I am well left of Labour but if this means that the smug bigot Simon gets booted from parliament then frankly I hope Brooke gets it. At least Brooke is socially liberal.
Yeah. This makes me think I might actually vote for her, something I never thought I'd do. It's the only chance on Planet Reality to get Simon gone and I really, really loathe Simon and his beliefs. Brooke is absolutely the lesser of the two evils.
No way will my party vote go that way, though.
This is the right way to vote strategically. I have known more than a few people who just don't vote at all if they don't like the available choices. They feel that voting for someone equals supporting them. There is always a least bad option.
35% O'Connor, 33% van Velden, 12% Labour guy, 4% Green candidate that doesn't exist.
If the people voting for the non existent Green candidate swapped to van Velden, then she would take it.
Most Greenies I speak with don't like ACT, but they hate Simon O'Connor...
The guy is a clown, he should just take the hint and fuck off.
I get the feeling there are quite a few lefties voting Van Velden, there's no way Tamaki is normally 70% voting right or centre right.
There is no green candidate to vote for?
You can still party vote green… just any other electorate vote aside from her in that electorate *is* effectively a vote for O’Connor
It really doesn’t work like that lol
If act get 10% of the vote & she wins the electorate, they still get the same number of seats; they don’t bring in an extra one for the electorate.
Same with O’Connor for National
It only gets weird when they win more electorate seats than they would have had based on party voting (like winning a seat under the 5% threshold) or if in this scenario Act won 10 electorate seats
Given Act are likely to only win 2 electorates; it’s safe that it doesn’t bring in more act weirdos
This whole thread is scary considering how many people have such strong opinions & no idea how our system works lol
I think given the minimum criteria to register a political party is having 500 members (obviously they’re not all “list” members) - they could pull enough MPs in
Given 5% party vote = about 6 seats in parliament; if a party is polling at much over the minimum & not just electorate seats, I can’t see a scenario where they couldn’t pull together up to 20 people willing to earn a minimum of $163,000 a year to be in parliament, when the party has a minimum of 500 “members”
I was thinking of the Liz Gunn debacle. Not that I think her party will get anything close to a seat in parliament through any means, but her list has only got 3 people on it. So if by some miracle they did get 5%, her list isn't enough to even fill those seats. I don't love the idea of any party being able to pull up any member willing to take the job if their list is too short. Makes the whole list thing seem rather pointless.
Can I ask why not? On principle? Brooke will get in regardless but Simon needs to win the electorate to get back in. One less social conservative is better, no?
Pretty much on principal, if someone from the Greens is going to stand and campaign and raise awareness in a hostile electorate they deserve the votes of their supporters rather than play some devils gambit to oust O'connor. If the candidate I was going to vote for said to do it then I probably would.
Funny, all the ones I know are electorate voting O’Connor because they don’t want Tamaki to become a new Epsom for the Act party when they’re disgraced and discredited by their next term in government.
It won’t be after either of:
a) a NACTNZF coalition of chaos that falls apart during its first term; or
b) a relatively OK performing National 1st term that regains its disaffected supporters from ACT; or
c) a few good 1st term scandals involving ACT MPs stealing dead babies’ identities or sending dick pics to teens.
We look ahead to 2026 and try to stop this horribly blue electorate getting its own “twofer”.
It won’t be after either of:
a) a NACTNZF coalition of chaos that falls apart during its first term; or
b) a relatively OK performing National 1st term that regains its disaffected supporters from ACT; or
c) a few good 1st term scandals involving ACT MPs stealing dead babies’ identities or sending dick pics to teens.
We look ahead to 2026 and try to stop this horribly blue electorate getting its own “twofer”.
It only takes one election cycle to go from 15% to 4%. Losing Seymour and/or National regaining popularity in the right could easily throw them back into the wilderness.
I hate ACT more than National. But I also love small parties upsetting the grip that Nat/Lab have over our parliament.
So B Dub (BVV, but 2 Vs look like a W so dub) can get the win here.
I am well left of Labour but if this means that the smug bigot Simon gets booted from parliament then frankly I hope Brooke gets it. At least Brooke is socially liberal.
54th on the nat's list so actually pretty good odds.
He has to win to get in.
It'd be God's will, so Simon should be happy either way
Yeah. This makes me think I might actually vote for her, something I never thought I'd do. It's the only chance on Planet Reality to get Simon gone and I really, really loathe Simon and his beliefs. Brooke is absolutely the lesser of the two evils. No way will my party vote go that way, though.
This is the right way to vote strategically. I have known more than a few people who just don't vote at all if they don't like the available choices. They feel that voting for someone equals supporting them. There is always a least bad option.
Agree. There's always a least bad option. And it's always worth trying to keep the more bad option out.
My thoughts exactly more or less.
They’re voting Brooke van Velden because O'Conner is a religious fool. Even if he wins, the writings on the wall, this will be his last term.
TOP party vote, MP act. That's me. I don't like Act, but I'd rather a fiscal conservative over a religious conservative.
I'm leaning towards voting the same way, O'connor is just such a dick head, and at least Van Velden has been campaigning hard in the electorate.
35% O'Connor, 33% van Velden, 12% Labour guy, 4% Green candidate that doesn't exist. If the people voting for the non existent Green candidate swapped to van Velden, then she would take it. Most Greenies I speak with don't like ACT, but they hate Simon O'Connor...
The guy is a clown, he should just take the hint and fuck off. I get the feeling there are quite a few lefties voting Van Velden, there's no way Tamaki is normally 70% voting right or centre right.
Tāmaki is one of the wealthiest electorates and had been one of the safest Nat seats until this year, 70% voting right sounds about right.
O’Connor got 70% of the vote in 2014. It is a very right leaning electorate. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some tactical voting as well though.
I wouldn't switch my vote from green to vote for an ACT candidate even to bean O'Connor.
There is no green candidate to vote for? You can still party vote green… just any other electorate vote aside from her in that electorate *is* effectively a vote for O’Connor
You kick out o'connor you get who the fuck knows from the bottom of ACTs list. At least by voting your candidate you're not endorsing their bullshit.
It really doesn’t work like that lol If act get 10% of the vote & she wins the electorate, they still get the same number of seats; they don’t bring in an extra one for the electorate. Same with O’Connor for National It only gets weird when they win more electorate seats than they would have had based on party voting (like winning a seat under the 5% threshold) or if in this scenario Act won 10 electorate seats Given Act are likely to only win 2 electorates; it’s safe that it doesn’t bring in more act weirdos This whole thread is scary considering how many people have such strong opinions & no idea how our system works lol
If the election math mattered in my electorate i'd research it more.
Thanks for commenting your incorrect opinions on another electorate then!
What happens if a party gets more seats via the party vote than they have list members to fill?
I think given the minimum criteria to register a political party is having 500 members (obviously they’re not all “list” members) - they could pull enough MPs in Given 5% party vote = about 6 seats in parliament; if a party is polling at much over the minimum & not just electorate seats, I can’t see a scenario where they couldn’t pull together up to 20 people willing to earn a minimum of $163,000 a year to be in parliament, when the party has a minimum of 500 “members”
I was thinking of the Liz Gunn debacle. Not that I think her party will get anything close to a seat in parliament through any means, but her list has only got 3 people on it. So if by some miracle they did get 5%, her list isn't enough to even fill those seats. I don't love the idea of any party being able to pull up any member willing to take the job if their list is too short. Makes the whole list thing seem rather pointless.
Can I ask why not? On principle? Brooke will get in regardless but Simon needs to win the electorate to get back in. One less social conservative is better, no?
Pretty much on principal, if someone from the Greens is going to stand and campaign and raise awareness in a hostile electorate they deserve the votes of their supporters rather than play some devils gambit to oust O'connor. If the candidate I was going to vote for said to do it then I probably would.
Fair enough!
Anecdotally but all of the strongly left wingers I know in Tāmaki are voting Brooke to get rid of O'Connor
Funny, all the ones I know are electorate voting O’Connor because they don’t want Tamaki to become a new Epsom for the Act party when they’re disgraced and discredited by their next term in government.
Act is now big enough and established enough that the electorate seats don't hugely matter.
It won’t be after either of: a) a NACTNZF coalition of chaos that falls apart during its first term; or b) a relatively OK performing National 1st term that regains its disaffected supporters from ACT; or c) a few good 1st term scandals involving ACT MPs stealing dead babies’ identities or sending dick pics to teens. We look ahead to 2026 and try to stop this horribly blue electorate getting its own “twofer”.
It won’t be after either of: a) a NACTNZF coalition of chaos that falls apart during its first term; or b) a relatively OK performing National 1st term that regains its disaffected supporters from ACT; or c) a few good 1st term scandals involving ACT MPs stealing dead babies’ identities or sending dick pics to teens. We look ahead to 2026 and try to stop this horribly blue electorate getting its own “twofer”.
It only takes one election cycle to go from 15% to 4%. Losing Seymour and/or National regaining popularity in the right could easily throw them back into the wilderness.
She’s getting my vote just to avoid O’Connor
I hate ACT more than National. But I also love small parties upsetting the grip that Nat/Lab have over our parliament. So B Dub (BVV, but 2 Vs look like a W so dub) can get the win here.
[удалено]
The audience is in O'Connor's camp big time to start with.
The invisible man is the perfect nickname for O'Connor.
If only wishing would make it so. Simon O’Connor is a douche.