with the Royal Commission. It is something to crow about
though, just not a substitute for asking yourself what *you* value.


|>  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.  

I can understand that.


|>  You are - or were - clearly uninformed.....

I'll say this yet again in another way,....... By the time I voted, I was informed.

Sorry about the line by line rebut folks, boring isn't it?
Newsgroups: nz.general