Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 128073	2012-12-02 04:18:00	Poll: Elections every four years or three years?	Digby (677)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1315880	2012-12-02 18:54:00	What the devil has the country done wrong enough to merit an extra year of the pathetic pile we have lollygagging around in Bellamys? "We" have to start looking at the big picture and forget party politics and our hatred of politicians for a while. Just because you don't like the present government, does not mean that we should keep a three year system. I have just done some research and have found that New Zealand and Australia are about the only countries that do not have 4 or 5 year systems for their parliament or president. world-leaders.findthedata.org Here is a quick summary of how I see it In the 3 year system 1st year is getting to grips with things 2nd year is bringing in major policy changes (voted for) 3rd year is getting ready for election This does not give a government time to bed in their policy changes and for them to start to work and for the electorate to get used to them. A fourth year would allow government more time to get their policies through and for them to have an effect, it may result in less wild swings of policy changes.	Digby (677)
1315881	2012-12-02 19:25:00	Adding the 5 year option would have made it far too hard for the idiots who vote national to understand. They would get confused	gary67 (56)
1315882	2012-12-02 20:01:00	4 years would be too long if the commie parties were in power and 3 years is too short for a National party government A FIVE year term will be appropriate for a NO Party government. :D	bk T (215)
1315883	2012-12-02 20:22:00	QW and bk T are onto it. All politicians are as bad as each other (no matter which way they lean - but some are worse than others). So what you are missing on your poll, Digby, is the option: "Shoot-all-politiicians-as-they-volunteer-themselves-for-election"	johcar (6283)
1315884	2012-12-02 20:53:00	@Johcar I had thought of options like that. But although many of us do not have a great opinion of politicians, we do have to have a government. And having such options would not reveal whether people wanted a longer term than we now have or the status quo PS your suggested option would probably have been the most popular!	Digby (677)
1315885	2012-12-03 08:30:00	Voting is pretty conclusive. It shows how intelligent we at PC World Forums really are. Any more votes ?	Digby (677)
1315886	2012-12-03 18:05:00	Is this a case of "because they have it, we want it" and so close after the US elections? I dont think we should have any by-elections with MMP, First past the post needs it, but not MMP, if some idiot wants to resign to play games with voters outside election time, 'screw them' they are out of the picture until the next general election, just take the next candidate next in line under the MMP system . I dont have a issue with MP numbers as you get closer to one you get closer to communism, which leads to another problem, we dont have the cabinet brain power other country have and so three year team will replace stale brain power in cabinet . If you want less MPs move to the South Island, some dude many years ago gave the number of MP for the South Island a fixed number, the number of MP North Island gets is based on the head of population per MP so the ratio of North Island and South Island is the same, so anyone in the South Island wants more MP move to the North Island . Fresh brain power in cabinet is what NZ needs . more MP's shorter time	Frank_sumbody (16923)
1315887	2012-12-04 00:31:00	Our barely stable coalition governments are unlikely to survive a 4 or 5 year term, unless the big players bend over further to the smaller players. So would you want Act, NZ First, Maori or Greens pulling all the strings for 4 or 5 years? Or the major parties ignoring more and more of the corruption within their teams because they can't afford to lose/discipline any rogues in their ranks? Yeah, longer terms may let them get more done, or it may just let the minor parties and the rotten elements create a bigger than normal stink. I think that for much of the time we are better off if Parliament gets sod all done. The status quo is often superior to change for changes sake. From the point of view of the public services however, a longer term might better allow them to get their work done, rather than having to reinvent themselves every 3 years to suit their new commanders.	Paul.Cov (425)
1315888	2012-12-04 00:47:00	I think that for much of the time we are better off if Parliament gets sod all done . The status quo is often superior to change for changes sake . . Rather an expensive hobby .	Cicero (40)
1315889	2012-12-04 01:01:00	4 years. Elections cost money, we'd save some money, If nothing else.	Sanco (683)
1 2