Is Australia going to emerge from the Dark Ages and embrace some form of proportional representation?

This November represents the 20th anniversary of the introduction of MMP into New Zealand. The sky hasn't fallen in and coalition governments have proved remarkably stable.

What HAS happened is that smaller parties have had a fair go and a much wider range of people have made it into Parliament.

You need to look at just one incidence to see how unfair the current Australian system is.

The Greens won 8% of the vote for just one seat. This represents less than 1% of the number of MPs. These figures just don't stack up, do they?

I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole?

Quantum wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 8:20am:

I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole?

Australia has many things going for it.

The electoral system isn't one of them.

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

Quantum wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:20am: I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole? Australia has many things going for it. The electoral system isn't one of them.

I agree something needs to change.. but pete you cant compare NZ 4mil.with AUst 22m.and a huge expanse of land to govern..

hey sorry to hear about the Americas Cup what a blow.. :'( :'(


what annoys me more is someone getting in on people second or third choices.....that really pings me off..


I mean most only ever get one kick at goal...but wannabees seem to get more than one chance... ::) ::)

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 8:23am:

Quantum wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:20am: I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole? Australia has many things going for it. btw pete it will be even better now the LIBS ARE IN ;D ;D The electoral system isn't one of them.

cods wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 8:32am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:23am: Quantum wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:20am: I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole? Australia has many things going for it. The electoral system isn't one of them. I agree something needs to change.. but pete you cant compare NZ 4mil.with AUst 22m.and a huge expanse of land to govern.. hey sorry to hear about the Americas Cup what a blow.. :'( :'( what annoys me more is someone getting in on people second or third choices.....that really pings me off.. I mean most only ever get one kick at goal...but wannabees seem to get more than one chance... ::) ::)

The size of population or of the country itself is immaterial. Countries with far more people than we have successfully use PR.

I'm surprised there seems to be so little interest here in change.

Don't care about the America's Cup. Just rich men playing with their toys.

Half the Oracle crew came from Australia, anyway. I find yacht racing incredibly boring.

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

cods wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:32am: Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:23am: Quantum wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:20am: I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole? Australia has many things going for it. The electoral system isn't one of them. I agree something needs to change.. but pete you cant compare NZ 4mil.with AUst 22m.and a huge expanse of land to govern.. hey sorry to hear about the Americas Cup what a blow.. :'( :'( what annoys me more is someone getting in on people second or third choices.....that really pings me off.. I mean most only ever get one kick at goal...but wannabees seem to get more than one chance... ::) ::) The size of population or of the country itself is immaterial. Countries with far more people than we have successfully use PR. I'm surprised there seems to be so little interest here in change. Don't care about the America's Cup. Just rich men playing with their toys. Half the Oracle crew came from Australia, anyway. I find yacht racing incredibly boring.

fair enough..

as for size.. I would rather build a railway or a road in b etween towns.in NZ than OZ..

cods wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:03am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:40am: cods wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:32am: Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:23am: Quantum wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:20am: I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole? Australia has many things going for it. The electoral system isn't one of them. I agree something needs to change.. but pete you cant compare NZ 4mil.with AUst 22m.and a huge expanse of land to govern.. hey sorry to hear about the Americas Cup what a blow.. :'( :'( what annoys me more is someone getting in on people second or third choices.....that really pings me off.. I mean most only ever get one kick at goal...but wannabees seem to get more than one chance... ::) ::) The size of population or of the country itself is immaterial. Countries with far more people than we have successfully use PR. I'm surprised there seems to be so little interest here in change. Don't care about the America's Cup. Just rich men playing with their toys. Half the Oracle crew came from Australia, anyway. I find yacht racing incredibly boring. fair enough.. as for size.. I would rather build a railway or a road in b etween towns.in NZ than OZ..

Through or over New Zealands extensive mountain ranges?

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 7:42am:

Is Australia going to emerge from the Dark Ages and embrace some form of proportional representation? This November represents the 20th anniversary of the introduction of MMP into New Zealand. The sky hasn't fallen in and coalition governments have proved remarkably stable. What HAS happened is that smaller parties have had a fair go and a much wider range of people have made it into Parliament. You need to look at just one incidence to see how unfair the current Australian system is. The Greens won 8% of the vote for just one seat. This represents less than 1% of the number of MPs. These figures just don't stack up, do they?

We don't like the Special Olympics form of PR.  MMP simply gives a medal to those not deserving one.  The greens scored a PATHETIC 8% of the vote.  Why should they be given representation for such a pitiful effort?  And after the last minority govt I don't think anyone would be looking for a repeat of that experience.  AS one of the most stable democracies in the world, changing the system now would be rather silly. "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:24am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:42am: Is Australia going to emerge from the Dark Ages and embrace some form of proportional representation? This November represents the 20th anniversary of the introduction of MMP into New Zealand. The sky hasn't fallen in and coalition governments have proved remarkably stable. What HAS happened is that smaller parties have had a fair go and a much wider range of people have made it into Parliament. You need to look at just one incidence to see how unfair the current Australian system is. The Greens won 8% of the vote for just one seat. This represents less than 1% of the number of MPs. These figures just don't stack up, do they? We don't like the Special Olympics form of PR.  MMP simply gives a medal to those not deserving one.  The greens scored a PATHETIC 8% of the vote.  Why should they be given representation for such a pitiful effort?  And after the last minority govt I don't think anyone would be looking for a repeat of that experience.  AS one of the most stable democracies in the world, changing the system now would be rather silly. "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

So 8% of the voters don't matter?

The last minority government made decisions you didn't like. Tough.

If it had been a Liberal minority government you would have loved it, because you inhabit a black and white world. Libs good, Labs bad, that is the extent of your "thinking".

The key point is that a minority government was stable and saw out its term. It worked.

The current system IS broken. It favours the two main parties at the expense of all the others.

Kiwis understood that and changed it. When will Australians do the same?

I am amazed the Greens aren't running with this particular ball. That's what happened over the ditch.

The late Rod Donald led the charge and won despite the opposition of the two main parties and wealthy business interests. NZ has much to thank him for.

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:47am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 9:24am: Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:42am: Is Australia going to emerge from the Dark Ages and embrace some form of proportional representation? This November represents the 20th anniversary of the introduction of MMP into New Zealand. The sky hasn't fallen in and coalition governments have proved remarkably stable. What HAS happened is that smaller parties have had a fair go and a much wider range of people have made it into Parliament. You need to look at just one incidence to see how unfair the current Australian system is. The Greens won 8% of the vote for just one seat. This represents less than 1% of the number of MPs. These figures just don't stack up, do they? We don't like the Special Olympics form of PR.  MMP simply gives a medal to those not deserving one.  The greens scored a PATHETIC 8% of the vote.  Why should they be given representation for such a pitiful effort?  And after the last minority govt I don't think anyone would be looking for a repeat of that experience.  AS one of the most stable democracies in the world, changing the system now would be rather silly. "If it aint broke, don't fix it." So 8% of the voters don't matter? The last minority government made decisions you didn't like. Tough. If it had been a Liberal minority government you would have loved it, because you inhabit a black and white world. Libs good, Labs bad, that is the extent of your "thinking". The key point is that a minority government was stable and saw out its term. It worked. The current system IS broken. It favours the two main parties at the expense of all the others. Kiwis understood that and changed it. When will Australians do the same? I am amazed the Greens aren't running with this particular ball. That's what happened over the ditch. The late Rod Donald led the charge and won despite the opposition of the two main parties and wealthy business interests. NZ has much to thank him for.

not anywhere near as much as the other 92%.  This is a society of majority rule.  If you cant get to be a majority than you don't get to rule.  MMR is just special Olympics methodology.

No, not as much as the others, I agree.

The LNP governs. Did they get a majority of ALL votes cast?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 11:46am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 9:47am: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 9:24am: Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:42am: Is Australia going to emerge from the Dark Ages and embrace some form of proportional representation? This November represents the 20th anniversary of the introduction of MMP into New Zealand. The sky hasn't fallen in and coalition governments have proved remarkably stable. What HAS happened is that smaller parties have had a fair go and a much wider range of people have made it into Parliament. You need to look at just one incidence to see how unfair the current Australian system is. The Greens won 8% of the vote for just one seat. This represents less than 1% of the number of MPs. These figures just don't stack up, do they? We don't like the Special Olympics form of PR.  MMP simply gives a medal to those not deserving one.  The greens scored a PATHETIC 8% of the vote.  Why should they be given representation for such a pitiful effort?  And after the last minority govt I don't think anyone would be looking for a repeat of that experience.  AS one of the most stable democracies in the world, changing the system now would be rather silly. "If it aint broke, don't fix it." So 8% of the voters don't matter? The last minority government made decisions you didn't like. Tough. If it had been a Liberal minority government you would have loved it, because you inhabit a black and white world. Libs good, Labs bad, that is the extent of your "thinking". The key point is that a minority government was stable and saw out its term. It worked. The current system IS broken. It favours the two main parties at the expense of all the others. Kiwis understood that and changed it. When will Australians do the same? I am amazed the Greens aren't running with this particular ball. That's what happened over the ditch. The late Rod Donald led the charge and won despite the opposition of the two main parties and wealthy business interests. NZ has much to thank him for. not anywhere near as much as the other 92%.  This is a society of majority rule.  If you cant get to be a majority than you don't get to rule.  MMR is just special Olympics methodology.

How often have the Libs had the majority of votes on their own in this countries history ?..Once or twice?  ;D

cods wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 8:32am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:23am: Quantum wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:20am: I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole? Australia has many things going for it. The electoral system isn't one of them. I agree something needs to change.. but pete you cant compare NZ 4mil.with AUst 22m.and a huge expanse of land to govern.. hey sorry to hear about the Americas Cup what a blow.. :'( :'( what annoys me more is someone getting in on people second or third choices.....that really pings me off.. I mean most only ever get one kick at goal...but wannabees seem to get more than one chance... ::) ::)

It always makes me piss myself laughing when I read conga line supporters whine about preferential voting. The facts are Labor  would have won every election bar one over the past eighty years without preferences and/or coalitions. Yep, I agree Cody's lets make it fairer. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

No, not as much as the others, I agree. The LNP governs. Did they get a majority of ALL votes cast?

very close.  but if you want to use 2PP yes they did.  or does preferential voting only apply if it suits you?

skippy. wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

cods wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:32am: Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:23am: Quantum wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:20am: I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole? Australia has many things going for it. The electoral system isn't one of them. I agree something needs to change.. but pete you cant compare NZ 4mil.with AUst 22m.and a huge expanse of land to govern.. hey sorry to hear about the Americas Cup what a blow.. :'( :'( what annoys me more is someone getting in on people second or third choices.....that really pings me off.. I mean most only ever get one kick at goal...but wannabees seem to get more than one chance... ::) ::) It always makes me piss myself laughing when I read conga line supporters whine about preferential voting. The facts are Labor  would have won every election bar one over the past eighty years without preferences and/or coalitions. Yep, I agree Cody's lets make it fairer. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

what complete rubbish.  why don't we go for first past the post?  what do you think will happen?  the nats and Libs will instantly merge to form a national LNP which will then flog the ALP even harder because the ALP will no longer get greens preferences.  you would lose another 20 seats right away.

Is that what you want?

When the retard reads my post for the first time he will see I said Labor would have won every election bar one over the past eighty years if there was no preferential voting or coalitions, what doesnt the retard understand? Labor ALWAYS gets the majority of votes, if there was no coalition there would never be Liberal governments, god you're dumb.

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:47am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 9:24am: Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:42am: Is Australia going to emerge from the Dark Ages and embrace some form of proportional representation? This November represents the 20th anniversary of the introduction of MMP into New Zealand. The sky hasn't fallen in and coalition governments have proved remarkably stable. What HAS happened is that smaller parties have had a fair go and a much wider range of people have made it into Parliament. You need to look at just one incidence to see how unfair the current Australian system is. The Greens won 8% of the vote for just one seat. This represents less than 1% of the number of MPs. These figures just don't stack up, do they? We don't like the Special Olympics form of PR.  MMP simply gives a medal to those not deserving one.  The greens scored a PATHETIC 8% of the vote.  Why should they be given representation for such a pitiful effort?  And after the last minority govt I don't think anyone would be looking for a repeat of that experience.  AS one of the most stable democracies in the world, changing the system now would be rather silly. "If it aint broke, don't fix it." So 8% of the voters don't matter? The last minority government made decisions you didn't like. Tough. If it had been a Liberal minority government you would have loved it, because you inhabit a black and white world. Libs good, Labs bad, that is the extent of your "thinking". The key point is that a minority government was stable and saw out its term. It worked. The current system IS broken. It favours the two main parties at the expense of all the others. Kiwis understood that and changed it. When will Australians do the same? I am amazed the Greens aren't running with this particular ball. That's what happened over the ditch. The late Rod Donald led the charge and won despite the opposition of the two main parties and wealthy business interests. NZ has much to thank him for.

Forgive my ignorance, but I dont understand how the system you propose works then we are covering such a vast area.

If the greens attract 8% of the vote, is it this system they would end up with 12 seats in a 152 seat parliament?

If so, then where do those 12 seats get allocated to? Which areas?  Is there no longer any areas?  Would this system then make it impossible for say, Cathy McGowan to win the seat of Indi on a local issues campaign?

I am asking out of genuine interest.

Good questions Verge.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 9:24am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 7:42am: Is Australia going to emerge from the Dark Ages and embrace some form of proportional representation? This November represents the 20th anniversary of the introduction of MMP into New Zealand. The sky hasn't fallen in and coalition governments have proved remarkably stable. What HAS happened is that smaller parties have had a fair go and a much wider range of people have made it into Parliament. You need to look at just one incidence to see how unfair the current Australian system is. The Greens won 8% of the vote for just one seat. This represents less than 1% of the number of MPs. These figures just don't stack up, do they? We don't like the Special Olympics form of PR.  MMP simply gives a medal to those not deserving one.  The greens scored a PATHETIC 8% of the vote.  Why should they be given representation for such a pitiful effort?  And after the last minority govt I don't think anyone would be looking for a repeat of that experience.  AS one of the most stable democracies in the world, changing the system now would be rather silly. "If it aint broke, don't fix it."

But peter is obviously saying if you win 8 percent of the vote (measly though that might be) then you should have 8 percent of the parliamentarians .


Makes sense.

skippy. wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

When the retard reads my post for the first time he will see I said Labor would have won every election bar one over the past eighty years if there was no preferential voting or coalitions, what doesnt the retard understand? Labor ALWAYS gets the majority of votes, if there was no coalition there would never be Liberal governments, god you're dumb.

Ive been saying that for years..but you'll find Longy gets a little "heated" whenever its mentioned  :D
On a one party first over the line basis Labor has had just about every election in the bag since the dawn of mankind.  :D

Verge, there are many systems of PR.

But let's look at what happens in NZ.

You have two votes. Your electorate vote chooses your MP and works on an FPP basis.

Your second, and most important vote, is a Party vote. This is the vote that determines the percentage of parliamentary seats each party wins.

If, for example, a party wins 20% of the electorate seats, but 30% of the party vote, the difference is made up by adding MPs off a list provided by the party.

To ensure a party has a reasonable measure of support, a threshold is provided, in NZ it is 5%. So you have to get that percentage of the party vote in order to have any MPs.

skippy. wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

cods wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:32am: Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:23am: Quantum wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:20am: I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole? Australia has many things going for it. The electoral system isn't one of them. I agree something needs to change.. but pete you cant compare NZ 4mil.with AUst 22m.and a huge expanse of land to govern.. hey sorry to hear about the Americas Cup what a blow.. :'( :'( what annoys me more is someone getting in on people second or third choices.....that really pings me off.. I mean most only ever get one kick at goal...but wannabees seem to get more than one chance... ::) ::) It always makes me piss myself laughing when I read conga line supporters whine about preferential voting. The facts are Labor  would have won every election bar one over the past eighty years without preferences and/or coalitions. Yep, I agree Cody's lets make it fairer. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ya smacking eejit..... ;D ;D ;D

geez,  greens in the house of reps,  no f*ing way  ;) ;)

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Verge, there are many systems of PR. But let's look at what happens in NZ. You have two votes. Your electorate vote chooses your MP and works on an FPP basis. Your second, and most important vote, is a Party vote. This is the vote that determines the percentage of parliamentary seats each party wins. If, for example, a party wins 20% of the electorate seats, but 30% of the party vote, the difference is made up by adding MPs off a list provided by the party. To ensure a party has a reasonable measure of support, a threshold is provided, in NZ it is 5%. So you have to get that percentage of the party vote in order to have any MPs.

Does that make it virtually mathematically impossible for a Cathy McGowan to get elected?

Also, when happens if, for example, Hockey wins his seat by a country mile, but the party only secures less voting overall, does that mean he could be forced to give up that seat?

Doesnt the senate already work on the same sorta ideals, but with a lot of messy preference deals along the way?

skippy. wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

When the retard reads my post for the first time he will see I said Labor would have won every election bar one over the past eighty years if there was no preferential voting or coalitions, what doesnt the retard understand? Labor ALWAYS gets the majority of votes, if there was no coalition there would never be Liberal governments, god you're dumb.

Its a senseless statement.  "we would have won if only all the other parties didn't stand..."

even by your standards it is dopey.

The more I hear of the NZ system, the more I like first past the post!!! why should the greens be effectively GIVEN seats when they couldn't win any in their own right?  IN minority govts which is what this system virtually ensures, someone or a few people ends up with an effective balance on power and is ALWAYS the result of a very small vote. Democracy after all is the rule of the majority and these systems seem determined to disenfranchise the majority to favour the minority.

Quantum wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 8:20am:

I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole?

They can't get jobs and when they do they pay crap the natural area for promotion and development is in Australia.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

Quantum wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 8:20am: I always wonder why so many New Zealanders live is this backwards country when their own is so progressive and just straight out better. Why leave paradise for this shlthole? They can't get jobs and when they do they pay crap the natural area for promotion and development is in Australia.

so if NZ is such a craphole why is anyone promoting their system of voting which clearly elects govts incapable of changing and improving anything?  Is it because sometimes tough decisions need tough govt and minority govt is NEVER tough but rather compromised and terminally fragile?

Verge wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Sep 26th, 2013 at 12:55pm: Verge, there are many systems of PR. But let's look at what happens in NZ. You have two votes. Your electorate vote chooses your MP and works on an FPP basis. Your second, and most important vote, is a Party vote. This is the vote that determines the percentage of parliamentary seats each party wins. If, for example, a party wins 20% of the electorate seats, but 30% of the party vote, the difference is made up by adding MPs off a list provided by the party. To ensure a party has a reasonable measure of support, a threshold is provided, in NZ it is 5%. So you have to get that percentage of the party vote in order to have any MPs. Does that make it virtually mathematically impossible for a Cathy McGowan to get elected? Also, when happens if, for example, Hockey wins his seat by a country mile, but the party only secures less voting overall, does that mean he could be forced to give up that seat? Doesnt the senate already work on the same sorta ideals, but with a lot of messy preference deals along the way?

The answer to your Hockey query is no. In such a case the number of MPs overall is increased to compensate.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2013 at 5:23pm:

The more I hear of the NZ system, the more I like first past the post!!! why should the greens be effectively GIVEN seats when they couldn't win any in their own right?  IN minority govts which is what this system virtually ensures, someone or a few people ends up with an effective balance on power and is ALWAYS the result of a very small vote. Democracy after all is the rule of the majority and these systems seem determined to disenfranchise the majority to favour the minority.

Of course you like FPP! Putting aside that you're not very bright, it suits the Libs perfectly.

No-one is " given" seats, don't write rubbish. They are earned by receiving votes FFS.

"Majority" means just that. Did the CNP get a majority of votes? No, they  didn't. Yet they govern unimpeded.