From: chris@tahi.isor.vuw.ac.nz (Chris Johnston)
Subject: Re: Manipulation of Referendum Results
Organization: Institute of Statistics and Operations Research, VUW, Wellington, NZ
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 09:18:01 GMT


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.

*****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. 

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!!!!

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

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

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. 

********************************************************************
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. 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.

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.

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.

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).

My commnts simply ask you why you voted the way you did. My association
to sheep Steve and others all understand. They take umbridge because 
they thought about the issue and came to a conclusion. I am glad you did.
I will not be able to change your mind, or you mine. I repeat I believe there
are a lot of people who didn't. My opinion is shared. Your opinion 
is shared.

I AM INTERESTED IN:
1) Knowing why people voted MMP over STV.
2) Knowing why people voted STV over MMP.
3) Constructive debate re 1) and 2)
4) Finding out whether others have feelings of disquiet about the result.
I AM *NOT* INTERESETED IN:
1) Being called ignorant or uninformed.
Newsgroups: nz.general