Lies, damned lies and Polls
UMR survey shows voters want MMP
A new survey has found a majority of voters don't want to change from the MMP electoral system.
The UMR opinion poll, released today, contradicts previous surveys which have shown the opposite.
A referendum will be held at the same time as the 2011 general election asking voters whether they want to change from MMP, and if they do they will be able to tick an alternative choice.
If a majority want a change, there will be another referendum at the time of the 2014 election which will be a run off between MMP and the most preferred alternative.
UMR used the proposed wording of the first referendum in its poll and the result was 48 per cent in favour or retaining MMP and 40 per cent in favour of changing the system.
Other recent polls have shown a majority in favour of changing the electoral system.
UMR questioned 750 voters and also asked them whether they wanted a referendum.
When they were told it was going to cost $20 million, 60 per cent didn't want one and 32 per cent did.
Voters were also asked about alternatives to MMP and UMR said opinion wasn't clear -- 41 per cent were unsure or didn't know enough to make a choice.
The Government hasn't announced which alternatives will be put on the referendum paper, but it is known they will include the old first-past-the-post system (FPP) and probably single transferable vote (STV) and supplementary member (SM).
UMR found that of those who did have an opinion, 29 per cent favoured FPP, 20 per cent STV and 9 per cent SM.
"It is likely to be a very close contest on whether there is a second referendum at all," UMR said when it released the findings.
The survey was carried out between October 22 and 27 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 per cent.
I’m glad my bitching about Polls on Radio NZ last month has led to a sudden jump in information available in these polls. Perception research shows people are open to manipulation and repeated manipulation stays in peoples minds so that Polls are easy to create false public opinion. Zaller makes these points in the Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion and Fishkim’s deliberative polling research shows when people are explained issues before polling that they come up with much better informed answers. This UMR poll and the reporting of it is far better than has been shown in other polls this year, while we still don’t see the weighting, call back or land lines over cell phones, the interesting bit is how NZers favour MMP when they are informed about parts of the cost involved in changing it.
My co-blogger has predicted MMP will win several times, this Poll suggests NZers won’t dump MMP as quickly as some on the right have hoped.
posted by Bomber @ 5:10 am
4 comments
4 Comments:
As far as voters were concerned, the biggest development may have been the results of a referendum in September 1992.They were given the choice between electoral reform and maintaining the present 'first past the post' (FPP) system.A majority voted for a change, and when asked to indicate their preferred option, mixed member proportional (MMP) was the clear favourite---beating off supplementary member, single transferable vote and preferential voting.A second referendum held in 1993 established that nearly 54% of voters wanted MMP, while 46% wished to stick to FPP.As a result, the 1996 general election was New Zealand's first under MMP.
The system was designed to ensure that the number of MPs in each party accurately reflected that party's share of all the party votes cast at the election.It also eliminated the bias against smaller parties and provided for a more representative Parliament, reducing the likelihood that one party would have an absolute majority.Based on a German system, MMP did away with one of the elements of the Westminster system (the need for absolute majority) and represented the severing of another constitutional connection with Britain.
New Zealand voters were now entitled to both a party vote---to chose the party in Parliament---and an electorate vote---to chose an MP to represent the voters own electorate.There would usually be 120 (121) MPs, half of whom repersented the sixty general electorates throughout the country and five of whom represented Maori electorates (later to be 7).The remaining fifty-five were list MPs, and their numbers depended on each party's share of the party votes and its number of electorate MPs.Each party had to either receive at least 5% of the party vote or win at least 1 electorate seat to receive an allocation of parliamentary seats based on its share of the party votes.
New Zealanders soon discovered that MMP reacquainted them with something they had not known since 1935: Coalition Government.The first under the new system was in February 1996 whem Jim Bolger led a coalition of National and United, and was followed by one in which National swapped partners and chose the New Zealand First Party.Soon afterwards, Bolger was replaced by Jenny Shipley, New Zealand's first woman Prime Minister.She held the job for just over 15 months, and at the general election in December 1999 relinquished the post to Helen Clark.
(...and the establishment of the royal commission that recommended that the country consider MMP)
National was returned in 1993 and again in 1996, which was the first election under the new MMP system, and Bolger now formed his Coalition Government with the New Zealand First Party.He also revealed that while he was not initially in favour of MMP, he believed it should be given time to settle down.Shipley admitted that her term as Prime Minister was made 'extraordinarily demanding' by it being the first MMP Parliament.
While the first MMP election in 1996 was a disaster for Labour, the stability of the Coalition Government proved an increasing problem for National.On 4 November 1997, after Shipley had dispaced Bolger, Clark noted 'the Government benches are not happy benches' and referred to the 'latest reshuffle of the deckchairs upon the Titanic'.
Excessive restrictions on free speech.Failing to address, the problem of large anonymous donations to political parties, the Bill ignored one of the most pressing problems with our electoral process.Legitimate concerns about incumbent advantage at election time limiting of third party election speech. The Electoral Act 1993 does require that the identity and address of donors giving $10,000 or more to a political party be reported annually to the Electoral Commission.Donations of $1000 or more to an individual candidate must be disclosed to Helena Catt following the election.However, where the donors identity is not known to the party, the contribution is listed only as coming from an anonymous source.In 2005 the Labour party received $275,000 by way of such anonymous donations.In 2005 the National party received $1,741,793 from such sources.
Jim Salinger has been shafted as has Sean Plunket and why because they are white pure and simple, or not as the case against them may be.Some prick doctor called Rui testified on his behalf to the unfair dismissal case by the employment relations authority of the labour dept.What did he say.Well he virtually ruined his credibility by claiming he was mentally ill or depressed and on medication.Firstly, that should remain private under patient/dr confidentiality.58,000 are on medication of some placebo kind hopefully just so a G.P can sign yer form every 3 months for a year until as the person from child poverty mentioned to Bomber you can go onto the invalids or permanently disabled benefit and get it signed once every 12 months instead.24,000 increase for sickness bennies and 34,000 for invalids.That is 58,000 long term unemployed "rotting" on the dole.
FOUCAULT'S NOTION OF GOVERNMENTALITY OR DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH IN THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE STATE OVER GOVT. OF THE SELF THROUGH DISCURSIVE PRACTICES COMES INTO PLAY HERE AND IS WORTH FURTHER DISCUSSION.PHOEBE PERHAPS AND THE AWARD WINNING FILM AND T.V DEPT.THE FIRST TO BE STREAMED WITH A B PLUS AVERAGE.
Even then this hoary old chestnut gets thrown around time and time again by discredited authorities who have tried to restrict free speech nothing more nothing less.Where is the outcry around our only local weekly newspaper the truth being taken over by Sunday news hack foreigner pommy Chris Baldock who side-swiped 'Judge' Jock Anderson and before ‘who let the doug out’ Doug Golightly shafted sports “jock” from sky.The longer we remain silent about our white brothers shown the door the longer we will suffer at the hands of the overlords and our oppressors.
The Brethren dusted up the Greens in Tasmania, did a good job there, and so were considering going after the Greens in New Zealand as well.The Brethren's proposed anti-Green Party advertising confirms the link with anti-Green leaflets that were distributed in Tasmania the year before.The September 2005 New Zealand and October 2004 Tasmanian anti-Green Exclusive Brethren pamphlets were almost identical.The first pamphlet arrived in letterboxes on Saturday, 3 September 2005.Headed "Beware", it warned that the Green Party was "economically unsustainable", "socially destructive" and "downright dangerous".Radio New Zealand reported Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons recalling anti-Green leaflets produced by National in the previous election and challenging the National leader Don Brash to state categorically the party had nothing to do with the pamphlet.When approached by reporters on the Monday, Don Brash said they totally had nothing to do with the pamphlets.TVNZ is chasing a story about a brochure put out bagging the Greens...Jeanette Fitzsimons has called on all party leaders and especially Don to 'come clean' and categorically say they have nothing to do with it.While National's primary goal was to be, "the party with the largest share of the vote" ;a subsidiary objective was to see the Greens drop below the 5% threshold.Having swallowed the necessary 'rats' to help reposition National as a centrist party the anything but centrist Brash could head off joining a Business Roundtable retreat on Waiheke Island and hosting his old friend and "free market mentor" Milton Friedman when his cruise ship stopped in for a day in Auckland.Many women did not like their more divisive and right wing policies.Brash's staff would be overheard by journalists referring to him behind his back by a special private name: Mr Burns.Then there were the other conservative Christian votes that went to United Future, only to have the party go into relatively ineffectual coalition with Labour.
In the 2002 election the Macraes Mining company offered election donations to Jim Anderton's Progressive Coalition and the Green Party at a time when the company was trying to reduce opposition to its goldmining operations:Progressive accepted and the Greens declined.But the most serious example by far is the one outlined in this book:
A group of wealthy radical-right business people using their economic power to change the direction of the National Party and then, very nearly, the country.
That was Sunday, 4 September 2005, with thirteen days to go until the election-back where this book began.During that weekend the pamphlets headed "Beware!" and attacking the Green Party began arriving in letterboxes around the country.The radio news reported that "National denies involvement" and no one realised how explosive it would become.The next day Rod Donald approached Don Brash as they campaigned in Rotorua.Brash replied that National had nothing to do with it.The first were attacks on The Greens and Labour and then they became frantically pro-National.The electoral authorities were powerless to stop them.This was another distraction from the issues of "mainstream" New Zealanders.Brash's undeclared right-wing supporters were prepared to accept his denials at face value.He and his colleagues spent the week lying their way out of a political disaster.He would only apologise for confusion.Some clearly thought he misled the public but he did not.No one ever really understands what makes polls move up and down, but there is little doubt that the moment that he was revealed as "slippery and untruthful" over his links to the Brethren was the moment National lost the election.Their collaboration could have remained hidden until it was over.These were exactly why they deserved to stumble however.It was fitting that he tripped up before the finish line.National might just as well have won.The difference between winning and losing was so small it could have gone the other way.No real moral can be taken from it, or just a small one...which is that political manipulation and the biggest money don't always win!
Is it too early to write Winnie the Pooh’s political obituary you might ask Grey Power and the P.M?
I’ve mentioned before that NZ First has tainted Labour’s brand and the question of trust is a good one to ask the public.
The slightly slanted view on talkback is they don’t want a return to the bad old days of asset sales and benefit cuts or the chance of being cut off the dole or sent out to work part time after all it is this lifestyle choice they are seen to be protecting with such vigour on the airwaves.
Give me a reason to live go the lyrics to a song but even better than that the beneficiaries ask the talkback hosts to give them a reason to get out of bed in the morning.Willie and J.T?
Once you have preserved your life’s stories best writing in a scrapbook and the printing ink is too expensive what else can you do with your day you might ask?
Well,
Post a Comment
<< Home