From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Referendum Results
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:40:03 GMT

In article <BvMEz6.Drz@comp.vuw.ac.nz> chris@isor.vuw.ac.nz (Chris Johnston) writes:
> 
> Well it is pleasing to see some dicussion of an issue I was afraid would be swept
> under the carpet and forgotten. I'm sure everyone realises the contribution was
> meant to be a bit provocative but I do think MMP voters should be made aware of
> the substantial section of those who voted for STV for very sound and considered
> reasons.
> 
> The main reasons I voted for STV are:
> 1)	I don't like the idea of party lists. This is because it starts to divorce
> some MP's from the people they serve.

Ho Hum......I disagree. List candidates from a party seeking to gain electoral
support will have to be out there on the hustings selling themselves, their
party, and their policies. If they DON'T, then people won't vote for them. 

In advancing the argument you do, you forget that under MMP, there will more
choice about who you may vote for and expect to gain representation. With the
two-party club broken, the take-it-or-leave-it voting logic of the present
system breaks down. In short, MP's who behave as you describe will not
naturally attract votes.......... 

> Most MP's I have heard comment on the system
> in the times before PR became an issue claimed it was very effective in keeping
> them in touch with the concerns of the 'people'. Some claim this has not helped
> them keep their promises btu I argue no system will do this. After all the basis
> of any political campaign is that people have short memories and this has been
> borne out time after time and term after term. There is a limit but its not a
> tight one. 
> 	Those on the party lists will lose touch and be more inclined to pursue
> policies they believe are best in the face of public opinion. Most people who
> voted for change did so to mitigate this curent tendency in NZ politics.

This describes the present system and the 60% of MPs from safe seats pretty
well......

The thing that will diminish - or even eliminate - this tendency is the fact
the governments will likely be coalitions. Thus, one group - from a list or
not - will be unlikely to impose thier agenda on all other groups. They will -
usually - be required to co-operate with at least one other party.....
 
Again, you are applying the logic/dynamic of the present system to the new
one....and coming up with incorrect conclusions. 
 
PLEASE! Read the Royal Commission's report before going any further......

> 
> 2)	I believe multimember electorates have benefits. Parties can select a
> wider range of candidates rather than the single more conservative candidate that
> appeals to the majority. People are also being encouraged to think outside party
> dogma because they have to rank more than one candidate. 

I think you are making pretty wild assertions here. Voters who are
conservative will vote for 3,5,or 7 conservative candidates......  They are
unlikely to say "I'll have 3 tories, 2 lefties, a greeny and ....um....one of
those....." 

> 
> MMP to a certain extent achieves 2) but not 1).

Incorrect - see above.

> 
> STV as a way to fustrate reform: This is a silly one trotted out by MMPists.
> Assume that 80% of those who voted voted for change and the subsequent vote was
> tied between STV and MMP. Obviously the situation then requires more discussion
> and thrashing out. I have no quible with this. There are no god given deadlines
> that require everything to be resolved now. One step at a time.

There is a deadline. It is election day next year. This is the law as it
stands......

> 
> I do acknowledge that there were people who voted for MMP who did so in a
> considered manner who just had different criteria. My concern is that I perceive
> there was a blinker effect working where MMP was touted as THE WAY, THE TRUTH, THE
> LIGHT. That leaves me uneasy.

Chris, people who voted for MMP probably know more about it than you do if
your postings here are anything to go by. I don't mean to be overly harsh, but
- again - please read the Royal Commission's report on STV and MMP before
arguing this matter any further. To people - like me - who have read the
report.....your postings demonstrate a certain lack of depth knowledge about
MMP....and STV for that matter.
 
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".