Time for a completely new voting system?

"At the tail end of an election campaign where policy versus personality has been a recurring theme, the poll also shows more than 40 per cent of voters are driven to choose a party because they like the leader." - This is my fundamental issue with politics, a party is more than 1 man/woman and the effects of policy far outweigh the effects of a single person...

As I have shown multiple times I think that politics should be faceless, as it's meant to be for the people, not of the person.

Here's the system I am thinking about.

Effectively it's an MMP system with 2 votes, 1 for local electoral candidate, 1 for party.

The electoral vote would be decided on a short answer question on what they would do in parliament if they were in power for their electorate:

E.G. Choose the view that best represents your views on the local electorate:

"I think that public transport, youth issues and crime are key focus areas for XXXX, to address these I would do..."
"I think that homelessness, prostitution and pig eating are key focus areas for XXXX, to address these I would do..."

These options would be independently vetted in order to make sure the candidates were just not spouting populist rhetoric in order to gather votes.

For the party votes there is 2 sections.

In the first you are to rate the importance of certain issues from 1-10 (10 being the most important, 1 being the least important).

The next section takes them to a policy section:

Similar to the herald website you would have a summary of policies with the exception that party names are removed, and asked to select the option that best represents your view.

Based on the weighting in section 1 (of the party vote) and the answer you selected on policy you would be matched with the party that best represents your views. At this stage if you are within a certain percentage of other parties you would have the option to choose them.

****There would also be an option to override the suggestion and choose who to vote for with a warning similar to - "Choosing another party goes against your fundamental beliefs in what is right for the future of New Zealand... Proceed Anyway?"****

I know there are pitfalls and there would need to be a lot of work that went into this system, not to mention incredibly stringent policing of the process, but I think the end result would be a more direct democracy, which is sorely needed if we are to have a true representation of our people in government.

politics is not faceless nor should it be

we're human and respond as humans for all the good, bad and ugly that may be

your solution opens itself for abuse, the question can determine the answer... thus ensure the result

who determines which issues should be polled?

policies are not written in concrete - if you read most policies they are empty promises alluding to better outcomes but very low on specifics and often at odds with how the sectors being discussed even function

we have a very good system now... its representative, ensures our politicians are more honest than they'd like etc etc.

What you are really saying is you'd like a better informed electorate

in short, the solution isn't wholesale change, its working to make what we have even better imo

I know the question can determine the answer...

But when the question is: Economic Policy - I don't see how this has questioner effects ?

Also are you happy with over 40% of people voting because "they seem like a nice man/woman"... I am certainly not.

but how can one answer that non question

Economic Policy - yes , no - how does that work

or is the answer some soundbite from the respective parties in which case they are very very loaded and its doubtful they would sit anywhere near reality

and no I'm not happy that 40% vote on the perception of the man/woman... then again I'm not happy that many vote for purely selfish interests as opposed to what they believe is best for the country and our place in the world

I'll take the $50 tax bribe please as opposed to that nice man in the suit - both voters in that instance are dicks

Jesus man, give me some credit.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10767861

Have a look at that, now take off the party bar at the left and randomise the responses so that the same party is not always featured first/last.

I like the idea in theory, but who would write the questions? Who would check the questions? How would you ensure those checking the checking are not biased in any way?

not dissing you sir... but don't see the rationale of your suggestion nor how it would make our electoral system any better - more long winded which would be a turn off to many (attention spans low)

whilst that herald page is informative... the party policies are often to quote our great leader 'aspirational' - especially for the parties that will never be in a position to govern (NZ First/United Future/Act/Mana et al) ie promise whatever you want as you'll never have to implement and thus pay for those policies

There are no questions. (except for maybe the electorate one).

It's the same question for all parties

but the policies and answers by the candidates and parties are or would be very very loaded

Hence the vetting...

So you don't see how people having their personal views represented strengthens the popularity based system we currently have ? Ok.

I think the fact that we have such appalling participation figures makes a case for mandatory voting. I also think that basic political studies should be taught in schools. It's a travesty it isn't already.

ok - go and look at that fence site, according to them I should vote united future - but thats not who I want to vote for nor whom I'd ever vote for

just because one lots policy matches my desires doesn't mean thats whom I'll vote for

With no disrespect to those students, it's a website created by a bunch of university students with no funding, it has some pretty atrocious left wing bias and it's not really scientific at all.

with no disrespect to those vetting the questions and policy answers on this years elections book but those govt lackeys show a horrid left wing bias and I've lodged a complaint with the electoral commission

not sure what happened double post

Parties would submit their own policies, they would be vetted by a bi-partisan panel to ensure no malarkey.

THERES NO FUCKING QUESTIONS

WHERE DO YOU GET THE QUESTIONS FROM ?!

Read about the making of that onethefence site before talking resist.

Also, I think your idea is stupid. Ultimately, we live in a representative democracy. We need to elect people we trust, people we respect, people who we think will do the right thing is situations we can't always foresee. And for the good of society, we need people who will make difficult decisions even when they're unpopular.

Your idea is just as stupid as having a rule by referenda.

Sure, people should be aware of policies before they vote, but it can't be a blind contest with only policies.

Exactly, if I voted on issues such as free tertiary education and income splitting. well then those are United Future policy! But Peter Dunne is a cunt, and I don't want to vote for him.

ok there are no questions... only answers/policy....

but as policy is a statement of intent about the future if they get voted in how can they be vetted for accuracy - unless you have Dr Who on staff

if Dr Who's involved can I get a job there.... please

Hence being given the oppourtunity to override the system.

Over 40% are voting for the nicest person. OVER 40%. This isn't democracy or politics, it's a popularity contest based on media saturation.

its too complicated resist - I appreciate the outcome you're after but you expect too much

its like asking everyone at eden park to have read (and understand) the rule book pre each All Black match

So we should have low standards and our future leaders dictated by whoever gets painted in the most positive light. I can see why you don't want to reform the system at all because it's "too hard".

Political Apathy is killing democracy.

I'm all for electoral reform (just don't see the need to re-write the entire thing), which is why I am voting to keep MMP so it can be made even better than it is currently

its also why I vote for parties that have solid education platforms, for a better educated public means a more intelligent and one would hope informed voting public

and why I am prone to outbursts against the media for they limit the information we have to make informed decisions on - refer to bad columnists and opinion pieces by morons, and then there is the inherent bias

also why I am very anti corporation... for they have no interest in democracy

Democracy is killing democracy.

Every successful advancement in human society has come from strong leadership, not three yearly committee meetings of 4m people. The people should choose their leadership, but then let them digest the inputs in the interest of the people.

Also appreciate what you're trying to say but no, it isn't a better option than what we have now.

Strong leadership - human advancement...

Heard of the enlightenment or French revolution ? Two of the most powerful things to happen in human evolution happened without or in spite of leadership.

rubbish - we advance as a collective not at the whim of one person or one small group of people

the means for us to live collectively came not at the hands of politicians or leaders but from the needs of the many and the actions of them to...

I guess my socialist anarchy view is made fairly clear here.

look at the russian revolution.. it turned an agrarian backwater into a world power in a generation.
Not only that, but they also saved humanity from the threat of the nazis.

Could you imagine a bunch of anarchists sitting around voting on every proposition doing anything like that?

They'd still be deciding whether to have tea or coffee at their meeting while the nazis would be shipping them off to death camps.

You completely misunderstand socialist anarchism.

What would you call yourself ? Libertarian Socialist ?

actually, I'm pretty sure I understand it better than you.

Direct Democracy can and does work, Switzerland is a shining example of it in action.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with direct democracy, and whether it works or not is not the issue. I'm fundamentally opposed to it as a principle. There are certain things that should NOT be up for debate. There are certain things that are just right, and certain things that are just wrong, and what other people think about those issues is irrelevant.

So you think representative democracy is the better choice ? Not having a go, just interested in your opinion.

I love the idea of direct democracy on certain issues and not for others... but this is not switzerland and what works there may not work here

If we had direct democracy, people would still be allowed to smoke in bars.

If we had direct democracy, only those with the time, will and something to gain would vote...
You dislike populist governments, direct democracy would beat any populist government hands down.

Nup, I prefer to have people who are paid to be informed, skilled and make hard decisions rather than asking plebs what they think of issue x y or z.

You don't go to a doctor and get treated for them to ask you your opinion.

Switzerland's is a bit different though if you look how they implemented it, 50k people need to sign a petition and there is then a referendum on the law, effectively the people have the power to veto.

The main difference with the referendum is that it's legally binding. (Smoking in bars would have been banned even when it was initially brought in based on opinion polls anyway).

actually doctors do ask you your opinion (if I've made sense of your post) - it starts with how are you feeling and where is the pain etc

then they try and work out what it could be

Some things should not be up for debate whether people like it or not.

So how do you decide who debates those things then neil ?

You need a few strong people with a vision for how to create a better world to get together and to say "this is what is right and this is what is wrong, and that's the way things are going to be"

Sounds very dictatorish to me.

thus spake FPP man

you're wrong there son

And you would rather have a dictatorship of the majority whether it's right or wrong than a few people laying down fundamental unchangeable, possibly unpopular, laws that are right and true?

well he has my vote on that one NR

There seemed to be a pretty big stink about it at the time. But I suppose that could have been loudmouths, never really looked at actual polls.
I could come up with plenty of other supporting examples if I could be fucked doing so, but I'm sure you know that.

You have a very cynical view of humanity, but I guess you are right based on stuff/nzherald opinion polls.

What happens if these people suggest Eugenics for the benefit of mankind... where do you draw the line ?

given that smokers are very much in the minority and given the well known risks of secondary smoke inhalation I'd wager I'm right, smiley

given that smokers would be very proactive in a vote like that and there's only so many super staunch wowsers I'd suggest it could have been very close

I mean how many non smokers would bother voting on an employment issue such as that?

isn't iot 20-25% of the population who smoke? Thats no a small minority,,, its the stuff of small parties dreams

We all know that humanity is pulled along by a minority of people. Every one else would have us still in the dark ages.

Anyway, shit happens, then you have foreign pressure on your government. Who does the rest of the world lean on (and how) when the whole country of nutbars is in charge?

The other thing about smoking is that a minority smoke because of movements made by successive governments to combat smoking. Such a law would not even be up for debate if we had direct democracy because everyone would still be smoking.

a minority can only lead humanity until the majority have had enough

when you forget and turn your back on the masses you only have force with which to govern

No they wouldn't.

As the truth about cigarette smoking came out, more and more people quit... You only have to look at post-60's smoking decline to see this.

Eugenics is one of the things that's not up for debate.

This is exactly the problem with direct democracy. All you need is a majority of people to decide to kill a minority are you've got your Eugenics.

You have a lot of faith in people's rationality. Remember they are up against the power of advertising and PR. Much like voters are today in the cult of personality.

source - the internet

wow thats really substantial

I would envisage a massive pr campaign against smoking pointing out the risks of passive smoking had it been put to a vote crushing any hope of smokers to continue poisoning those who choose not to adopt their filthy *cough* habit

Resist: simple question. Do you believe that there are fundamental, universal truths. Social and cultural values that are simply superior to others?

if I was a billionaire I'd do a health campaign about vehicle emissions and death (focusing on Auckland)

all whilst smoking in a spa pool surrounded by eunuchs and lovely dancing ladies (possibly a badger and a couple of bears too) whilst some kid played dubstep very very quietly

now whose voting daktari?

ladies

who would fund such a thing?

billionaire boys club

it would usher in a very confusing world.... we'd have a fuckton of trains too

no promises they'd go anywhere useful - saying that I do like bridges and tunnels

Possibly there are some, I often struggle with this question though neil as I believe in universal human rights but I know that it impedes on certain cultures and I think that most societies are dynamic and unique from each other...

Cultural values, no I don't think that one race's culture is superior to another, which was my problem with the movement to push western individualism on eastern communal based cultures.

Again this is a really tough question for me to answer on the fly, due to strong and conflicted feelings I have on the topic.

ok, well I guess we have a fundamental disagreement there.

I believe that some cultures are or can be superior to others. Certain cultures are backward and they need to be changed. This isn't to say that certain cultures are superior in all ways. They may only be superior in certain ways. Similarly, this isn't to say that generally superior cultures can't learn things from generally inferior cultures. But there are certain things that are right for all peoples at all times and certain things that are wrong for all peoples at all times, and liberals needs to recognise this instead of being so enamoured with hippie relativistic bullshit.

Yep, I would agree with your logic there. You seem to resolve your conflicts a lot more pragmatically than I do. (Have a cognitive meltdown in some ways when I am conflicted heavily).

I agree neil, but this only works if we (as in humanity) agree on some fundamental goals.

Vads was saying in some other thread that "Everything has a need level of zero if you're going to take it to the logical extreme. We don't need to live" for example.

And I think if you look through history you'll see that we're getting closer and closer to finding these universals. True progress isn't constant, and we sometimes go backwards before going forward again, but I think we're making progress.

But they are all human constructions. If an asteroid comes along and wipes us out all meaning has gone. Maybe that's not relevant and I'm confusing two different ideas though.

what?

I guess I mean that these universal truths are still simply constructions of some type of morality which is cultural. Not sure if I'm getting this across well.

That said I'm actually on your side.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

I see what you mean though, if humanity was mostly wiped out and started over again we'd eventually reach the same or similar conclusions. If all cultures, even if they weren't exposed to other cultures, and were given enough time they would also reach similar values.

Yep bob, those are great, the implementation of them, even by first world nations is abysmal, especially Article 23.

we reach for the skies and always fall short, which is no reason to not keep reaching

self interest is our collective downfall

In fact everything from Article 23 onwards is a bit of a joke really

All comes back to game theory perhaps.