Monday, 28 November 2011

DOWN TO THE DOCTOR’S: The real election result

_McGrath001Libz leader Dr Richard McGrath looks at who really won on Saturday night.

Let's check out the real result of Saturday night.

Total number of eligible voters by 5 p.m. Friday 25 November         3.054 million
Number of unregistered potential voters                                                     0.27 million
Total number of possible voters                                                                       3.261 million
Number of people who actually voted                                                           2.014 million
Number of people who did not vote but could have                1.247 million 
Turnout (number of voters/number of possible voters) =     61.8%

So, revised totals for the parties:

National                 29.7%
Labour                   16.7%
Greens                  6.6%
Winston                 4.2%
Cons                     1.7%
Others                    2.9%
And the winner, with 38.2% of possible votes is: NONE OF THE ABOVE

Together, a National-Labour 'Grand Coalition' would only have incorporated 46.4% of possible votes.

Which means no party has a “mandate” to govern as a result of this election.  The people have spoken: All the political parties on offer are dogshit.

And 45 seats in the new parliament should be left empty to reflect the real views of all New Zealanders.


  1. The only viable solution to the problems of Big Governement that I can see - increasingly lower and lower voter turn-out until there is scope for civil disobedience (primarily not paying taxes) due to the unrepresentative nature of parliament.

    I normally subsribe to Billy Connolly's theory of "don't vote, it only encourages them", but I did get out on the weekend to vote for Libz. I don't think I'll bother next time.

  2. 2,254,581 people voted. You're not counting special votes.

  3. @Bizarro #1: Those were the figures available last night.

    I will adjust the percentages once the final result is declared in December.

    That might reduce the number of empty seats down to 40 perhaps.

    @Sam: Thanks for your vote. Every tick for Libz is a kick in the face for Big Government.

  4. Heh. Leaving 45 seats empty would make no difference; if anything it'd only make it easier for the remaining arses to pass whatever nasty substance they want.

  5. Hal Incandenza28 Nov 2011, 19:02:00

    "All the political parties on offer are dogshit."

    Such a candid admission from the leader of a political party on offer. In fact given the number of votes you got, what you were offering was clearly less palatable than dogshit. Either that or you're very very very incompetent salesmen.

  6. Hal, you could be right there, perhaps the salemanship hasn't been what it could be. Do you have any positive suggestions to make?

  7. Richard
    It was suggested to me (on another blog) that libz promote "freedom of religion" whereas PC promotes "freedom from religion."

    What do you say libz promote "freedom of religion" or "freedom from religion?"

  8. Judge has never had any positive suggestions to make. It just sits on the sidelines, making sarcastic remarks that would get it punched in the face if it wasn't too cowardly to do it in person. That's why it hangs round blogs like a bad smell.

  9. ""Such a candid admission from the leader of a political party on offer""

    Perhaps you haven't noticed that if Libz got power there would be no more political parties! Not having taxation and slavery would mean they wouldn't have a chance to live off others and it would remove the parasites from our lives forever.

    Libz don't want to be politicians, they want to get rid of the whole class!

  10. well done on getting enough votes to get your deposit back....if thats still the case.

    Plenty of others didn't.

  11. "Judge has never had any positive suggestions to make. It just sits on the sidelines, making sarcastic remarks that would get it punched in the face if it wasn't too cowardly to do it in person. That's why it hangs round blogs like a bad smell."

    And has way too much time on his hands so spends all day reading second-rate (dystopic, lefty) novels and stealing pseudonyms from them.

    There is one blogger who has lately read the Incandenza books, so maybe it is him.

  12. Hal Incandenza29 Nov 2011, 07:04:00

    "It just sits on the sidelines, making sarcastic remarks that would get it punched in the face if it wasn't too cowardly to do it in person."

    Wow, great way to demonstrate libertarian principles! Great stuff! Keep it up guys.

  13. Wow, great way to demonstrate that all you can do is make sarcastic remarks. Great stuff! Keep it up Judge/Jol/Hal!

  14. Hal/Jol/Judge is actually that fat-fuck Martin Bradbury.

  15. @Reed: Definitely freedom OF religion - people should be free to worship what and however they please, until it impacts on the safety and privacy of others.

    @Hal: You seem to know about the libertarian principle of non-aggression; obviously you disagree with it, and believe the inititiation of force against people for social engineering purposes is OK. Correct?

  16. Hal Incandenza29 Nov 2011, 19:58:00

    "the libertarian principle of non-aggression..."

    Which is inviolable, except when it comes to invading Iraq, or nuking Iran, or bombing mosques like Peikoff's always advocating. tvr's ambitions are a little more modest, he just wants to punch people in the face when they disagree with him. To be fair though, he's all talk as he's too afraid of getting a traffic ticket to leave his house.

  17. Oh dear Hal, quoting your opponent's ideology back to him in the hope of winning an argument without taking a position?

    How very Alinsky of you.

    I notice you did not contradict the claim that you are, in fact, a bad smell.

  18. Mr Bradbury, invading Iraq was justified. Saddam gassed his own people (Kurds), that action alone is a justification of the invasion of Iraq. Any one had a right to invade Iraq based on the notion to protect the rights of the Kurds after Saddam gassed them, but that's not a duty. Do you see the difference?

    If not, then you ought to lose weight in order for you to get laid.

  19. @Hal/Bradbury: The use of defensive force is sanctioned by libertarians - I suspect you knew this already.

    You didn't answer my question - do you believe the initiation of force is justified for social engineering purposes?

  20. Amended vote proportions, with special votes taken into account:

    National 33.3%
    None 30.8
    Labour 18.7
    Greens 7.4
    Winston 4.7
    Cons 1.9
    Others 3.2

    So the number of seats in Parliament for each party, capping the total at 120, and with no 5%lower threshhold for party votes resulting in seats, and with empty seats allocated to None Of The Above:

    National 40
    Labour 22
    Greens 9
    Winston 6
    Maori 3
    Cons 2
    Mana 1
    ACT 1
    UF 1
    Empty Seats 35

    Total 120

    Savings to taxpayer = 35 x $141,800
    = $4,963,000

  21. "he just wants to punch people in the face when they disagree with him..."

    And Hal/Judge/Jol who has finally essentially admitted that he is the same one who was banned months ago just wants to make stuff up in order to stir.

    1: I said "you would get punched in the face if you acted this way in person", which is true. I didn't say I was going to do it. It's just a fact that if you went along to a group of any people and acted like you do here, you would almost certainly get the crap kicked out of you, because you richly deserve it.
    2: Second, you don't "disagree" with people, you just sit on the sidelines and snipe, because you're a cunt. You haven't ever made any actual arguments in your comments on this blog, because you don't have the intellectual skill to put any point forward. All you do is sneer and put other people down, which is pretty much the hallmark of lefties like you.

  22. Hal Incandenza30 Nov 2011, 07:11:00

    Stop blubbing twr, it's undignified. You live in a violent environment obviously, get some help.

    Richard, "defensive" is in the eye of the beholder. You can justify anything using that excuse. As evidenced by libertarian support for nuking Iran and bombing mosques.

    Your defensive force is another man's force for social engineering or economic purposes.

  23. Two imaginary things in the first line. Halucinations getting worse are they?

  24. @Hal/Bradbury: Personally I am opposed to bombing mosques and/or nuking Iran. And you will find libertarians such as U.S. Republican hopeful Ron Paul would not support it either. In fact, he advocates pulling the U.S. military forces out of all their outposts and concentrating on defending U.S. borders.


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.