Democalypse 2017 - The Election Thread

The Iran deal was an amazing bit of negotiation, the US paid Iran their own money in exchange for getting UN inspectors on the ground. 

Trump undermined it as part of his campaigning and one of his first acts in office was try and get it overturned (which he couldn't legally as Iran was complying with the terms).

If he'd worked with them in good faith who knows what would have happened, as it is Iran has had ten months to work on whatever they've been working on knowing that the deal was doomed.

Of course it wasn't perfect, the UN inspectors were frustrated that they didn't have the access that they needed, but having people on the ground and having people at the table talking to you is much better than embarking in a flame war on twitter.

A 5 seat shift is not 'clearly a vote for change' (2 from National, 1 from United and 2 from Maori and the last parliment had an overhang) especially when Labour has traditionally held the Maori seats and Dunne decided to get out! Its more of the status quo than a clear vote for change. 

Labour pinched seats off the Greens and Winston 1st primarily because the "bludger scandals" that followed Winston and Turia and scared some people back to the mothership. 

Go look at the mix at the last election vs this one. There is no vote for change here. All that is is reshuffling the chairs on the deck but its clearly not a vote for change

Without being able to know what percentage of NZ First voters want a change of government it's impossible to know whether an overall majority want National or Labour to lead.

hmmm 46% voted for National 54% voted against them it's quite simple really

35% voted for labour, 65% voted against them. 

Last time round the government had 64 seats, now they have 58 but probably 57. That's a drop in six or seven seats. The opposition has increased from 53 to 61 seats and probably more.

Even if National is in government with NZ First or the Greens it will still be a substantially different government than we've had for the last two terms.

Yep, that's why I said they've had ten months of Trump telling them the deal is off to work on it. Much like how Obamacare is collapsing in some states through neglect we have no idea if Iran would or wouldn't have tested a ballistic missile if the US was dealing with them in good faith.

Although, Iran is apparently in compliance to the words of the agreement if not the spirit. The point is if he wasn't busy tweeting about how horrible they are and actually tried to make one of these deals that he claims he's so good at making he could do something about it. He can't do anything about North Korea because they have no diplomatic relationship, and he can't go to war with them because geographically they can cause devestation to US allies.

well it is, you claimed there was no vote for change here, Yet more people voted against the incumbent government than for it - that's the simple bit

whatever the semantics of the new government are the fact will still remain that overall more people voted against the incumbent government than voted for it - that seems like a vote for change to me

lolol. too soon?

more people voted for opposition parties than for parties of Government. The support parties of the governing coalition have been significantly reduced. 

People vote for or against retaining the status quo, which has been a Keysian government. 

Neither proposition is the whole truth, but they are both much more truthful than the Nats in the last week of the campaign.

Also I think you'll find that the reason the votes went to Labour according to the pollsters wasn't because of the scandals, but because there was actually a Labour momentum to vote for and a Labour leader who had dedicated her career to the fight against child poverty. There was a real mood and momentum for change at that point and if the poll momentum had held there would be obituaries being written now. That tapped into the same anger at homelessness and poverty that the Metiria scandal did. Remember the Greens were polling 15% under her leadership and a moribund (but united) Labour. 

Failure to deal clearly with the scare tactics or hit back saw Labour lose its way in the last week. 

Otherwise the mood for change argument would have needed no elaboration. The right were feeling sick a week and a half out. 

To claim there was no vote for change is facile and head in the sand stuff. To claim the vote was clearly for change is to ignore the election night numbers.

It was too close to call for the last couple of weeks and will be something similar after the specials we assume, with Winston choosing who sits on the treasury benches.

Try late 1950's. 

Even George Carlin knew it was Bullshark

Based on current voting (noting that these will change on special votes), the current Government's vote and seats have both declined. After the 2014 Election, National, Maori, Act, United Future were 49.27% of the vote and 64 seats.

National 47.04%  60 seats
Maori 1.32% 2 seats
Act 0.69% 1 seat
United Future 0.22% 1 seat

Whereas now it's dropped to 47.69% and 59 seats. And will probably drop by another one or two seats. 

National 46.03% 58 seats
Maori 1.08% 0 seats
Act 0.51% 1 seat
United Future 0.07% 0 seats

So there has definitely been some movement away from the makeup from the current government. Enough so that they will need to rely on NZF to form a government. As I mentioned earlier there has been a 5% swing away from Centre Right parties towards parties who all campaigned to change the government. Whether it was a big enough swing to do so will depend how the next two weeks go. 

Winston only ever talked about doing what he "believed was best" whatever the fudge that may be

A different view of just "how good" the Iran Deal actually was

A quick google about the that created that video organisation shows just how biased it is.

I really don't understand why people trust biased and extremist media from either side. 

Mass media that inherently don't have an agenda to either side of the spectrum like CNN and Guardian are reporting that Iran is reaffirming that they have no plan to develop nuclear weoponry.

CNN don't have an agenda. That's the best one I have heard for a while.

What agenda would they have? They are the mass media, it's their job to appeal to the broadest range possible. 

There are definitely liberal media and conservative media but the denigration of the mass media is one of literally thousands of Trumps lies.

I should have said they don't have any reason to lie like the extreme left and right wing media is, they're designed to be unbiased and report the truth - which is what they do.

The right wing media is so blatantly biased and factually incorrect that it's insane how anyone can even believe a fraction of what they say.

Here is a serious question

For those that voted Act or NZF or UF or whomever, did you make that vote as a vote for that party, against the current government or for that party knowing they were going to be part of the next government. Its not like the Winston-National thing was not sign posted well before the election now....

I think people are being a little ostrich about what actually happened to suit their own narrative when the reality is, the largest party in government, which had close to 50% of the vote in the last election, largely held that and will govern again. Thats not a vote for change, thats facts.If Labour had a larger share than National, then you it would be a vote for change.

I'm no English fan but I'm not so blind to let my own political choice cloud the reality of what happened.

That's a very FPP view in an MMP world. 

There was a vote for change, even if national is part of the ruling coalition the coalition has changed drastically.

Is your name Trotsky?

not just change, but REAL change!

No, the status quo would have been National + United Future + Act + Maori.

3 pages arguing semantics. Elections really are tiring. 

FFS, It's MMP. National was the leading party in the coalition but wasn't the only member, that's why we're stuck with terrible ideas like charter schools.

Fair to say that Lab and especially Greens are fashion trendsetters and National are when that trend can be found in the warehouse - not as cool or well made and older people are getting into it but cheaper?

Let's change from MMP to STV. For the next election. ... And do away with party lists. Less MPs might not be such a bad thing. Just throwing a few ideas.

No Party List would effectively be a return of FPP. 

It's probably simpler to voters to lower the 5% threshold instead of STV. 5% is a very high barrier to enter and it seems weird a party could get 4.9% and get 0 seats while a party with 5.15 would get 6 MPs.