From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Referendum Results
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:26:18 GMT

In article <BvGrIL.AL0@comp.vuw.ac.nz> chris@toru.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Chris Johnston) writes:
> 
> I noticed the following signoff in a recent article......
> |> 
> |> -- 
> |> 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".
> 
> 
> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!!!!!
> 
> I do believe that 88% of the 48% who voted is 42% of the VOTING population (NOT
> the NZ pop)!

Read it again. I said 88% of NZ *VOTERS*. This is completely accurate. Add the
MMP and STV vote together and comes to 88% of those who voted (you know - NZ
voters). 
 
You can't call the 48% (after specials) who did NOT vote "voters". How can
they be? They didn't vote. They were prepared to abide by the outcome whatever
it was.....no othr assumption can be made. If they were concerned about the
result - they would have voted.


> 
> Additional to this is the fact that two of the four options could not really be
> called PR.

Correct - the 12% I do not include voted for those two options. But 88% voted
for PR options.

> 
> Also consider that only 75% of 48% (ie 36%) voted for MMP. This means that the
> only other choice we are being offered was favoured by a minority of the voting
> population!!!

I didn't mention MMP in my .sig........though I certainly did vote for it. 

> 
> Has anyone seen the summary results for the referendum? It is interesting to note
> that those in the rich urban seats tended to vote for STV as the preferred
> alternative. (I also voted for this).

Well.....STV is off the menu. It never was really in the running. It was
placed on the ballot in an attempt to split the pro-PR vote. The three people
who made submissions to the select committee in favour of STV made quite a
splash. (D. MacLeod of Karori, R. England of Porirua, and B. Stephenson of
Ohariu). 
 
McCully (Select Committee chairman) called this "popular demand" and added STV
to the ballot. MMP had over 200 submissions BTW.  

> 
> As a personal observation I have noticed amongst the people I know that the people
> who voted for STV were the ones that like to cast a critical and thoughtful eye
> over a problem before making a decision. Those that voted for MMP were the ones
> who stated they just went with the flow or hadn't looked into the other options
> very much.

What a load of crap. You mean that people who agree with you know what they
are doing and people who don't are ill-informed.....you should be a NAT MP any
day now at that rate!
 
STV leads to emphasis of parochial interests at the expense of national
interests. The Irish expert on TV said as much when talking about Ireland and
STV there. It isalso vulnerable to gerrymandering. it is also proportional by
accident rather than design. Almost all of the winning candidates are chosen
by political parties - you know, the fabled "party bosses" that are supposedly
the bain of MMP. 
 
(as an aside, a critical recommendation of the Royal Commission with respect
to MMP was that political parties be *legally* required to follow a code of
practice in selecting candidates. In other words, the "party bosses" we hear
so much about from MMP opponents will be powerless to prevent party members
from democratically selecting list and local candidates. The politicians who
tell you otherwise are either deliberately lying - or they haven't even read
the report before condemning MMP.) 
 
 
> 
> 90% of the people I have spoken to voted STV. This is probably a product of the
> circles I move in but an interesting point to note is that no one discussed the
> issue beforehand!!! ie Everyone made up their own mind independently!!!

An interesting historical, anecdotal footnote. Hardly anyone I spoke to voted
for STV because knew it was a red herring designed to frustrate reform.

> 
> Perhaps I coulds end with my tongue firmly in my cheek:
> 
> THEY SAY THAT DOG OWNERS LOOK LIKE THEIR PETS, DOES 36% OF THE POPULATION THINK
> LIKE OUR MAJOR EXPORT??????

I can see now why you were confused - having misread my .sig and embarked in
this posting.......I mean 38% elected Muldoon in 1981.......did you complain
then? 
 
In terms of absolute numbers, 880,000 voted for National in 1990. In the
referendum, 921,000 (plus specials) voted for change. in terms of percentages
of *all* voters (your frame of reference), in 1990, the Nats got 40.4% of the
TOTAL registered voting population, while in the referendum, change got 40.8%.
 
MMP got more votes this time - in absolute numbers - than Labour did in 1990:
by a wide margin.
 
The fact is that people who took the vote seriously voted massivley for change
and overwhelmingly for MMP. 
 
The rest didn't care what happened. There aren't voters - because they didn't
vote. 
-- 
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".