TPM is urging its voters to elect TPM electorate candidates but give
their party votes to Labour/Green, thus creating a Left-favouring
Parliamentary overhang. NZF isn't waiting to get beaten up, instead
they are countering by urging all government supporters to VOTE
NATIONAL FOR ELECTORATE, VOTE NZF/ACT FOR PARTY LIST. If all
government supporters do this (even you, Crash), then there will be a
huge pro-government Parliamentary overhang and we will avoid a
nightmare Labour-led government.

In support: National listers hardly get in anyway, their electorate
MPs pretty much soak up the National share of list votes. Don't waste
your list vote on National, give it to NZF or ACT, create a
numerically strong government with strong NZF/ACT components to give
backbone and purpose to the government coalition.

As for MMP, it's a trainwreck of an electoral system which always
depended on "good faith" party conduct to avoid precisely this
scenario. People, "good faith" days are over, society is too divided
and mistrustful, thanks to left-wing radicalism. We badly need to
switch to the Australian preferential (STV) system which is
electorate-only (i.e., no list) and always counts your vote in the
final two-candidate count (assuming you've included one of those
finalists in your preference list).

So this year, vote National for electorate, NZF or ACT for list.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:43:50 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

TPM is urging its voters to elect TPM electorate candidates but give
their party votes to Labour/Green, thus creating a Left-favouring >Parliamentary overhang. NZF isn't waiting to get beaten up, instead
they are countering by urging all government supporters to VOTE
NATIONAL FOR ELECTORATE, VOTE NZF/ACT FOR PARTY LIST. If all
government supporters do this (even you, Crash), then there will be a
huge pro-government Parliamentary overhang and we will avoid a
nightmare Labour-led government.

In support: National listers hardly get in anyway, their electorate
MPs pretty much soak up the National share of list votes. Don't waste
your list vote on National, give it to NZF or ACT, create a
numerically strong government with strong NZF/ACT components to give
backbone and purpose to the government coalition.

As for MMP, it's a trainwreck of an electoral system which always
depended on "good faith" party conduct to avoid precisely this
scenario. People, "good faith" days are over, society is too divided
and mistrustful, thanks to left-wing radicalism. We badly need to
switch to the Australian preferential (STV) system which is
electorate-only (i.e., no list) and always counts your vote in the
final two-candidate count (assuming you've included one of those
finalists in your preference list).

So this year, vote National for electorate, NZF or ACT for list.

You spout the political party spiel as if that will happen. The Maori
party that has such a small number of party voters (2023, 87,844 of
2,851,211) tactical party voting as they advocate will have no
consequential outcome beyond getting in perhaps one more Labour or
Green MP that maybe Maori. Big deal and that relies on Maori Party
electorate voters knowing that they can party vote for someone else
and understanding the call for tactical voting.

Expecting National supporters to ignore the '2 ticks blue' message
they have received over 21 election cycles and party vote anyone else
at scale is just delusional.


--
Crash McBash

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-08-19, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:43:50 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

TPM is urging its voters to elect TPM electorate candidates but give
their party votes to Labour/Green, thus creating a Left-favouring >>Parliamentary overhang. NZF isn't waiting to get beaten up, instead
they are countering by urging all government supporters to VOTE
NATIONAL FOR ELECTORATE, VOTE NZF/ACT FOR PARTY LIST. If all
government supporters do this (even you, Crash), then there will be a
huge pro-government Parliamentary overhang and we will avoid a
nightmare Labour-led government.

In support: National listers hardly get in anyway, their electorate
MPs pretty much soak up the National share of list votes. Don't waste
your list vote on National, give it to NZF or ACT, create a
numerically strong government with strong NZF/ACT components to give >>backbone and purpose to the government coalition.

As for MMP, it's a trainwreck of an electoral system which always
depended on "good faith" party conduct to avoid precisely this
scenario. People, "good faith" days are over, society is too divided
and mistrustful, thanks to left-wing radicalism. We badly need to
switch to the Australian preferential (STV) system which is
electorate-only (i.e., no list) and always counts your vote in the
final two-candidate count (assuming you've included one of those
finalists in your preference list).

So this year, vote National for electorate, NZF or ACT for list.

That would be a wasted vote in a Labour strong hold seat.

You spout the political party spiel as if that will happen. The Maori
party that has such a small number of party voters (2023, 87,844 of 2,851,211) tactical party voting as they advocate will have no
consequential outcome beyond getting in perhaps one more Labour or
Green MP that maybe Maori. Big deal and that relies on Maori Party electorate voters knowing that they can party vote for someone else
and understanding the call for tactical voting.

Expecting National supporters to ignore the '2 ticks blue' message
they have received over 21 election cycles and party vote anyone else
at scale is just delusional.

I would expect that the % of split votes would be very small. People want to vote for X and certainly not Y. You are diluting you vote will be the
thinking. Espically in these days of strong party lines.

We have to remember that the Last Labour Government got enough seats to
rule alone. A rare case.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 20 Aug 2026 00:19:48 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

On 2026-08-19, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:43:50 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

TPM is urging its voters to elect TPM electorate candidates but give >>>their party votes to Labour/Green, thus creating a Left-favouring >>>Parliamentary overhang. NZF isn't waiting to get beaten up, instead
they are countering by urging all government supporters to VOTE
NATIONAL FOR ELECTORATE, VOTE NZF/ACT FOR PARTY LIST. If all
government supporters do this (even you, Crash), then there will be a >>>huge pro-government Parliamentary overhang and we will avoid a
nightmare Labour-led government.

In support: National listers hardly get in anyway, their electorate
MPs pretty much soak up the National share of list votes. Don't waste >>>your list vote on National, give it to NZF or ACT, create a
numerically strong government with strong NZF/ACT components to give >>>backbone and purpose to the government coalition.

As for MMP, it's a trainwreck of an electoral system which always >>>depended on "good faith" party conduct to avoid precisely this
scenario. People, "good faith" days are over, society is too divided
and mistrustful, thanks to left-wing radicalism. We badly need to
switch to the Australian preferential (STV) system which is >>>electorate-only (i.e., no list) and always counts your vote in the
final two-candidate count (assuming you've included one of those >>>finalists in your preference list).

So this year, vote National for electorate, NZF or ACT for list.

That would be a wasted vote in a Labour strong hold seat.

I would not call it wasted - an electorate vote for National always
reduces the Labour majority. Party votes always count.

You spout the political party spiel as if that will happen. The Maori
party that has such a small number of party voters (2023, 87,844 of
2,851,211) tactical party voting as they advocate will have no
consequential outcome beyond getting in perhaps one more Labour or
Green MP that maybe Maori. Big deal and that relies on Maori Party
electorate voters knowing that they can party vote for someone else
and understanding the call for tactical voting.

Expecting National supporters to ignore the '2 ticks blue' message
they have received over 21 election cycles and party vote anyone else
at scale is just delusional.

I would expect that the % of split votes would be very small. People want to >vote for X and certainly not Y. You are diluting you vote will be the >thinking. Espically in these days of strong party lines.

We have to remember that the Last Labour Government got enough seats to
rule alone. A rare case.

--
Crash McBash

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:43:50 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

NZF isn't waiting to get beaten up, instead
they are countering by urging all government supporters to VOTE
NATIONAL FOR ELECTORATE, VOTE NZF/ACT FOR PARTY LIST. If all
government supporters do this (even you, Crash), then there will be a
huge pro-government Parliamentary overhang and we will avoid a
nightmare Labour-led government.

Expecting National supporters to ignore the '2 ticks blue' message
they have received over 21 election cycles and party vote anyone else
at scale is just delusional.

You are right that we can't teach an old dog new tricks. But another
relevant consideration is the real danger that Luxon will form a
coalition with Labour. I wouldn't want to vote for that, not even as electorate-only. Has Luxon said he wouldn't do that? I don't
remember.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-08-27, Willy Nilly <wn@nosuch.com> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:43:50 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

NZF isn't waiting to get beaten up, instead
they are countering by urging all government supporters to VOTE
NATIONAL FOR ELECTORATE, VOTE NZF/ACT FOR PARTY LIST. If all
government supporters do this (even you, Crash), then there will be a >>>huge pro-government Parliamentary overhang and we will avoid a
nightmare Labour-led government.

Expecting National supporters to ignore the '2 ticks blue' message
they have received over 21 election cycles and party vote anyone else
at scale is just delusional.

You are right that we can't teach an old dog new tricks. But another relevant consideration is the real danger that Luxon will form a
coalition with Labour. I wouldn't want to vote for that, not even as electorate-only. Has Luxon said he wouldn't do that? I don't
remember.

The situation is that we, the people, vote for MPs an it is their task to
form a Government. We, the people will then watch and see they are doing the right thing for another term in power at the next election.

Any party leader my say XYZ before the election and zyx after it when the results are in.

MMP creates uncertanity, but so does the real world.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 23:31:44 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:43:50 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

NZF isn't waiting to get beaten up, instead
they are countering by urging all government supporters to VOTE
NATIONAL FOR ELECTORATE, VOTE NZF/ACT FOR PARTY LIST. If all
government supporters do this (even you, Crash), then there will be a >>>huge pro-government Parliamentary overhang and we will avoid a
nightmare Labour-led government.

Expecting National supporters to ignore the '2 ticks blue' message
they have received over 21 election cycles and party vote anyone else
at scale is just delusional.

You are right that we can't teach an old dog new tricks. But another >relevant consideration is the real danger that Luxon will form a
coalition with Labour. I wouldn't want to vote for that, not even as >electorate-only. Has Luxon said he wouldn't do that? I don't
remember.

They are kissing up to each other over National's attempt to ban under
16s from social media. Such a thing cannot work without digital ID,
and that would represent a dreadful breach of privacy.

I would have expected Labour and the greens to be in favour of this,
but National introducing it? It just goes to show the extent to which
National has departed from their original principles.

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 28 Aug 2026 01:50:03 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

MMP creates uncertanity, but so does the real world.

Uncertainty is something that should be avoided as much as possible.

In a political sense, MMP is the worst thing to ever happen to this
country.

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 23:31:44 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:43:50 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

NZF isn't waiting to get beaten up, instead
they are countering by urging all government supporters to VOTE
NATIONAL FOR ELECTORATE, VOTE NZF/ACT FOR PARTY LIST. If all
government supporters do this (even you, Crash), then there will be a >>>huge pro-government Parliamentary overhang and we will avoid a
nightmare Labour-led government.

Expecting National supporters to ignore the '2 ticks blue' message
they have received over 21 election cycles and party vote anyone else
at scale is just delusional.

You are right that we can't teach an old dog new tricks. But another >relevant consideration is the real danger that Luxon will form a
coalition with Labour. I wouldn't want to vote for that, not even as >electorate-only. Has Luxon said he wouldn't do that? I don't
remember.

Given the current incarnations of every party in Parliament, a
coalition of National and Labour is not too bad.

If Labour wins the most seats, would they rather form a Government
with National, or with the Greens and either the Maori Party or TOP?
National would be vastly more politically palatable than the extremes
of the other 3 parties.

If National wins the most seats, would they rather form a Government
with Labour than ACT or NZF? Unlikely but we don't know if Luxon
would prefer to deal with Hipkins over Peters and Seymour.


--
Crash McBash

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Willy Nilly wrote:

Subject: MMP is dying, help to kill it

TPM is urging its voters to elect TPM electorate candidates but give
their party votes to Labour/Green, thus creating a Left-favouring Parliamentary overhang. NZF isn't waiting to get beaten up, instead
they are countering by urging all government supporters to VOTE
NATIONAL FOR ELECTORATE, VOTE NZF/ACT FOR PARTY LIST. If all
government supporters do this (even you, Crash), then there will be a
huge pro-government Parliamentary overhang and we will avoid a
nightmare Labour-led government.

NZF would not ask voters to do anything which will help kill MMP. NZF
has not won an electorate at a general election since 2002. If MMP is
killed, NZF is history. Winston is too wily to do that.

In support: National listers hardly get in anyway, their electorate
MPs pretty much soak up the National share of list votes. Don't waste
your list vote on National, give it to NZF or ACT, create a
numerically strong government with strong NZF/ACT components to give
backbone and purpose to the government coalition.

As for MMP, it's a trainwreck of an electoral system which always
depended on "good faith" party conduct to avoid precisely this
scenario. People, "good faith" days are over, society is too divided
and mistrustful, thanks to left-wing radicalism. We badly need to
switch to the Australian preferential (STV) system which is
electorate-only (i.e., no list) and always counts your vote in the
final two-candidate count (assuming you've included one of those
finalists in your preference list).

Preferential Voting (PV) is not the same as Single Transferable Vote
(STV). When the OP does not even know what it is that he is
recommending, that recommendation cannot carry any weight.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Wed, 2 Sep 2026, Average Joe <average.joe@maildrop.ue> wrote:

Willy Nilly wrote:

We badly need to
switch to the Australian preferential (STV) system which is
electorate-only (i.e., no list) and always counts your vote in the
final two-candidate count (assuming you've included one of those
finalists in your preference list).

Preferential Voting (PV) is not the same as Single Transferable Vote
(STV). When the OP does not even know what it is that he is
recommending, that recommendation cannot carry any weight.

Well, I made it clear it was PV I support. Back when NZ voted on what
system to use, I don't think PV was even on the ballot. As I said at
the time, they're using FPP to determine the two contenders! The
media steered it the whole way, making sure no alternative to MMP
would get any publicity.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Willy Nilly wrote:

On Wed, 2 Sep 2026, Average Joe <average.joe@maildrop.ue> wrote:

Willy Nilly wrote:

We badly need to
switch to the Australian preferential (STV) system which is
electorate-only (i.e., no list) and always counts your vote in the
final two-candidate count (assuming you've included one of those
finalists in your preference list).

Preferential Voting (PV) is not the same as Single Transferable Vote
(STV). When the OP does not even know what it is that he is
recommending, that recommendation cannot carry any weight.

Well, I made it clear it was PV I support. Back when NZ voted on what
system to use, I don't think PV was even on the ballot. As I said at
the time, they're using FPP to determine the two contenders! The
media steered it the whole way, making sure no alternative to MMP
would get any publicity.

Your recollection is incorrect.
PV was on the 1992 referendum.
All households were delivered a brochure describing four different
electoral systems:
- Single Transferable Vote (STV)
- Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)
- Preferential Voting (PV)
- Supplementary Member (SM)
STV also received a lot of publicity in the media.

A majority of New Zealanders wanted some form of proportional
representation.

Only 6.6% of voters chose Preferential Voting (PV) in the 1992
referendum. Preferential Voting (PV) lost out because PV does not give proportional representation and does not fix the problems for which New Zealanders wanted proportional representation.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Fri, 4 Sep 2026, Average Joe <average.joe@maildrop.ue> wrote:

Willy Nilly wrote:

Well, I made it clear it was PV I support. Back when NZ voted on what
system to use, I don't think PV was even on the ballot. As I said at
the time, they're using FPP to determine the two contenders! The
media steered it the whole way, making sure no alternative to MMP
would get any publicity.

Your recollection is incorrect.
PV was on the 1992 referendum.
All households were delivered a brochure describing four different
electoral systems:
- Single Transferable Vote (STV)
- Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)
- Preferential Voting (PV)
- Supplementary Member (SM)
STV also received a lot of publicity in the media.

Well thanks for the clarity, I stand corrected. I do remember STV got
some mention in the media, but I think it was more like a sacrificial
lamb, that is, they publicised it just enough to claim fair coverage,
but not enough to actually make it a contender.

A majority of New Zealanders wanted some form of proportional
representation.

I think you're mixing metaphors here, NZ'ers wanted more
proportianality than FPP, but as to whether that manifested in the
electoral counting method or the resultant representation are two
different aspects.

Only 6.6% of voters chose Preferential Voting (PV) in the 1992
referendum. Preferential Voting (PV) lost out because PV does not give >proportional representation and does not fix the problems for which New >Zealanders wanted proportional representation.

PV gives a proportional counting method in that each electorate winner
gathers majority support in that electorate, not just a plurality as
FPP did. The representation is as you say, but makes for a much more manageable government because the representation decisions have
already been made by the voters, and there is no party list.

MMP simply transfers all the public divisions into the Parliamentary
goldfish bowl, to be fought all over again year after year, with
divisions festering and the media hobby-horse going non-stop.

How much better to have an election, one party gets 60% of the
Parliament seats because they won 60% of the electorates, and they can
rule for 3 years and the media can shut up. Aaahhh, so much better.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Willy Nilly wrote:

On Fri, 4 Sep 2026, Average Joe <average.joe@maildrop.ue> wrote:

Willy Nilly wrote:

Back when NZ voted on what
system to use, I don't think PV was even on the ballot. As I said at
the time, they're using FPP to determine the two contenders! The
media steered it the whole way, making sure no alternative to MMP
would get any publicity.

Your recollection is incorrect.
PV was on the 1992 referendum.
All households were delivered a brochure describing four different
electoral systems:
- Single Transferable Vote (STV)
- Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)
- Preferential Voting (PV)
- Supplementary Member (SM)
STV also received a lot of publicity in the media.

Well thanks for the clarity, I stand corrected. I do remember STV got
some mention in the media, but I think it was more like a sacrificial
lamb, that is, they publicised it just enough to claim fair coverage,
but not enough to actually make it a contender.

You did not even remember that PV was on the 1992 ballot. Just sayin'.

It would not have taken much effort to check -- elections.nz has the
results.

A majority of New Zealanders wanted some form of proportional
representation.

I think you're mixing metaphors here, NZ'ers wanted more
proportianality than FPP, but as to whether that manifested in the
electoral counting method or the resultant representation are two
different aspects.

Here. Learn what the word "metaphor" means.
- <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphor>
- <https://www.dictionary.com/browse/metaphor#id-sec-entry-group-british>

Problems with the previous FPP system which made people want
proportional representation
- One party gets a parliamentary absolute majority while getting
less votes that the other party.
- One party gets a parliamentary absolute majority with only 40%
of the popular vote, and then implements policies which 60% do
not want.

Only 6.6% of voters chose Preferential Voting (PV) in the 1992
referendum. Preferential Voting (PV) lost out because PV does not give
proportional representation and does not fix the problems for which New
Zealanders wanted proportional representation.

PV gives a proportional counting method in that each electorate winner gathers majority support in that electorate, not just a plurality as
FPP did. The representation is as you say, but makes for a much more manageable government because the representation decisions have
already been made by the voters, and there is no party list.

PV does not prevent gerrymandering, as NZers knew at the time by having
looked across the ditch at Queensland.

PV does not fix the two problems above with the previous FPP system.

PV forces voters to vote for all candidates (in some order). Whoever
gets in can "claim" to have the votes of voters who do not want their
policies.

MMP simply transfers all the public divisions into the Parliamentary
goldfish bowl, to be fought all over again year after year, with
divisions festering and the media hobby-horse going non-stop.

Better that than have a party implement policies which 60% of the voters
do not want.

How much better to have an election, one party gets 60% of the
Parliament seats because they won 60% of the electorates, and they can
rule for 3 years and the media can shut up. Aaahhh, so much better.

Better to have an election where one party can only get 60% of the seats
when they have 60% of the popular vote.

A free press is an important part of a democracy. It keeps voters
informed. Those who fear democracy want it shut up.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sun, 6 Sep 2026, Average Joe <average.joe@maildrop.ue> wrote:

Willy Nilly wrote:

Well thanks for the clarity, I stand corrected. I do remember STV got
some mention in the media, but I think it was more like a sacrificial
lamb, that is, they publicised it just enough to claim fair coverage,
but not enough to actually make it a contender.

You did not even remember that PV was on the 1992 ballot. Just sayin'.

I voted for PV in that ballot (brain cells are waking up). PV got
zero coverage in the media, even though it was "big brother"
Australia's system. A bizarre omission by our media, possibly
deliberately insulting to the Aussies.

Here. Learn what the word "metaphor" means.

It was close enough for the purpose, you understood it.

PV forces voters to vote for all candidates (in some order). Whoever
gets in can "claim" to have the votes of voters who do not want their >policies.

You are wrong. The voter need include only those candidates that
he/she supports. An example is the Wellington mayorality, which, by
the way, they describe as STV but is PV in practice, which may be
where I confused them. Good summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

MMP simply transfers all the public divisions into the Parliamentary
goldfish bowl, to be fought all over again year after year, with
divisions festering and the media hobby-horse going non-stop.

Better that than have a party implement policies which 60% of the voters
do not want.

PV specifically avoids that -- electees always have majority support.
But you knew that. Do avoid cheap rhetoric.

A free press is an important part of a democracy. It keeps voters
informed. Those who fear democracy want it shut up.

Where is our free press? All our media is relentlessly left-wing.
You approve of that, it seems. So you are a lefty, but a very
well-expressed one. Thanks for the constructive dialogue.
<clink of beer mugs>


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Willy Nilly wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2026, Average Joe <average.joe@maildrop.ue> wrote:

Willy Nilly wrote:

Well thanks for the clarity, I stand corrected. I do remember STV got
some mention in the media, but I think it was more like a sacrificial
lamb, that is, they publicised it just enough to claim fair coverage,
but not enough to actually make it a contender.

You did not even remember that PV was on the 1992 ballot. Just sayin'.

I voted for PV in that ballot (brain cells are waking up). PV got
zero coverage in the media, even though it was "big brother"
Australia's system. A bizarre omission by our media, possibly
deliberately insulting to the Aussies.

Here. Learn what the word "metaphor" means.

It was close enough for the purpose, you understood it.

You made no sense there.

PV forces voters to vote for all candidates (in some order). Whoever
gets in can "claim" to have the votes of voters who do not want their
policies.

You are wrong. The voter need include only those candidates that
he/she supports.

In PV for Australia's House of Representatives, voters must mark a
preference for every repeat every candidate. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-21/how-to-preference-voting-australia-federal-election/100991154>

If this were not so, it would be possible for all candidates to get less
than 50% "support" -- and your "always" statement below would be false.
You can't have it both ways.

MMP simply transfers all the public divisions into the Parliamentary
goldfish bowl, to be fought all over again year after year, with
divisions festering and the media hobby-horse going non-stop.

Better that than have a party implement policies which 60% of the voters
do not want.

PV specifically avoids that -- electees always have majority support.

False, with several errors.
PV can be gerrymandered so a party wins without majority support.
You are confusing parties with electees.
If (as you claim above) a voter only needs include those candidates that
he/she supports, it is possible for no candidate to have 50% support.
You can't have it both ways.






--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sun, 6 Sep 2026, Average Joe <average.joe@maildrop.ue> wrote:

Willy Nilly wrote:

Average Joe wrote:

PV forces voters to vote for all candidates (in some order). Whoever
gets in can "claim" to have the votes of voters who do not want their
policies.

You are wrong. The voter need include only those candidates that
he/she supports.

In PV for Australia's House of Representatives, voters must mark a
preference for every repeat every candidate. ><https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-21/how-to-preference-voting-australia-federal-election/100991154>

Well blow me down, you are right, the Aussies *do* require that, and
if the voter does not number every box, that vote does not count !!!
That's crazy!! Why on Earth would they require that when it is
entirely unnecessary, e.g., the Wellington mayorality does not require
that. Tell you what, I think I know why: because the vote counting
has a denominator, that being the number of ballots cast. With their requirement, the Aussies never need change the denominator. Without
the requirement, you need to recalculate the denominator with each new
round of counting. Back when they established their system (1950's),
they probably thought that would be too hard a task, and multiple
mistakes would be made, and the counting would be a real mess. With
their restrictive system, they avoided that. There is no excuse for
that today. So I agree that that compulsion is absurd.

If this were not so, it would be possible for all candidates to get less
than 50% "support" -- and your "always" statement below would be false.
You can't have it both ways.

I can have it with the recalculation of the denominator at each round.
It is true that a candidate can win with less than a majority of the
*first* denominator. Every electoral system has little flaws, MMP has
its overhang which is now being weaponised by TPM. The flaw in PV is
benign by comparison.

PV specifically avoids that -- electees always have majority support.

False, with several errors.
PV can be gerrymandered so a party wins without majority support.

True, the electorates can be gerrymandered. The best counter is to
have a electorate boundaries minimisation algorithm. Haven't seen
that implemented anywhere, though. You are right.

You are confusing parties with electees.

PV ballots show candidates, not parties, as in Australia.

If (as you claim above) a voter only needs include those candidates that >he/she supports, it is possible for no candidate to have 50% support.
You can't have it both ways.

Dealt with above. Every electoral system has "gotcha"s. PV's
gothca's are small. And PV happens to be the single-winner
simplification of STV, so I wasn't technically wrong to have labelled
the option as STV although PV is clearer. Most NZ'ers don't really
understand these options because STV is confusing. You know, that
1992 ballot should not have included STV -- who wants multiple winners
in a region, it's a mongrelisation of electoral methods. It should
have had PV but not STV. By putting them both on the ballot, and the
media pushing the confusing STV as the alternative to MMP (which had
only favourable media coverage), MMP was the assured finalist which
was chosen by the FPP method. I gnashed my teeth then, and I gnash my
teeth today. Look at the mess the UK is in -- they kept FPP when they
had a chance to change it (the idiot Conservatives treated it like
poison when it was in fact their saviour), and now the right-wing will
be in feverish negotiations to partition out the electorates amongst
themselves in order to prevent Labour from winning. What a mess. The
Aussies still have the best electoral system -- how Labor got in over
there beats the heck outta me.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 19:38:45 +1200, Average Joe wrote:

Better to have an election where one party can only get 60% of the
seats when they have 60% of the popular vote.

After all, if everybody is created equal, why shouldn?t their votes
count the same?

A free press is an important part of a democracy. It keeps voters
informed. Those who fear democracy want it shut up.

We live in a country which scores better on measures of freedom of the
press than the USA does. Why mention the USA? Because that is a
country that rather enjoys chest-thumping over its ?freedom?. Would
you want us to become more like them in that regard? I wouldn?t.

Oh, and greetings from a part of NZ which used to be a marginal seat
under FPP. That means one of my votes counted for more than that of
somebody living in a ?safe? seat.

Was that fair? Of course not.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 2026-09-06, Willy Nilly <wn@nosuch.com> wrote:

<Snip>

-- how Labor got in over
there beats the heck outta me.

I put it down to a woke phase they are going through. The UK is also going through one, Canada is out of one. All countries change position on the left-right spectrum.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:

Why mention the USA?

Yours is the first post in the thread to mention the USA.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 12:00:56 +1200, Average Joe wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2026 22:08:13 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:

Why mention the USA? Because that is a country that rather enjoys
chest-thumping over its ?freedom?. Would you want us to become more
like them in that regard? I wouldn?t.

Yours is the first post in the thread to mention the USA.

A lot of this right-wing proselytizing is inspired from there.
Remember how their leadership has made a point of making supportive
noises towards far-right candidates in other countries?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.19
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)