Wednesday, 17 September 2008

Who's for a poke in the eye, then?

Imagine you're confronted in the street by a bully who insists you “make a choice":  "Do you want a punch in the nose, or a poke in the eye?” 

Isn't choosing either one or other wrong?  By choosing either, says the Tomahawk Kid, you are giving them your permission to do both!

So if you wouldn't make that choice, why do you vote for the lesser of two evils?  Isn't it the same?

You wouldn't do it Obama McCain -- you shouldn't do it with McBama and O'Cain -- so why do it here at home?

The only wasted vote is a vote for someone who's going to do you over.


  1. Too bloody right. My vote will go to the Libertarianz. It is a principle vote. There may not be a chance of the libz making it to government but even if they pick up 1 or 2 percent it will register

  2. Good on you Dinther.

    Remember, it is about getting the ideas into government - not necessarily Libz. Every principled vote counts therefore.


  3. Yes Julian, I finally got to grips with that and I am very active on political threads in various forums to try to point out there are more than two parties.

    My wife initially said she would not vote as she doesn't like a poke in the eye. Now we both think that a vote for the libz is the perfect signal to send to the current clowns in Wellington. (I wish they were clowns. At least that is funny)

  4. Your ideas do NOT get into government Julian. That is a fantasy.

    Libz say that as an excuse for failure at the ballot box. "Oh but our IDEAS are getting there". They are not.

    Most NZers want to be rid of Clark and co - therefore they need to vote National. Not Libz or ACT or Greens. National. You can go on from there.

    First we need to get Labour out of office.

  5. "we need to get Labour out of office."

    Agreed. But to what end if that means replacing it with nearly the same in essentials? Isn't that like false economy?

    I suggest that light(er) socialism is even more dangerous - long-term - than bad old red socialism, because the parasites soon start to scream for the 'good old days', aided and abetted by the red bureaucracy, themselves in no hurry to change spots.

    Half-cocked is still cocked.

  6. Come on Ruth, when was the last time there was a non Labour/National party running the show?

    "National. You can go on from there." ... means go on to Labour.

    People need to stop treating voting as a sport that needs to be won. I bet half the population votes for who they think will be the winner.

    I would like it if the libz get a few percent just enough to be noticed. But I do agree that there are better ways to push the message and I have started to do that in my own way and I think I do get some traction.

  7. Yeah Ruth, Yeah, yeah, yeah. Same mindless bullshit from you.

    First, "we need to get Labour out of office." So in goes your National rulers AGAIN. Then, once they are in and ruling, and you think everyone has forgotten what you supported, you'll be writing things like, "we need to get National out of office". And around you'll go again and again, exactly as you've done in the past. An utterly mindless, imbecilic cycle of crap.


  8. Vote Labor. Another 2 to 3 terms under Clark and the country will be utterly wrecked leaving it wide open for a genuine small government party.

  9. McBama and O'Cain, heh, that's a good one.

  10. So I presume that with National in power we'll see great opportunities for choice in education, less bureaucracy, more property rights and government spending reducing as a proportion of GDP (like even the Lib Dems and Tories in the UK advocate).

    No - National wants virtually no change in education, to retain all current bureaucracies, to do next to nothing about the RMA, except to advance government sponsored infrastructure projects, and to grow government spending at less than 9% per annum.

    The only good thing about getting Labour out is removing Clark and the off chance that the Electoral Finance Act is repealed.

    After that, it will be more pablum, but I guess those of us who believe in freedom should shut up and be grateful that the National party - that grand defender of freedom over the decades, is governing us all. Yeah, let's vote for that.


  11. libertyscott, you don't think National's 'grand' plan could be being Labour-lite to get in, then all things going well, going for proper reform in the second term when they've 'earned the trust of the electorate'? There are those in the party who are more right wing than the current lot, so I don't think there would be much in the way of party revolt in such a change of direction..

  12. Do the NZ Libz want a change in the threshold for MMP? Surely if it was much lower, people wouldn't think a vote for Libz was a wasted one!

  13. ".. you don't think National's 'grand' plan could be being Labour-lite to get in .."

    So deceit's ok, Stephen? Gee, little wonder the general opinion of politicians couldn't be lower. Why should they be frightened of broadcasting the principles of private enterprise, for goodness sake? The party was founded upon those principles. They should be shouting privatisation and free markets for all to hear. Didn't Lockwood Smith proudly state that "Freedom matters" this time, three years ago? Whatever happened to that?

    "Do the NZ Libz want a change in the threshold for MMP?"

    This libertarian wants to see the end of MMP.

  14. sus, deceit is not quite what I meant. I meant if they do a good job in the first term i.e. 'don't screw up' basically, then run on platform of right wing policies that they actually like, the electorate would probably be more inclined to give them a go based on how super things went in the first term.

    What would replace MMP?

  15. I know what you meant, Stephen, but it doesn't change the fact that they'd be campaigning dishonestly. As for its outcome, I stand by my first post re deficiencies in short-term gain. If you believe in something, at least have the moral fortitude to promote it.

    I never supported MMP (was out of the country at the time & never heard the arguments *for it) so voted against it, based on what I *did* know .. that Italy had a proportional representation system which resulted in its having something like 40 govts in fewer than 40 years directly after WW2, the average life of each being approx 9 mo.

    Of the three systems known to us, I like the sound of STV where a voter lists his candidates in order of preference.

    *I understand one of its greatest proponents was the late Rod Donald. And haven't the Greens done well out of MMP ..

  16. Mmm, yes I suppose STV would do away with the need for a lower threshold under MMP.

    Sorry, me sarcasm-o-meter is broken re: Greens doing well out of think they have or not?

  17. Ha! Yes, I meant that the Greens have done very well out of it.

    Eg: Sue Bradford in Rodney collected something like 100 electoral votes. Could have been 200ish .. bugger all, anyway. And yet look at her individual influence.

  18. Yes the Greens really have more of a national constituency...Bradford really is bloody Superwoman - just got a Bill passed that didn't even have a vote on the 3rd reading cos everyone loved it.

  19. Ruth, I agree that votes should be used to get rid of Labour, but disagree that they need to go to National, which is too wishywashy. They can also go to parties that have a decent chance of having representation after the election yet would be highly unlikely to go into coalition with Labour - this election, only Act and the Family Party, so there are two to choose between depending on your views. Everyone else would deal with either or only with Labour.

    If Libz had a decent chance of getting an electorate seat they would also be worth considering to get rid of Labour, but until then a vote for them will be wasted.

  20. Stephen - I've yet to see the government that waits till it has been in one term before implementing its most challenging, adventurous policies.

    If the Nats win and spend 3 years doing very little, the next election wont be the Nats arguing for radical change. Quite simply those who want more freedom in National DON'T fight for it, by and large, they can't argue convincingly for less government.

    In short, the political agenda remains set by the left

  21. Stephen, you can call me old fashioned if you like...but I would replace MMP with the previous electoral system.

    Back then we had a situation whereby the person elected was the one...ummmmm...with the most votes.

    (I know you are probably scratching your head about this, but yes, let's have the most popular chap winning an election)

  22. Libertyscott, some would argue that the agenda has been set by the right since Rogernomics - 'which of his policies has been repealed?' etc but at the moment the right is a bit stagnant, yes.

    elijah, you obviously aren't a small party supporter... :-D but anyway it was the party that won the most seats that won under FPP, not the most votes - there were a few elections where one party lost, even though they had more votes, it was farcical!

  23. Stephen...the chap with the most votes in each electorate won.

    Quite simple, really.

    If you were not so pussy whipped and socialist you would happily advocate a return to that situation.

    As for small parties...all of them except the Libz have been a dismal failure. Good Riddance!

  24. Ah I thought you were talking nationally. I prefer to have my vote count, which is not necessarily the case with electorate voting.

    Unless you're joking, how have the Libz not been a failure? I'm sure some parties would argue they've done well too...


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.