Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 79158	2007-05-10 05:08:00	New Zealand Electoral System	KenESmith (6287)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
548785	2007-05-12 10:29:00	To the contrary Paul, the Australian political system for its faults is far superior to the kiwi system, to start with they have a bicameral system compared to NZs unicameral system, with a preferential voting system,and as such there are superior protections against abuse of power. With the exception of Queensland apparently. My source for this is Wikipedia so please correct if it's wrong "There are several factors that differentiate Queensland's government from other Australian states: * the legislature has no upper house; * for a large portion of its history, the state was under a gerrymander that heavily favoured rural electorates. This, combined with the already decentralised nature of Queensland, meant that politics has been dominated by regional interests; * Queensland operates a balloting system known as Optional Preferential Voting, which renders the predominant Australian electoral system, the single-transferable-vote system, closer to a first past the post ballot, which some say is to the detriment of minor parties." en.wikipedia.org	PaulD (232)
548786	2007-05-12 13:27:00	Yes, Queensland is different, and one can't say that it has a great government= The current State Government was only re-elected last year because there was no viable opposition. The premier Peter Beattie called an early election, on a fabricated reason, foe two apparent reasosn - the opposition was fragmented and completely disorganised, and it is suggested that he got in early before some nasty chickens came home to roost. Peter is the only politician I have known who has the gall to go on TV and announce as a personal triumph partially fixing a cock-up of his own making. When things go right we see Beattie on TV grabbing the credit - when things go wrong a subordinate gets the balame and takes the Flak, even when it's apparently Beattie's fault.	KenESmith (6287)
548787	2007-05-13 04:39:00	Yes, Queensland is different, and one can't say that it has a great government= The current State Government was only re-elected last year because there was no viable opposition. The premier Peter Beattie called an early election, on a fabricated reason, foe two apparent reasosn - the opposition was fragmented and completely disorganised, and it is suggested that he got in early before some nasty chickens came home to roost. Peter is the only politician I have known who has the gall to go on TV and announce as a personal triumph partially fixing a cock-up of his own making. When things go right we see Beattie on TV grabbing the credit - when things go wrong a subordinate gets the balame and takes the Flak, even when it's apparently Beattie's fault. So, tell us again which is the best system?	decibel (11645)
548788	2007-05-13 10:07:00	LOL, more laws still? We have laws dribbling out of every orifice - and still they make more. Laws tend to benefit legal practitioners, that is why they make them. Logic or justice has very little to do with it if you stand back a bit. The legal system by and large enables the strong to overwhelm the weak and adds an infinitude of parasites sap-sucking both sides. Gangs, by virtue of intimiidation ignore legal restraints. Larger corporates frequently do the same. "They ought to do something about it". ;) I also would happily adopt a few $$ wherever they come from and provide them with a good home. I hope you don't count our oo7 in with that view!	Cicero (40)
548789	2007-05-13 10:08:00	The Australian Federal Electoral system beats NZs FPP with MMP because it has preferential voting - ensures that the security of bomb proof safe seats is dramatically reduced and encouraging voters to think about what they are doing - 1st preference perhaps from the heart, second and third preferences require a bit of deliberation- it allows proportionality without the problems and potential abuses inherent in the NZ party list system, and ending up with minor parties in coalition calling the shots which is the other fault of the NZ system. And this has been a regular feature of NZ MMP coalition governments.	KenESmith (6287)
548790	2007-05-13 10:39:00	I think it's unavoidable though, if you want proportionality you are stuck with minor parties wagging the dog. Sue Bradford's bill is a classic case of this - it was the price Helen Clark was prepared to pay to cling to her slim majority. At the end of the day, politicians everywhere deserve their ranking at the bottom of the public opinion list along with second-hand car dealers [sorry to any dealers here]	decibel (11645)
548791	2007-05-14 01:01:00	The advantage of preferential voting is that the Sue Bradfords of this world don't make it to parliament unless they are a major player in their electorate. Basically the lowest scoring candidates get knocked out and the electors who voted for them have their vote transferred to their next preference, until the selection is a two monkey race. The system reduces dramatically the number of genuinely safe seats in parliament, and it means no vote is thrown away, it makes voters think a bit more carefully about how they vote, and theoretically it should raise the calibre of people offering themselves as candidates, although there is not too much evidence to prove this. It invariably still comes down to a two horse race, although in Australia it is a four horse race with the Country and Liberals in a permanent coalition, with the other major party being Labour with the Democrats taking a few seats and a couple to the Greens. It has successfully generated workable governments, and with an upper house, the Senate able to act as a check on any excesses or bad government by the House of Representatives it seems to have been a recipe for a prosperous Australia.	KenESmith (6287)
548792	2007-05-14 01:37:00	LOL, more laws still? We have laws dribbling out of every orifice - and still they make more . Laws tend to benefit legal practitioners, that is why they make them . Logic or justice has very little to do with it if you stand back a bit . Yes it might sound a bit off-putting to have more laws . Instead what is actually happening throughout the Western world is that nations are changing their commercial laws to be more in line with one another . It makes contracting across international borders easier and safer . So there aren't more laws as such, more the case of amendments to existing law . NZ and Oz have been moving together for a while now under CER . I'm interested that you think laws are passed for the benefit of legal practitioners . I can tell you that most of the laws created each year never even get noticed . In fact life would be a lot easier if there were no new laws, just as medicine would be easier without new drugs, discoveries, MRIs etc .	Winston001 (3612)
548793	2007-05-14 02:09:00	Actually, I am not aiming at you Winston001, (just as laws are not aimed at individuals, but hit 'em nevertheless) it appears that legal practitioners excepted, laws do not benefit anyone. The best they can achieve is mitigation or in some cases, avoidance of harm. Keeping left on the road is a case in point, but even here, precedent suggests the reverse may be better.	R2x1 (4628)
548794	2007-05-14 06:46:00	Actually, I am not aiming at you Winston001, (just as laws are not aimed at individuals, but hit 'em nevertheless) it appears that legal practitioners excepted, laws do not benefit anyone. The best they can achieve is mitigation or in some cases, avoidance of harm. Keeping left on the road is a case in point, but even here, precedent suggests the reverse may be better. I fail to see how going in reverse would be safer? As well as hard on the neck!	Cicero (40)
1 2 3 4