Why we should not vote ACT/GREEN
It may seem a bit odd for me to attack both of these parties at the same time, but I am an "anti wingnut" so it is not very suprising - and i am a swing centerist voter (even if a little extreme in some areas). HOWEVER - my arguments are applicable to swing and wing nut voters and are applicable to varying degrees.
1) they are usually idealists. What is wrong with idealism? well immagine NZ is faced with a disaster - there is a simple solution but it contradicts the party's ideals. Do you want the party to make the right decision or the idealistic one? will they be able to make the right decision? When it becomes obvious that they are wrong will they realise it? If privitization was a disaster would act realise it? if environmental policy brought NZ's economy to its knees would the greens take action? Ideologues should be kept out of government for the same reason we dont want to be lead by religious leaders.
--------
In addition to that they have considerable potential to hurt their own side
1) a party like ACT or the greens does nothing except subtract 4% from the major party and risks that they will waste that vote. this is because on the whole only labour voters will defect to the greens and only national voters will defect to act. thus they dont support the major party they are a parisite of it. In addition they hurt the left in general because they fragment the right/left. this fragmentation means they loose economies of scale.
2) a party like act or the greens provides a strong potential for that 5% to represent a group outside the government. In fact a smart national/labour leader will exclude them to promote their own "mainstream" appeal.
3) small parties can promote ideals that are positively moronic and since they will NEVER have to deliver they can get away with it, worse yet much of the public may come to to believe their rubbish. Also they can take advantage of the parasite effect where they promote policies that cause damage and the other party needs to go to considerable lengths to clean up their messes they can then blame any problems on the other party.
4) they promote extreemism and polarization in the public.
I suggest we cut the extreemists loose.
Don't vote green or ACT - forget about tactical voting (which to an extent subverts democracy I note) and throw your support behind the central parties.
1) they are usually idealists. What is wrong with idealism? well immagine NZ is faced with a disaster - there is a simple solution but it contradicts the party's ideals. Do you want the party to make the right decision or the idealistic one? will they be able to make the right decision? When it becomes obvious that they are wrong will they realise it? If privitization was a disaster would act realise it? if environmental policy brought NZ's economy to its knees would the greens take action? Ideologues should be kept out of government for the same reason we dont want to be lead by religious leaders.
--------
In addition to that they have considerable potential to hurt their own side
1) a party like ACT or the greens does nothing except subtract 4% from the major party and risks that they will waste that vote. this is because on the whole only labour voters will defect to the greens and only national voters will defect to act. thus they dont support the major party they are a parisite of it. In addition they hurt the left in general because they fragment the right/left. this fragmentation means they loose economies of scale.
2) a party like act or the greens provides a strong potential for that 5% to represent a group outside the government. In fact a smart national/labour leader will exclude them to promote their own "mainstream" appeal.
3) small parties can promote ideals that are positively moronic and since they will NEVER have to deliver they can get away with it, worse yet much of the public may come to to believe their rubbish. Also they can take advantage of the parasite effect where they promote policies that cause damage and the other party needs to go to considerable lengths to clean up their messes they can then blame any problems on the other party.
4) they promote extreemism and polarization in the public.
I suggest we cut the extreemists loose.
Don't vote green or ACT - forget about tactical voting (which to an extent subverts democracy I note) and throw your support behind the central parties.
posted by Genius at 1:34 AM
4 Comments:
The one thing that the libz have given ACT is respectability. The libertarianz have distracted all the wingnuts, so a vote for ACT is guaranteed nutter free.
>Do you want the party to make the right decision or the idealistic one?
I think you give an example of the kind of disaster you're talking about. I can't imagine any that would breach party principles. I think both parties would want to react to the distaster asap. (Reacting to a disaster is also an executive function, rather than a legislative one. I don't see how the party in power has much influence) You need to define "right" decision. Because, for someone with an idealogy, following their idealogy is the right decision.
(Greens bias coming in) It's also far more likely that being environmentally unfriendly will cause economic collapse. Oil will run out, climate change will bring more hurricanes.
>a party like ACT or the greens does nothing except subtract 4% from the major party
If this were true, then you wouldn't be writing this post. Minor parties play role a big role, that's why they can be scary.
>thus they dont support the major party they are a parisite of it.
There is the fact that there is dissention in a democracy. Not eveyone agrees with Lab/Nat. Those people deserve an indepent voice, rather than being consumed by a one-size-fits all political party.
> a smart national/labour leader will exclude them
I agree with this point. The thing with MMP is that big parties are forced to deal with them.
>small parties can promote ideals that are positively moronic and since they will NEVER have to deliver [on them]
Every small party that has been in Government since 1996 has got something out of being in power. And, how does the inability to bring about change make the ideals moronic?
Anonymous has a point if that is indeed the case. If act can convince me they are not the reservoir for wing nuts I might stop being a thorn in their side. I wish they had more detailed policies though.
---
My point is you can’t even achieve your OWN aims when you are an idealist of the type that I refer – that’s why I was talking about a disaster – I was pointing to a situation where everyone wants the same thing. For example you might oppose GE on ideological grounds and therefore not consider any potential for it to resolve problems. Or oppose big business on ideological grounds and not consider how it might be used to achieve your aims.
> Minor parties play role a big role, that's why they can be scary.
> Those people deserve an indepent voice.
Yes – but in the bigger scheme of things I want to discourage them having that position. So a nazi might deserve a vote but I don’t want him to be a nazi.
> And, how does the inability to bring about change make the ideals moronic?
It doesn’t MAKE the ideas moronic that is not where the cause and effect relationship lies.
What does that is people looking from the outside thinking there are easy solutions. It is a bit like a person looking at a bridge and saying "engineers are stupid they should make bridges like this". In reality they don’t know the basics of what it takes to build a bridge because they have never done it and since they know they will never have to it is a waste of their time to learn. The incentives are wrong.
this is related to how we elect politicians based on the popularity of their arguments as opposed to expertise in the areas required (this has benefits and problems)
> Minor parties play role a big role, that's why they can be scary.
maybe I was exgerating ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home