The Conceit of the Anointed

By Dr Muriel Newman

All too often something odd seems to happen to people elected to public office. Instead of being a conduit for the opinion of those they represent as promised in their election campaigns many morph into autocrats, convinced they know better than us how we should live our lives.

Election promises and pledges are conveniently forgotten as the more ‘relevant’ issues of governance demand their judgment.

In his book “The Vision of the Anointed”, renowned US economist and author Thomas Sowell, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute, described the dynamics of this phenomenon. He explained that the ruling elite believe that they are smarter than the rest of us - why else would we have elected them? They are convinced that they are the only ones with solutions to the problems we face – notwithstanding the fact that their so-called solutions are not voluntary, but are imposed by force using the coercive power of the state. In other words, irrespective of the reality, the ruling elite firmly believe that the government (but only when they are the government!) knows best.

We saw that conceit in Helen Clark’s Labour Government. For nine years the country was ruled by socialists who believed the public could not be trusted to make good decisions. Trust was instead placed in a bigger and omnipresent government to rule over every aspect of our lives. With unbridled access to the treasury and the powers of compulsion, the state sector eventually ballooned out of control, further strangling the economic freedom upon which prosperity is based.

When the 2008 general election delivered a change in the government, voters quite reasonably expected John Key to be different. In his speech from the throne at the opening of the new Parliament, the Prime Minister explained that he intended to honour the individual: “My Government will be guided by the principle of individual freedom and a belief in the capacity and right of individuals to shape and improve their own lives. My Government will not seek to involve itself in decisions that are best made by New Zealanders within their own homes and their own communities. The new Government's vision is not to dictate the way in which New Zealanders should live their lives, but instead to ensure they have the opportunities they need to make the best choices for themselves.”[1]

In light of that promise, John Key’s response to the citizens initiated referendum on the anti-smacking law last year came as a shock. In spite of 87.6 percent of the population agreeing that a smack should not be a criminal offence in New Zealand, the Prime Minister dismissed their view, claiming to know better than the public how parents should raise children in this country.

The reality of course was that their polling had showed National that they might lose some support amongst women if they agreed to change the law on smacking. Obviously being popular with women voters was more important to the Prime Minister than the promise he made to the New Zealand public that they should be free to live their lives without state interference. Political convenience won over political principle.

Ignoring that unequivocal referendum result was a shock to many, more so because it was the National Party who introduced the Citizens-initiated Referendum Act in 1993 and at the time considered making such referenda binding! It reminded us that while a regime change at the general election might alter the name and the ‘hue’ of the coalition parties, New Zealand continues to be governed by a ruling elite rather than being a genuine democracy where individuals as a collective feel they have true representation.

This state of affairs is quite different from the situation in a country like Switzerland where the public are regarded as sovereign decision makers, with the government there to serve them. The difference of course, is that in Switzerland it is the public that have the final say on how their country is run. They do this through their referenda process. If voters disagree with a new law that has been passed by their Parliament, they can force a binding referendum on it if they can gather 50,000 signatures within the first 100 days. If a simple majority of people vote against the new law in the referendum, it is thrown out. In other words, in Switzerland (as well as in a number of other jurisdictions around the world that make extensive use of binding referenda) the wisdom of the public is highly regarded and trusted. There is no ruling elite - politicians are the servants of the people. This is surely the shape of true democracy!

Under a Swiss-style system, Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law would have been challenged within the first 100 days and subjected to a binding referendum, and no doubt thrown out. It would not have mattered how many “know-it-all” politicians tried to argue that banning smacking was right and that the public were wrong on this issue. The politicians would have suffered a massive defeat with nanny state effectively being tossed out of the family home, leaving parents free to bring up their children without interference from radical activists like Sue Bradford.

There is a related matter that is also a cause of huge concern here in New Zealand, and that is the ostrich like denial that occurs when politicians get things wrong. Instead of changing their mind if new information becomes available (as epitomised in that famous quote by economist John Maynard Keynes, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”), they protect their image of divine-like judgment and consequently perpetuate the damaging effects of their own poor decision making.

Again, if New Zealand had a Swiss-style 100 day law, we would be protected from such political self-preservation. As it is, we must bear the cost and consequences of legislation that should never have been enacted in the first place.

A case in point is National’s lame duck Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). To get it passed through Parliament ahead of the failed climate change summit in Copenhagen last December, they had to offer what was in effect a massive taxpayer-funded bribe to the mates of the Maori Party. Now, National’s ETS, which was designed to align with Australia’s scheme so that neither country could seek to gain a competitive advantage by taking a softer line on carbon emissions - is ready to be enacted on July 1st even though Australia is unlikely to pass their scheme. Given there are only a few weeks until the scheme is due to begin, businesses and lobby groups alike are contacting the government to have the scheme suspended at least until the next international climate negotiations take place in Mexico in December. By then it is likely to be abundantly clear to even the most one-eyed politician that carbon markets are destined to collapse when the Kyoto protocol expires in two years time, and our ETS scheme will become a case study in political stupidity.

http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly221.htm

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

A Political Love Affair

By Steve Baron.

Once upon a time I fell madly in love. She was the most gorgeous, intelligent and
successful woman I had ever met, she changed...

my life forever. Unfortunately she went back to the devil she knew rather than the devil she didn't. Obviously she wasn't happy in her previous relationship, just as many voters aren't always happy with the previous government. Like this woman, we get tired of being dominated, controlled, manipulated, threatened and cheated on, so we flirt with something else to fill that empty chasm. In New Zealand politics there have been numerous third parties like Social Credit and New Zealand First. These flirtations have all come and gone but ultimately we keep returning to one of the two major parties. We keep going back for more punishment election after election. Every election they beg and plead with us and always promise to change their ways... but they rarely do. Alas, even though we know we can't really trust them anymore and our love for them is not the same it once was, we give them yet another chance. Our
memories are very short. Over the years parliament has become a den of iniquity, full of broken election promises, ignored referendums, abuse of taxpayer money, fraud, racism, physical violence and arrogance. Just like some marriages I guess. Falling voter turnout only goes to prove the lack of trust New Zealanders have in their political system and their politicians. We complain, moan and groan but mostly we grin and bear it. Will we ever move on from this or are we destined to keep repeating history ad infinitum? What can we do about it anyway, this is our lot and we just have to accept it don't we? Well no we don't. We need to be prepared to make a stand, take back the control we have abdicated, become more aware, and more outspoken. We must become as some academics have referred to as the gladiators of society. The politically active and motivated who are not prepared to let politicians do all the thinking for them. For me, I've moved on, I no longer have a blind faith for any one political party. They all have their good and bad points. I
want more say on issues that can profoundly affect my life. I haven't given up on love, or politics. I will continue to comment, provoke and suggest new ideas, but I will refuse to vote any longer (as do twenty percent of the population). Some will argue that if I'm not prepared to vote then I can't complain. However, like workers who can withhold their labour when they are being unjustly treated, I can withhold my vote. Just like in a marriage, sexual favors can be withheld, so sorry, not tonight, not even next election my dear politicians, I have a headache.

ENDS

This article first appeared in the Cambridge News 18/01/2010

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Anti Democratic Elitist Thought

By Steve Baron

One of my first university lecturers suggested the best advice he could offer was to challenge everything he said, and to come to my own conclusions. In other words,

don't believe everything you are told, even by an esteemed university professor. These words flooded back to me when I heard Raymond Miller, an Auckland University political scientist and media commentator, calling for the 1993 Citizens Initiated Referenda Act, to be repealed on the Paul Holmes Q&A television show. Former Prime Minister and law professor, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, has often suggested the same. In his 1997 book Bridled Power he said, “the Act should be repealed. It appears to offer a chance for citizens to influence policy, but in substance that opportunity is like a mirage in the desert. Referenda should be reserved for those few and important issues of constitution and conscience that should be bound by the people's voice.”

Given the huge number of conscience votes in Parliament over the last decade on extremely polarizing issues, I for one would have loved to hear Sir Geoffrey calling for citizens to decide these outcomes in a referendum... where were you when we needed you Sir Geoffrey? If referendums are a mirage, then what of representative democracy? Does it not also give citizens the illusion they can influence policy, because they get to vote once every three years at an election? Yet the day after an election a government can break every promise it has made, and often has. Perhaps we could also repeal representative democracy?

The weakness of representative democracy is that once a government is elected, there are few checks and balances between elections. The public is basically excluded. While proportional representation and coalition governments may have slowed Cabinet government to some extent, voters generally have to accept whatever the government decides it wants, even if the majority of citizens disagree as they did in the 2009 smacking referendum and even if the government of the day represent only 36.78% of those illegible to vote, as was the case with the 2008 National/Act Party government. Yet they rule 100% of the people.

It would seem strange that academics like these would be making calls to repeal the CIR Act. Surely what New Zealanders seek is a strong and robust society, where there is a true exchange of information between the elected and the electorate, not the “thin” representative democracy that Benjamin Barber refers to in his book Strong Democracy. A democracy controlled by political elitists and influenced by academic elitists who have little respect for the will and collective wisdom of voters is surely undesirable.

There is no doubt that the CIR Act needs to be made more robust to ensure referendum questions are not bias, misleading or ambiguous. More effort also needs to be placed on supplying voters with balanced information, giving the pros and cons of the referendum in question via an official referendum pamphlet and website.

US President Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said, “I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves”. Words that our visiting Chinese officials might indeed heed when faced with Russell Norman, Co-Leader of the Green Party, protesting against China's treatment of Tibet.

Steve Baron is an author, Founder of Better Democracy NZ, and a regular contributor to publications throughout New Zealand. steve@betterdemocracy.co.nz www.betterdemocracy.co.nz

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Economic Prostitution

By Steve Baron

Many years ago I walked into the Dept of Social Welfare. I didn't want the dole, just help to find a job.

I was interviewed by this scruffy slob of a bloke who got me to fill out a form
which also asked what jobs I would prefer. I listed Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, trying to show a sense of humor and motivation. He ripped the form apart and stormed out of the room in disgust. I yelled a few obscene words at him like... Quantitative Easing, Dead Weight Loss & Fiscal Deficit. This bought a gasp from the lady behind the counter who was amazed at my comprehension of economic language!

Well I certainly wouldn't want to be PM but Minister of Finance still appeals. I often wonder what English and his predecessor Cullen dream about at night, perhaps Margaret Thatcher? Cullen was so tight he needed an anal stretch and English so greedy he would charge his own Mother rent if she came to visit.

It hasn't been easy for English, the way the world economy has gone. Its not easy striking a balance between spending and debt. An increase to GST and the minimum wage is currently being mooted. GST is certainly a more equitable tax system, but as for increasing the minimum wage I can't agree. It creates what economists call a 'dead weight loss' which leads to unemployment. Raising the minimum wage is great for those who currently have a job but it adversely affects the uneducated unemployed trying to get a job. Put it this way, I'd rather see my child earning less than the current minimum wage, than being on the dole earning just over $100 a week.

One of the main problems challenging our economy is compounding debt. This happens because our money supply is created and owned by foreign financial institutions and then gets lent into our system at interest. We must make huge interest payments and pay twice over for infrastructure, health and education which society needs to improve our standard of living. Compounding debt cheats society.

If society needs more money to expand then an independent National Credit Authority should oversee the supply of it, not borrow it from overseas. Of course there has to be a happy medium. Supply too much and you get hyperinflation like Hitlers Nazi Germany. Supply too little money and the consequences are no more favorable. The
principal and the concept are important here.

The problem of compounding debt must be fixed before overseas financial institutions hang us by our antipodes. As Thomas Edison once said,

“If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency.”

Anything else is economic prostitution. Henry Ford added,

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Steve Baron is an author, Founder of Better Democracy NZ, and a
regular contributor to publications throughout New Zealand. He
resides in Cambridge. steve@betterdemocracy.co.nz
www.betterdemocracy.co.nz

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

MMP: To Disembowel or Develop?

By Steve Baron

It was Winston Churchill who said, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Like the names of loves long lost, we often forget, and so it is with

politics. Politicians hungry for power often pray on this weakness of human nature and give us the opportunity to make the same mistakes over again. Yes indeed, we do have short memories, especially on political matters. At the next election voters will decide whether or not to keep MMP or replace it with something else.

So what does history tell us about our voting system and why did we change to MMP? For a start, in 1978 and 1981, the Labour Party received more votes than the National Party but National remained the government, because they held more electorate seats. That is how First Past the Post (FPP) works. In 1978 the Social Credit Party (now Democrats for Social Credit) received sixteen percent of the vote, but only one seat in Parliament, then twenty one percent of the vote in 1981 which gave them only two seats in Parliament. In 1984 the New Zealand Party received twelve percent of the vote, but no Members of Parliament. These results, along with a growing distrust of politicians due to many broken election promises, and New Zealander's innate belief in fairness, led to calls for a Royal Commission, and change.

As one of the many New Zealanders who got to vote for the first time in my life as an eighteen year old, in 1978, it just didn't seem fair that the party that got the most votes didn't become the government, and the votes received by third parties did not reflect that vote in Parliament. In other words many votes were 'wasted votes'.

Even as far back as 1979 there were calls for change, Professor Geoffrey Palmer, later to become Prime Minister in a Labour government wrote,
New Zealand passes too many laws and it passes them too quickly. Legislative overload is not unique to New Zealand, although it is more pronounced here
than in most other countries.
As a proponent of MMP, Professor Palmer saw this as an opportunity to slow this process.

I also remember Garry Knapp, leader of the Democratic Party (formerly Social Credit and now Democrats for Social Credit) and a number of supporters barricading themselves into one of Parliaments Select Committee rooms, as a protest to highlight the unfairness of FPP. They remained there for a number of days, even taking a porta-loo in with them. Knapp was seen on the six o'clock news waving from the balcony in defiance, after requests from the Speaker of the House and Police to remove themselves.

National won the 1990 election and a date was set in 1992 to hold a non-binding referendum to decide if the existing system of FPP was to be retained or if it should be replaced with a new voting system which was to be decided in a later binding referendum. An overwhelming 84.5% of voters wanted the system to changed.

After this, battle lines were drawn and all hell broke loose. All sorts of organisations and lobby groups were set up either to support MMP or to denounce it, leading up to the 1993 general election where the second referendum would take place. The Electoral Reform Coalition was the main advocate for MMP. It was organised by Phil Saxby, a Labour Party member, along with many other individuals, as well as members of many of the smaller political parties who joined together on a shoestring budget to bring about change. Political Scientists also entered the frey saying greater representation of minorities, furthermore, has been shown to lead to greater trust in government on the part of minority citizens.

On the other side of the battle lines was the Coalition for Better Government who opposed MMP. It was organised by wealthy businessman Peter Shirtcliffe, chairman of Telecom New Zealand. He was quoted as saying MMP "would bring chaos". They ran full page adverts in major newspapers at great expense. Some newspapers at the time estimated they spent over $1.5m. Australian academic, Malcolm McKerras, was invited to New Zealand to put his case against MMP. In 1988 McKerras had said the Royal Commission's recommendation was, "so radical that it had virtually no prospect of popular endorsement at a referendum", and following the 1992 referendum, had condemned MMP as "a rat bag scheme". The Green Party later made the comment, “From our point of view McKerras became our secret weapon with his arrogance tipping the swinging voters in our direction.”

Journalist Graeme Hunt was also an opponent of MMP. He claimed it would be the “electoral disaster of the century”. He also argued that the Royal Commission had been “stacked” with a Royal Commission in favour of MMP by Geoffrey Palmer (an MMP supporter) who by then was Minister of Justice and responsible for deciding who would be on the Royal Commission. Hunt also argued that MMP would elect “political greenhorns to positions of power” and would allow the “tail to wag the dog” as minor parties would get too much power. Many opponents also claimed that MMP would cause unstable governments. National Cabinet Minister Bill Birch said MMP would be "a catastrophic disaster for democracy". Former National Party Minister of Finance, Ruth Richardson, said MMP "would bring economic ruin". In effect they were trying to convince the public that we could trust them, and that our faith should be put in them, and not some new political system that would limit their powers.

The first MMP election in 1996 produced a more diverse representation as expected. A record number of women were elected, along with an increase in the number of Maori and Pacific Island MPs. A lot of water has passed under the political bridge, as there have now been a number of MMP elections. The economy has not gone to ruin as predicted. Neither has it been a catastrophe for democracy and governments have been extremely stable after an initial settling in period. Perhaps one could argue that from time to time the tail has wagged the dog, however, the alternative to that is the undesirability of absolute power in the hands of just one political party.

There are also calls to change MMP to another voting system. The main options being Approval Voting (AV), Preferential Vote (PR), Single Transferable Vote (STV), and the Borda Count (BC)

AV is a simple and easy to understand system, as well as simple to implement with little change needed to ballot papers. It was first formulated in 1971 by Robert J. Weber who in 1977 also wrote a book called "Comparison of Voting Systems". AV became popular in the 1980's when a group of academics started to promote it for use in the American elections. It was never adopted there, but is used by the United Nations to elect the Secretary General. According to proponents, a major virtue of AV compared to conventional voting systems is its greater 'honesty' in the sense that it encourages sincere voting and is less vulnerable to strategic manipulation. Also, AV does not violate monotonicity. Having non-monotonicity means that getting more votes may actually stop a person from being elected. Rather a strange consequence, but evidently mathematically probable. So therefore, if it is good enough for the United Nations, is it good enough for New Zealand? Here's what outspoken AV proponent Professor Steven Brams has to say.
While AV is a strikingly simple election reform for finding consensus choices
in single-winner elections, in elections with more than one winner - such as
for a council or a legislature - AV would not be desirable if the goal is to
mirror a diversity of views, especially of minorities; for this purpose, other
voting systems should be considered.
Given these comments above it is hard to choose AV as an option.

Some, like Peter Shirtcliffe, prefer Preferential Voting (PV). This is certainly a better option than FPP, because it will stop the most unpopular candidate from winning (as can happen under FPP). However, PV allows popular candidates to be eliminated too early making it an unappealing aspect of this system. PV is also susceptible to insincere voting as well as bullet voting. This is a tactic where even though a voter can select more than one candidate, they only tick their first preference. If enough people do this, the system effectively reverts to FPP, which is undesirable. However, rules can be imposed to penalise this tactic, although this could possibly result in high numbers of spoiled ballots.

One system that has an almost cult following is STV. It has grown in popularity and was even considered by the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System. Thomas Wright Hill first came up with the concept of the transferable vote in 1821, but it was never used. Then in 1855 Carl Andrae promoted using it for Denmark elections. Most people credit Englishman Thomas Hare with the concept however, as he became well known in Australia where it has been used. In Australia STV is known as the Hare-Clark proportional method. STV is used in Ireland, the Australian and South African Senate, Malta, Tasmania and even in a number of local body elections in New Zealand. The down side to STV is that very few people understand how it works. STV was rejected by the Plant Committee, which reported to the British Labour Party, because of non-monotonicity. STV is also susceptible to insincere voting. However, STV certainly achieves more diverse representation by allowing more minorities to be elected.

Another option is the Border Count (BC). This election system was developed by Frenchman Jean-Charles de Borda, in 1770. A little known fact is that the BC is successfully used on two Pacific Islands being the Republic of Nauru, the Republic of Kiribati and also Slovenia. The idea of BC is to take all voter preferences into account. This is a desirable feature, because a candidate is unable to lose by 'doing better' as can happen under other systems. Samuel Merrill conducted a study of seven voting systems, which showed the BC was the most likely procedure to select both a Condorcet winner (round robin against all candidates) and the candidate with the highest social utility. However, the BC can be susceptible to insincere voting and small changes to choices can make an immense difference. BC determines the winner of an election by giving each candidate a certain number of points corresponding to the position in which he or she is ranked by each voter. Once all votes have been counted the candidate with the most points is the winner. Some feel this is more favourable than a simple majority because it often elects a candidate more broadly acceptable to voters. It is considered more consensus orientated.

While there is no “perfect” system I can't help but feel the current MMP system is reasonably fair and reasonably understood by New Zealanders. There is some controversy over the fact that NZ First received more votes than the ACT Party for example, but failed to meet the five percent threshold and therefore did not receive any seats in Parliament, whereas ACT (with less votes than NZ First) got a number of MPs elected because Rodney Hide won the seat of Epsom. Perhaps this needs to be addressed by lowering the threshold to less than five percent or simply doing away with the ruling that allows a party to get seats in Parliament based on the percentage of votes received, if it can get just one Member of Parliament elected.

In my opinion, MMP has certainly been a step forward in our democracy and any consideration to changing the current system should be taken carefully and slowly for such an important constitutional type issue. MMP may not have given us as much control as some would have liked, but that is unlikely to happen until New Zealanders get to experience what 190 million people in Switzerland, Italy, Liechtenstein and twenty three States in the USA now embrace, the referendum system. This experience has proved how successful binding referendums can be at empowering nations, deciding national issues of importance and giving voters more control over issues that directly affect their lives. The Swiss have used direct democracy for over one hundred and thirty years through the Veto, Recall (which would allow us to remove unwanted List MPs) and Citizens Initiated referendum. All of which are binding on the government.

So, now the debate starts all over again, but does New Zealand really want to go back to the days when Labour got more votes than National, but National remained the government even with a minority vote? Or have a return to the old two party club and the fastest law makers in the west, as Geoffrey Palmer referred to New Zealand? Disembowelling our electoral system by returning to FPP would be a step backward. Let us improve on what we have and step forward into a better democracy. Only time will tell what we decide, but at least we all get to participate in the debate.

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

What are elections for?

From the Club Troppo blog: Politics, economics, law and life from a 'radical centrist' perspective, defined by Noel Pearson as "the intense resolution of the tensions between opposing principles"

What are elections for?
Posted by Richard Green on Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Here’s a quote I read today.

"It’s how PR (Proportional Representation) systems are meant to operate, and is far preferable to a minority government. It’s a mature and sensible approach, and a step away from the pathologies of winner-takes all so common to Westminster systems with single member electorates. The result will be the representation of the will of a larger proportion of the electorate, and it’s hard to see how that’s anything other than a positive.."

There’s nothing particular about the source or its context (Tasmania) I want to note, but its a sentiment I’ve heard many times and it happens to trouble me.
The positive in this instance seems to be that the government will be made up of politicians elected by a greater proportion. Likewise proportional representation is desirable because it increases a chance that an elector will have a politician in parliament to call their own.

The problem I have with this viewpoint is that it implicitly supposes the reason we have elections is to have politicians, and that I guess the point of politicians is giving viewpoints in parliament and arguing.

Are politicians really the end goal of democracy?

As far as I see it, politicians are only the means to an end: governance – which I’ll start calling policy. The identity of and colours flown by the people implementing the policy may be of great importance to political tragics (who should get football teams), but it’s what they do that counts more than whom they are.
[I'll put in an apology here to any political scientists whose grass I am ignorantly cutting]

And we can’t make policy proportional. Under one government, there can be, at any given time, only one basket of policy. We can’t have an ETS that runs only for Labor voters and a restriction on immigration only for Liberal voters, a legalisation of drugs and guns for LDP voters, gay marriage and forests for Greens voters and massive cash payments for clearing paddocks for Nationals voters.

No matter how a government is constituted as a single party or a dizzyingly diverse coalition, there will only be one policy basket. Whilst there is diversity in the electorate this policy basket isn’t going to satisfy everyone no matter how we structure the voting system.

So then what? If the policy basket by nature will be singular, maybe then the only real choice is to find a singular voter that is still shaped by all of the electorate. The mythical average voter. Any one person’s changing opinions will affect in some way the average, so a electoral system in which the winner is s/he who espouses the policy most attractive to the average may well be as democratic as we can get in a practical sense.

Of course, this is just the Median Voter Theorem transformed into a normative statement. It’s not a very good description of most winner take all electoral systems, but I think the unusual combination of compulsory preferential voting gets us closer than we might otherwise be, since there is no virtue in playing to the base.

In a winner takes all parliament, quite apart from matters of stability, the vote that gives a majority is less likely to come from a party playing to the edge. Since major parties dislike dealing with each other (since it helps their greatest adversaries) they will prefer a coalition with the smaller parties whom play to the fringe, which can only pull policy away from the average. A parliament that looks less representative by its members may produce more representative policy.

By all means, if someone wants to vote for a minor party, let them (I do). Finding the median relies on everyone acting normally. If they’re fortunate they’ll shift the median voter

It’s just that I don’t think the best outcome of voting is getting a personal ideological champion’s words inscribed in the hansard. It’s about getting a policy mix acceptable to the electorate collectively, if not as a mass of individuals.

From the Club Troppo blog: Politics, economics, law and life from a 'radical centrist' perspective, defined by Noel Pearson as "the intense resolution of the tensions between opposing principles"
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/04/13/what-are-elections-for/

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...

Guest articles/posts welcome

If you have a topic or article you would like us to consider posting here please contact Steve on 07 827-0511 or email steve@betterdemocracy.co.nz We are always looking for new contributors with something of value to add to the Better Democracy NZ blog.
Read more...

Democracy or Dictatorship?

By Larry Baldock

This is an article by Larry Baldock, organiser of the Campagn4Democracy, petition organiser and former MP. Married for 33 years to Barbara, 3 children 5 grandchildren. Former Tauranga City Councillor, Member of Parliament 2002-2005. Leader of the Kiwi Party. Larry recently rented out his family home for the next twelve months to focus his life on collecting enough signatures for his Citizens Initiative. Now that's commitment!

Do you think we live in a democracy?

Recently a radio interviewer asked me, “Why call it a Campaign4Democracy, when we already live in a democracy?”

Well, it’s because more and more New Zealanders are coming to the conclusion that our democracy now consists of just having the privilege of electing a new dictator every three years! In our system of representative democracy if those we elect are not listening to and carrying out the wishes of those that have elected them, then what democracy do we have?

The Prime Minister in New Zealand controls the Executive and Legislative branches of our Government and the Attorney General, (with approval from the PM of course), appoints our Supreme Court Judges. Add to that the fact that the Queen, as our Head of State, appoints the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and the Governor General then acts only upon the recommendations of the Prime Minister, and you can begin to understand the extent of the abuse of power that can occur.

I have no doubt in my mind that if the National Party caucus members had been given the opportunity to vote in a secret ballot on the repeal of the anti-smacking law after the referendum, it would have been tossed out ‘by lunchtime’. After all, many of them, with John Key’s sanction, had helped me collect signatures to make the Anti-smacking referendum a reality!

It would no doubt come as a surprise to many that MPs crossing the floor to vote against party lines is much more common in healthy overseas democracies than here in NZ where, party loyalty, particularly in National and Labour, has become paramount.

Look at how much work President Obama had to do to get the votes of his democratic party colleagues in Congress to pass his health care reform, or how often backbench MPs threaten to vote against their party in Westminster. When was the last time an MP in our House of Representatives had the courage of their convictions to represent their constituents, and crossed the floor against the wishes of their party? It is a rare event indeed and has usually resulted in the party turning on the MP with vindictive reprisals.

In fact, I think most voters would be very concerned to learn that democratic votes seldom happen within a party caucus in Parliament, and when they do, anyone with a different opinion from the leader, must raise their hand in a brave, career damaging move. The secret ballot is a very important foundation of our electoral system yet within political parties it almost never occurs.

New Zealand is the only nation, as far as I am aware, that has neither a written constitution to clearly define the boundaries of constitutional power, nor a second chamber such as a Senate or House of Lords which must vet and pass all legislation before it becomes law. Added to this weakness we now have an MMP electoral system in which party leaders hold considerable additional power over their MPs concerned about their rankings on the party list at the next election.

No matter how likeable our political leaders are at any time, we need to remember that the ‘separation of powers’ principle is for their protection as well as ours. As Lord Acton said “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. To all intents and purposes our Prime Ministers can assume dictatorial powers and use them to their detriment and that of the nation.

To address this serious issue the Campaign4Democracy is collecting 350,000 signatures on a petition that will force a referendum on the question of whether Parliament should be bound to implement the results of any Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR) in the future.

Otherwise there is little sense in spending our taxpayer dollars to hold a referendum just to have Parliament insult the electors by ignoring the result.

This new petition is not the Anti-smacking referendum mark two! That referendum was just the most recent, and the most blatant example of Parliament’s disregard for true democracy. There are many examples.

The removal of appeal to the Privy Council; the Prostitution Law reform (passed on one abstention); the Electoral Finance Act (passed on a small majority rather than the consensus of both sides of the house as previously accepted); the Anti-smacking law (passed despite 80% public opposition); the Emissions Trading Scheme (passed with the support of the Maori party in what is increasingly looking like a very expensive deal); the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Recently signed in a secretive way by the government) - the list could go on! Add to this the loss of the tradition of genuine conscience voting in the House of Representatives and we should all be very concerned.

After the Muldoon years and the turmoil of the 4th Labour Government the National party sensed the growing public dissatisfaction with politicians ignoring the people. As an election promise in 1990 they pledged to introduce a system of Citizens Initiated Referenda and in 1993 they passed the CIR Act that allowed for non-binding referenda. The minister in charge of the passage of the bill into law, Sir Doug Graham, said, “It is my belief that we will rarely witness by Parliament the rejection of a referendum result”.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->

He has of course lived to witness Parliament reject the results of the only four CIRs that have managed to clear the very high threshold needed to force a referendum. Sir Doug went on to say “the intention is to review the use of citizens-initiated referenda after a period of 5 years, and it may well be then appropriate to consider a change to the law to make referenda binding at that time”.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->

Surely it is now time for that review!

On the 10 March 1992 the Hon Murray McCully said in his speech on the first reading of the CIR Bill that the new Act would “profoundly change the way in which we conduct our democracy in this country.”

The reason for change in his opinion was because “our system permits the executive to have too much power. The Executive is too easily able to dominate Parliament and that Parliament has become the puppet rather than the master of cabinet.” <!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]-->

Well now ‘ain’t that the truth’!

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--> Hon Sir Doug Graham First reading CIR Bill 10 March 1992



<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> Hon Sir Doug Graham Second reading CIR Bill 14 Sept 1993

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--> Hon M McCully First reading CIR Bill 10 March 1992

CLICK ON THE TITLE OF THIS POST TO BE TAKEN TO OUR BLOG, TO POST YOUR COMMENT!
Read more...