Monday, 21 November 2011

Who to vote for this election

I have a few minor quibbles with some of his choices—and many of his choices will surely surprise you as much as they did me—but if you want to know who to vote for and who to ignore in your electorate this Saturday, then Liberty Scott's patented New Zealand election 2011 electorate by electorate voting guide is essential reading.

And no, it’s hardly part-led or partisan, as this party breakdown proves:

26 ACT candidates
11 from Labour
9 from National
8 Libertarianz candidates
8 from Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
2 Independent candidates, and
1 from the Maori Party

In addition, there are 4 Abstentions where all the alternatives are just too disgusting to contemplate.  Which is currently my position in my own electorate of Epsom.

PS: I’ll give you my own,shorter voting guide later in the week. Who to vote for, and who to vote against.  And who to be so disgusted by that any action against, anything at all, should be contemplated.


  1. I was just about to ask you who you were going to vote for in Epsom. Looks we have the same idea.

  2. Richard McGrath21 Nov 2011, 20:21:00

    It is very important that voters spoil their voting papers rather than staying at home if they are too revolted by the choice of candidates offered to back any of them.

    I remember casting a special invalid vote in the 1990 election, as I was working on election day and wanted to let the troughers know that they were bastards.

  3. I'm already waivering on Pita Sharples with his call for special rights for Iwi in buying SOE shares.

  4. Voting is for proles.

  5. I think STV is the way to go. (Short of splitting NZ into self-governing cantons)

    At least STV lets you vote for talent, who may not all be in the same party.

  6. Grey Lynn Resident22 Nov 2011, 14:53:00

    I'll be voting for Jacinda Ardern, because she's hot. Is there any hot looking Libz female candidate for Auckland Central? I'll give her my vote, if not, then I'll vote Jacinda.

  7. Why don't you Libz give party votes to ACT? Forget about the Libz. It is dead. Everything you touch is disaster. Look at what Lindsay Perigo did with Brash when he advised him to promote the legalization of Marijuana? Mr Periogo tried to use Brash/ACT as his vehicle to push these idiotic liberatarians non-important issues such as, legalizing Marijuana.

    This is not an issue that affects the daily life of NZ voters and it is beyond belief that fucktard Libz don't see that.

    You have fucked up the Libz from 5000 votes in the late 1990s to 30 votes in the last election and now you're fucking up the ACT party with that idiotic advise from Perigo to Don Brash about legalizing Marijuana.

    I hope that sensible people in the Libz, should wake up now and realize that the party had been hijacked by the Objectivists. It is the Objectivists that give the Libz the bad image and not the Libz philosophies per se. Wake up young Libz, take ownership of your own party. How many true Libz like Tim Whikirik & Richard Goode have to leave the party before you wake up one day and it is too late?

  8. Grey Lynn Resident, just check the Libz website because you may find that the Libz only hot chick candidate for Central Auckland, Ms Eli Linebery. Give your vote to Ms Lineberry.

  9. Grey Lynn Resident - You're not old enough to vote yet, and besides your hand will be too occupied on the day.

    Act Youth - Setting aside the likelihood you are too young to vote (given the spelling), you're not fucking deserving of the vote of a libertarian if you think the legal status of marijuana is a non issue. Given you decided to engage in insults, I'll feel free to express my anger back.

    You think you know better than any adult as to what he can put in his body AND you think it's "not an issue" that the adult can be incarcerated as a criminal for doing something that doesn't fucking affect you. If you can't grasp that basic point, then fuck you. It might not affect you, it doesn't actually affect me, but it affects some people - individuals, the most oppressed minority of all. You're supposed to fucking care about them, but no - it's about gaining power, and screw the people in prison for not harming anyone else.

    Would you have thought the same 30 years ago when homosexuality was a crime? It "doesn't affect the daily life of NZ voters".

    You wonder why the hell most voters are turned off you, it's simple. When Brash raised the issue, thousands of people opened their eyes and thought differently about him and ACT, for a week or so, until you lily livered little pseuds shut it down.

    You've had three years to achieve something and you've achieved one thing - voluntary student union membership, whilst sitting by while property rights were eviscerated in downtown Christchurch and were arm in arm part of creating NZ's biggest local bureaucracy. Pardon me if I'm underwhelmed. Even Peter Dunne got a bureaucracy he WANTED. Then you have John Banks, a man whose record is less consistent on small government than Phil Goff!

    Meanwhile, if you want to know what screwed up ACT, look in the mirror. It's pseudo-"individual freedom" activists who when it comes to the crunch, don't actually believe in what they say they stand for. John Banks is a great poster child for that.

    I was extremely close to voting ACT not that long ago, because I have enormous time and respect for Don Brash and I saw signs he was actually going to open up this end of the spectrum to voters far wider than the people only concerned about economics. Think how many young people, easily seduced by the Greens, may have thought again if ACT had even just called for a review of the drugs laws and legalisation of medical use of marijuana, insisted on private property rights being central to replacing the RMA and rejected John Banks.

    Had ACT done that, then it would have changed the landscape.

    I still wish it would.

  10. Thank you Scott,
    You did a darn good job of venting my anger too. I feel better now.
    And I might add the Libz had that high support when Perigo was leader.

  11. Well said Scott. Brash's comments on marijuana were a perfect opportunity lost. ACT could have shifted the debate back to a fundamental debate about individual freedom. Precisely because it caused so much shock, they would have had centre stage explaining to the electorate why there was no inconsistency between legalising marijuana and economic freedom, and made a big step towards changing mindsets. Instead they've consigned themselves to irrrelevancy, with the vast majority of the electorate still believing they're all about protecting the 'rich'.

    There's a legitimate debate to be had about how best to make political gains that roll back the state. Is it via a 'purist' party like Libz? Or are we better off with a broader political alliance that focuses on the narrower issues we can agree on, (eg: reducing gov't expenditure), and intentionally puts to the side the issues we don't agree on - something like the more successful elements of the Tea Party in the US. Either way, I think ACT is going nowhere now and their brand can't recover. Better that it dies and we start from scratch.

  12. Ditto what the last 3 odd commentators said...ACT youth...shut up you clueless tard.

  13. ACT Youth is right. The issue of drug legalization only matters to a miniscule group cloistered, fringe nutjobs who turn up and vote ALCP or Libertarianz. (In the case of the Libertarianz a paltry 1000 votes last time)

    The problem with the Libertarianz is that they are such an insular group-think gang of circlejerkers, but they don't even know that they're an insular group-think gang of circlejerkers.

  14. Act has lost all credibility with its core constituency.

    Their MPs were sent to parliament with specific instructions - keep the Nats honest.

    What they ended up doing was voting for the three biggest budgets the country has ever seen, and playing silly fucking power games between themselves while getting lost on pointless issues like Auckland and three strikes.

    Now, they stand in front of you with a straight face and say that if you vote Act they will make sure that govt spending is slashed, and expect us to believe it.

    If they had any idea why the fuck they were there, they would have torn up the coalition agreement as soon as National reversed the tax cuts. That would have got them huge publicity and the reputation for being principled, rather than just holding on the their baubles.

    Since they have promised to support National unconditionally in the next government, and they are beholden to the Nats for their existence, there is simply no chance whatsoever that anything will change.

    But, Act Youth, you obviously don't care about substance, and therefore will just keep voting for them no matter what.

  15. @Blue Lib & Act Youth:

    So your argument is at one and the same time that Libertarianz is so ineffective we can barely walk across the road without our mothers holding our hands, yet so effective that we have single-handedly brought down the ACT Party.

    So apparently we are both effective and ineffective, both insular and outgoing, both unable to do anything at all and able to destroy your favourite party.

    Some astounding logic there, guys.

    Can I suggest you look closer to home for the destruction of ACT, particularly to its increasing embracing of pragmatism over the principles it once claimed to stand for.

    Frankly, I look forward to the destruction of ACT so that the better people within it can put themselves to a more honest use.

  16. I'll definitely give my vote to the Libz. I voted National in 2008 and NZ First in 2005. I realized that I was a sucker for voting for those 2 socialist parties.

    Kurt, can I take Ms Ela Lineberry home with me at the election night after the polling booth is officially closed? I'll give Ms Lineberry a tick for the electoral candidate and another tick to the Libz for party vote.

  17. Christian Libz23 Nov 2011, 14:16:00

    I looks like that Libz candidate for Kaikoura, Ian Hayes is a Christian.

    There is so much anti-christian posts here on this blog, that I doubt Ian Hayes will stick around long enough to be a candidate again in the next election (2014). There's so much vile about christians here. Just look at 2 chrisitans non-objectivits , Tim Whikiriki and Richard Goode who already left the Libz.

  18. @Christian Libz: I think your example refutes in one hit the allegation that religionists are unwelcome in Libz.

    My position on this FWIW is that everyone, members and non-members alike, is perfectly free to subscribe to whatever superstitions they like in the privacy of their own home, but if they try to draw political conclusions therefrom they should desist. Religion and politics, church and state, are and should remain separate.

  19. @Christian Libz

    Please point to a single Libertarianz press release that is anti-christian. Please show a single official statement from the party leadership that is anti-religion. Libertarianz advocates a separation of church and state, if you can believe in that, then you can worship the fairy god mother for all I care.

    I had the privilege of meeting with Ian Hayes and he is a fine candidate of upmost integrity. He is most welcome in Libertarianz as is anyone who advocates for liberty.

  20. Re persecution of those accused of victimless crimes. An unimportant issue? Do you want NZ to head in this direction?

    According to the most recent available statistics regarding incarceration, however, people convicted of actual crimes compose a very small minority of America’s vast and growing federal prison population. As of 2009, crimes of violence accounted for roughly eight percent of that total, and property crimes contributed a bit less than six percent. More than half of all inmates were convicted of non-violent drug offenses, and thirty-five percent were caged for what are called “public order” offenses.
    Libertarian activist Michael Suede points out that eighty-six percent of all federal inmates were punished for what are called “victimless crimes” – that is to say, offenses not properly described as crimes at all. It is reasonable to assume that similar trends exist at the state and local level as well.

  21. LibertyScott, I think you misunderstood my post. I was saying that Lindsay Perigo fucked it up for Don/ACT when he pushed the legalization marijuana issue, while in fact, there are more things to push especially on election time. I'm a supporter of legalization issue (and so as many ACT acolytes out there), however, it is a fucking stupid issue to bring up especially when election is 3 weeks away (when Brash made that mistake).

    There are more urgent issues for Brash/ACT to address rather than fucking stupid marijuana legalization and if you fucking blind to see that, then you're also stupid. If Perigo had a fucking brain he would have advised Brash to bang on the issue of fiscal responsibility. No one gives a fuck if you smoke marijuana or not and that's what I meant. However, everyone is going to be affected by this huge debt we're facing today. That's what's important.

    You're right that it is an issue for the Libz, but fucking try harder to get your message to the public, then you can fuck it up for yourself. Don't try and piggyback on another party like ACT which has got MPs in order to deliver your fucking poison message through. Try and do it on your own. See how many people will listen. In real life, you have to start from somewhere, then work your way up through the issues.

    Libz don't see it that way. If the smart enough, you'll concentrate on a few policies that matter to voters, then work your way from there. You're preaching too many confusing messages to voters which they have no fucking clue to what the Libz is standing for. Learn how to crawl before you preach of how to walk. Fuckn and start somewhere first, because at this stage, the Libz have nothing to stand on. Remember, the voters are the ones who decide, not your excellent philosophies, and that's what you Libz are to dumb to fuck'n see.

  22. ActYouth - I am glad we agree on principles, but we disagree on tactics.

    I don't think marijuana legalisation is a top profile issue, but I think tactically it WAS the right thing to say. Brash simply floating that the status quo isn't working DOES allow some to infer a view of legalisation, but who seriously could portray him as being motivated primarily about drugs.

    What it did do, was briefly, differentiate ACT from the bland "me too" party one step to the "right" of the Nats (which doesn't mean much). You saw leftwing, liberal and younger commentators go "wow didn't see that coming", and it opened ears to consider the other messages.

    It COULD have commanded a great deal of respect, and harvested a few percent of votes from new voters that may have gone Green. It didn't need to be a big deal, but it could have been put across as being consistent with being fiscally responsible, consistent with foreign free market think tanks (Adam Smith Institute, Cato) and that Portugal has seen positive results in reducing harm, and costs. Most of all the argument can be made that what adults do in their own homes, without children around, isn't the state's business.

    National could then jump up and down and say no no no, Labour could too, but the Greens might have nodded and acknowledged "fair call".

    I have already said on my own blog that ACT should have offered clear messages about reducing government spending-addressing the deficit, private property rights, reforming "public services" to put consumers first and one law for all.

    Libertarianz is actually sending a clear message, smaller government, lower taxes, get rid of pointless bureaucracies. It's clearer than ACT's.

    The only publicity ACT has substantively gained since the marijuana speech is the cup of tea/Epsom distraction. That, the selection of John Banks - a laugh if you are playing the fiscally prudent card given his record - and the almost asinine campaign has been a flop.

    However, I hope I'm wrong. I hope that ACT gets some seats and starts actually talking the talk and walking the walk, and John Banks has transformed into a fiscally prudent believer in individual rights, rather than profligate believer in Police powers. Unfortunately, I don't have enough evidence that he is, or will be, and can't spend the next three years knowing that I've endorsed that.


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.