Maybe this didn't make world headlines like the recent US election, but it's rather big down here. The first change in government for New Zealand since 1999, after 9 years of a left-wing government the country has voted to "change", with now a centre-right wing to hold power for 3 years.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4754563a28435.html
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10541896

How has the country fared under the left, and what is expected now that the center-right has come in?

What's with the "Electorate Seats" and "List Seats"..?  ???

I notice New Zealand First Party got 4.2% of votes, but no seats, whereas Maori Party only got 2.2% of votes, yet 5 seats.  :-\\ That would be totally impossible in our country.

On the other hand, this made me laugh: Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party - 7589 votes - 0.4% ;)


And also: how does this result compare to previous elections?

As with most comparisons between U.S. politics and other "western" nations, your "center-right" is probably to the left of our democrats.  Just a guess.

Possibly more "in-line" with the US Democrats, Although I'm sure with the minor party support, this can become more to the right of the Democrat party, but not as far right as the Republican I hope.

Our system is a funny system, do a bit of research on "MMP", it's rather complex, but I feel allows the best possible democratic election as more get to have a say in a government, as opposed to say the US where the one party who wins governs and that's it. It is a little confusing to me however, that a party with 3.7% gets 5 seats, where-as a party with 4.2% doesn't get anything. I guess there is a logical explanation for all that however.

An "electorate" seat is kinda like how the US system is split up, a party must win a certain amount of "electorates". Electorates are voted in by us, list seats are not. I'm not even 100% on this one.

This election when compared to previous elections, like always the final result on the night is tighter than people predict. Looking back, the "left" did very much the same, in some ways better than in 2005. Only the "right" had more votes come 11pm last night.

---

I think the country has fared extremely well over the last 9 years, with low unemployment, good education, social & health policies, etc. I just hope that the new government can continue on what has been achieved over the past 9 years.

Possibly more "in-line" with the US Democrats, Although I'm sure with the minor party support, this can become more to the right of the Democrat party, but not as far right as the Republican I hope.

Our system is a funny system, do a bit of research on "MMP", it's rather complex, but I feel allows the best possible democratic election as more get to have a say in a government, as opposed to say the US where the one party who wins governs and that's it. It is a little confusing to me however, that a party with 3.7% gets 5 seats, where-as a party with 4.2% doesn't get anything. I guess there is a logical explanation for all that however.

An "electorate" seat is kinda like how the US system is split up, a party must win a certain amount of "electorates". Electorates are voted in by us, list seats are not. I'm not even 100% on this one.

This election when compared to previous elections, like always the final result on the night is tighter than people predict. Looking back, the "left" did very much the same, in some ways better than in 2005. Only the "right" had more votes come 11pm last night.

---

I think the country has fared extremely well over the last 9 years, with low unemployment, good education, social & health policies, etc. I just hope that the new government can continue on what has been achieved over the past 9 years.


The system was proposed for Ontario as well, but it was defeated in a referendum unfortunately.

Frankly I think proportional representation is the only truly democratic solution for a multi-party country. First past the post only worls in two-party systems, and those systems suck to begin with.

British Columbia will soon be voting on another form of PR similar to MMP. It was accepted by a majority of BC voters in a 2005 referendum, but failed to attain the 60% bar imposed by the province's Premier, Gordon Campbell. This next time it is expected to win. A first Canadian step toward a fairer electoral system.

Proportional representation is the way to go.

What people don't recognize is our electoral college is a form of proportional representation.  That is why I agree with it and feel it would be a huge mistake to mess with it.

What people don't recognize is our electoral college is a form of proportional representation.  That is why I agree with it and feel it would be a huge mistake to mess with it.


I have to disagree.  Historically it wwas set up to give the slave power greater influence in the fed gov't than the free states.  It also cements the two party system.  So I would love to see a parliamentary system, which is much more democratic I think.

What people don't recognize is our electoral college is a form of proportional representation.  That is why I agree with it and feel it would be a huge mistake to mess with it.

er... not even close.  If it were a form of proportional representation, then the representation would be proportionate to the votes cast (technically not possible for a presidential election, unless you want a president that's just-over-half Obama and nearly all the rest McCain with maybe a toenail's worth of Ron Paul)

Re NZ's system of PR: although I do favour proportional electoral systems, party list-type ones suck big time.  The people towards the top of the list are never in any danger of losing their jobs, and always seem to start acting accordingly.  The public don't get the chance to choose their representatives or throw out the slimeballs.  </rant>

What people don't recognize is our electoral college is a form of proportional representation.  That is why I agree with it and feel it would be a huge mistake to mess with it.

You do realize that the Electoral College overvalues rural votes and undervalues urban ones.  That's not a promotion of proportional representation or even of equality.  It's probably the biggest flaw our system has, aside from the vast lenience we give to lobbyism.

You do realize that the Electoral College overvalues rural votes and undervalues urban ones.  That's not a promotion of proportional representation or even of equality.  It's probably the biggest flaw our system has, aside from the vast lenience we give to lobbyism.


1.  House of Reps fixed at 435, so big states penalized.

2.  But is it so bad to give smaller density population groups a larger vote on the off-chance that they may have some local interests that are critical to that particular group but not so much to NYC or LA?

3.  I would prefer a proportional allocation of electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska (for the time being) has, but the two-party system would never allow that :P

PR is only useful in mult-party states.  In a two party state, FPTP works... but you have to ask yoruselves if the two-party system itself is worth keeping. I say it isn't, which is why PR would be good for the U.S. It would allow other parties into the fold and make sure every vote counted.

We have FPTP in Canada, which used to work in the two-party days, but doesn't anymore because Canada has become a multi-party state now and forever more. There are 5 major parties, four of which are represented in parliament. But the way the system works, a national party like the NDP can get 20% of the national vote and win only 37 seats, while a Quebec separatist party who only runs candidates in one province can get 11% of the national vote and win 49 seats. Meanwhile the Greens can get nearly 10% of the national vote and not win a single seat. It's ridiculous, and it discourages electors from showing up at the polls.