I’ve met a retired All Blacks captain, a Certified Parrot Behaviour Consultant, a couple of mayors and, with some trepidation, a former police detective. Let me tell you, those who are running for an electorate seat put in the mahi. Hard, relentless, grinding hours spent debating, door knocking, presenting, memorising party lines and talking to potential voters, random strangers and other candidates.
These individuals deserve your consideration on their merits, performance, values, policies and integrity. They should not be short-changed by considerations of tactical voting.
Let me back up. Te Pāti Māori thought it would be clever to abandon the party vote and concentrate on winning electorates, encouraging their supporters to give their party vote to other progressive allies, presumably Labour and the Greens. This gives the left an overhang.
Let me back up. Te Pāti Māori thought it would be clever to abandon the party vote and concentrate on winning electorates, encouraging their supporters to give their party vote to other progressive allies, presumably Labour and the Greens. This gives the left an overhang.
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi. Photo: Monique Ford / STUFF
Inevitably, Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion kicked in: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. My friend Dr Don Brash and businessman Harry Mowbray have a campaign encouraging National voters to party tick ACT or New Zealand First, hoping to win a compensating overhang.
If this works, there is an incentive for the left to engage in their own shenanigans. Imagine a Social Democrat Party standing Arena Williams in Manurewa, Rachel Brooking in Dunedin and Carmel Sepuloni in Kelston.
Which brings me to a larger question: why do we vote? Downs’ Paradox of Voting asks: given an individual’s vote never matters, and there is a real cost in time and resources to cast a vote, why bother?
We value having our say, even if we are yelling into the wind. We vote because we have considered the issues and want an outlet for that consideration. Which is why, if I may suggest, you do not vote tactically. Because the only person your vote matters to is you. Don’t spoil the experience by voting for your second choice to frustrate your third.
I live in Kaipara. I will be voting for Simon Court. He is a good MP. He occasionally offers me a cigarette. What more inducement do I need? He has as much chance of winning the seat as I do of achieving a healthy BMI, but I don’t want to vote for another candidate.
I will not tell anyone who to vote for, but I will reveal my preference, which is ACT. I believe they are the only party serious about fiscal discipline, which is important to me. Readers will have different priorities and will vote accordingly. This is democracy.
It isn’t only conservative voters who are being encouraged to vote tactically. In Wellington Bays some are suggesting that, because Julie Anne Genter is certain to get in on the Green Party list, progressive voters should give a tick to Labour candidate Craig Renney.
Renney is an excellent (if misguided) economist who has written a thoughtful book on New Zealand economics. Genter has proven herself to be able to work across the aisle to get things done (and occasionally explain matters to Matt Doocey). They are both excellent candidates. They should be assessed on their merits and nothing else.
Tāmaki is another hot seat. Lawyer and author James Christmas is facing off against Rhodes Scholar and fellow lawyer Max Harris alongside businessman Mahesh Muralidhar. They have all committed months of their time, cash and energy into winning the electorate. It is profoundly disrespectful to these gentlemen to set aside their efforts, values, politics and thousands of hours on a tactical vote.
Is the Opportunity Party the ‘rebound boyfriend’ of NZ politics? CREDIT: Stuff
But there is a larger issue. If Luxon forms a government as a result of an overhang, his administration will be seen as illegitimate by the press, civil service and the commentariat. It was because Sir Robert Muldoon won two elections under First Past the Post despite securing fewer votes than Labour that we ended up with a Royal Commission, three referendums and the quagmire that is MMP.
If the electoral system reverts into a game of whack-an-electorate, the public will lose confidence in the process and we will be placed back into decades of squabbling on electoral systems.
And recall, this began because Te Pāti Māori was being clever. The Māori electorates are there to ensure native representation, not as a means of gaming the electoral system. It has been my view that, even if this gave the left a small advantage, this was a fair price to ensure Māori a seat at the table.
That no longer seems to be their purpose. The 1986 Royal Commission advocated scrapping the seats. Perhaps they were right. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and this seems to be an appropriate consequence.
The voting booths are open. Democracy relies on participation for its legitimacy. If you value the benefits of a free society, casting a vote is a trivial cost....The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
Inevitably, Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion kicked in: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. My friend Dr Don Brash and businessman Harry Mowbray have a campaign encouraging National voters to party tick ACT or New Zealand First, hoping to win a compensating overhang.
If this works, there is an incentive for the left to engage in their own shenanigans. Imagine a Social Democrat Party standing Arena Williams in Manurewa, Rachel Brooking in Dunedin and Carmel Sepuloni in Kelston.
Which brings me to a larger question: why do we vote? Downs’ Paradox of Voting asks: given an individual’s vote never matters, and there is a real cost in time and resources to cast a vote, why bother?
We value having our say, even if we are yelling into the wind. We vote because we have considered the issues and want an outlet for that consideration. Which is why, if I may suggest, you do not vote tactically. Because the only person your vote matters to is you. Don’t spoil the experience by voting for your second choice to frustrate your third.
I live in Kaipara. I will be voting for Simon Court. He is a good MP. He occasionally offers me a cigarette. What more inducement do I need? He has as much chance of winning the seat as I do of achieving a healthy BMI, but I don’t want to vote for another candidate.
I will not tell anyone who to vote for, but I will reveal my preference, which is ACT. I believe they are the only party serious about fiscal discipline, which is important to me. Readers will have different priorities and will vote accordingly. This is democracy.
It isn’t only conservative voters who are being encouraged to vote tactically. In Wellington Bays some are suggesting that, because Julie Anne Genter is certain to get in on the Green Party list, progressive voters should give a tick to Labour candidate Craig Renney.
Renney is an excellent (if misguided) economist who has written a thoughtful book on New Zealand economics. Genter has proven herself to be able to work across the aisle to get things done (and occasionally explain matters to Matt Doocey). They are both excellent candidates. They should be assessed on their merits and nothing else.
Tāmaki is another hot seat. Lawyer and author James Christmas is facing off against Rhodes Scholar and fellow lawyer Max Harris alongside businessman Mahesh Muralidhar. They have all committed months of their time, cash and energy into winning the electorate. It is profoundly disrespectful to these gentlemen to set aside their efforts, values, politics and thousands of hours on a tactical vote.
Is the Opportunity Party the ‘rebound boyfriend’ of NZ politics? CREDIT: Stuff
But there is a larger issue. If Luxon forms a government as a result of an overhang, his administration will be seen as illegitimate by the press, civil service and the commentariat. It was because Sir Robert Muldoon won two elections under First Past the Post despite securing fewer votes than Labour that we ended up with a Royal Commission, three referendums and the quagmire that is MMP.
If the electoral system reverts into a game of whack-an-electorate, the public will lose confidence in the process and we will be placed back into decades of squabbling on electoral systems.
And recall, this began because Te Pāti Māori was being clever. The Māori electorates are there to ensure native representation, not as a means of gaming the electoral system. It has been my view that, even if this gave the left a small advantage, this was a fair price to ensure Māori a seat at the table.
That no longer seems to be their purpose. The 1986 Royal Commission advocated scrapping the seats. Perhaps they were right. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and this seems to be an appropriate consequence.
The voting booths are open. Democracy relies on participation for its legitimacy. If you value the benefits of a free society, casting a vote is a trivial cost....The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.