Public Address - Club Politique (Home)

E Noho Tatou | Apr 17, 2006 20:00

Since my last engagement with the issue of the Māori seats, National has again attempted to depict the racial divide as something we all need to be concerned about. The good news for everyone is that it just didn't really fly this time. Even attempts to dogwhistle this one on a centre-right blog only garnered about seven comments.

The mention of the matter piqued my interest though, so I took the time to track down Prof. Jack Vowles of Auckland University. Jack has a long track record writing and studying electoral politics, and currently heads up the New Zealand Election Study, and is a great place to start if you're interested in the actual details of how all the MMP elections have shaped up.

I'll get to the commentary, but let's start with the guts of the questions Jack answered about the nature of the Māori seats, and that pesky overhang.

Dr. Che It's common in the blogsphere for people to accuse the Māori seats of being anti-democratic for a number of reasons, and for these same commentators to claim that vote-splitting aggravates this 'gerrymandering'. While the seats do have lower turn-outs than general electorates, and slightly lower populations (and consequently return members on lower numbers), I can't see how that constitutes a gerrymander?

Prof. Vowles It's not [a gerrymander]. We don't draw electoral boundaries based on the numbers who vote, but instead on the basis of 'electoral population' that includes people who may not vote (including children!). If we allocated Māori seats on the basis of voters only, but drew general electorate boundaries on the basis of electoral population, that would be racial discrimination.

Dr. Che More what I'm trying to drive at is the 'ethnic gerrymander' argument floated by opponents of the Māori seats. If the seats are an inappropriate aggregation of a 'natural political community' of some sort, then there is the chance that it is a gerrymander, despite being procedurally fair.

Prof. Vowles The concept of an 'ethnic gerrymander' doesn't stand up. The overhang is an artefact of MMP and keeping the Māori seats under that system - which the Royal Commission recommended abandoning. It's a problem for both MMP and Māori politics - the overhang does raise legitimacy issues that Māori should be careful about but no one planned it as such. [Consequently, t]he Māori Party needs to be careful that it is not seen as seeking to exploit the overhang excessively.

Dr. Che Obviously it was split voting that caused the current overhang, and in another blog I tried to argue that vote splitting is not characteristic of the Māori seats. Put very simply, enough citizens voted for Māori Party candidates to ensure that, in proportion to the nationwide vote, they were due four seats had they not split their votes.

Prof. Vowles Well, it's simply not the case. The Māori Party would have only got three seats on the basis of the party vote alone, which is calculated as close to proportionality as is possible in the circumstances. The extra seat is an overhang, and if this goes further - as it could - proportionality will suffer even more from high split voting in Māori seats.

Split voting, as you say, happens in general electorates too for similar reasons - but not so far to the extent of an overhang [this is because a party like ACT may win one seat, but have enough Party votes to ensure they have their share, two seats. Had ACT won three electorates on the same Party vote, the last seat would have been an overhang].

Dr. Che Your reply suggests that the Māori seats do incline voters towards voting for a particular party.

Is there any indication that Māori voting is effected by the (relative) ethnic homogeneity of the seats? Or do you think that recent split voting is a reaction to the somewhat 'anti-Māori' campaign conducted by National et al?

Prof. Vowles Voting among Māori in the Māori seats is different than that among Māori on the general roll. But this is a selection effect. By and large, Māori on the Māori roll identify more strongly as Māori and with a specifically Māori politics.

Dr. Che I see, so do we have any data or information about voting among Māori not on the Māori roll? Do they vote in much the same patterns as other voters?

Prof. Vowles We have data from the 1999 Māori Election Study - Māori on the general roll tend to vote more like non-Māori.

Dr. Che I realise that Māori have traditionally favoured Labour, but is there any evidence that this behaviour continues because of habit? Or are there indicators that Māori continue to vote for this party because of a lack of viable alternatives?

Prof. Vowles In the past, the main non-selection effect on Māori voting on the Māori roll has been low turnout - because the seats were safe Labour, under FPP there was less incentive to vote. Under MMP, that's changed, but the pattern of lower Māori turnout generated under FPP survives to some extent as a kind of historical 'footprint'. [FPP is the pre-MMP system]

Māori have traditionally voted Labour because Māori were working class and/or welfare beneficiaries and voted Labour for the same reasons as Pakeha in those positions. In addition, there was the Ratana effect and a lot of work put in by Labour politicians at the elite level from the 30s onward.

Māori are less likely to vote Labour now because they were really annoyed by the foreshore/seabed legislation. National['s post-Orewa policies] had an 'egging on' role in this to some extent, but National is peripheral in Māori politics.

Dr. Che Finally, what is your thought in response to the suggestion that the best solution to this issue may well be better campaigning in the Māori seats by National? At the last general election National received a paltry <1% of its party vote in the Māori seats, with numbers of ballots cast being much the same as 2002. Meanwhile, Labour received <8% of its party vote in these same electorates (with NZF receiving much the same proportion).

Perhaps the issue isn't the 'ethnic gerrymander' problem, but the lack of campaigning?

Prof. Vowles National could campaign as much as it liked in the Māori seats but I doubt it would have much success unless it developed policies and linkages with Māori that would give Māori more incentive to vote National. "One law for all" is hardly going to do that. National would have to change its policy stance, and I don't see that happening in a major way. As far as Māori are concerned, National is a minor party not much more attractive to them as Act is to New Zealanders in general!

What I gleaned from the question/answer emails is that the overhang isn't so much a direct product of the Māori seats, rather a natural feature of MMP exacerbated by tactical voting. Consequently what could be seen as alliance-building, encouraging constituents to split votes to aid potential coalition partners, ends up producing an overhang.

And interestingly the inability of one major party, National, to appeal to these constituents means that the voters are likely to always vote against them, increasing the likelihood of an overhang that favours their opponents.

So if we abolish the Māori seats voters formerly on the Māori role are likely to vote against National, because the party currently offers no appeal to this constituency. So we might not get an overhang, but National would find it harder to win a number of electorates.

At present these people are 'confined' to the Māori roll, but this seems to favour National. The impact of this 'confinement' on General Roll seats with high numbers of voters on the Māori roll should be obvious, as it was under the old FPP system. We might not have had to deal with John Banks, for starters.

What I would like to offer though is an interesting scenario. Let's pretend that National had campaigned in the Māori seats, with policies that appealed to this distinct constituency. Obviously we can't know the outcome of this, because it may not have resulted in so many votes for Māori Party, it may have resulted in dramatically fewer votes for Labour (because they didn't present the only viable coalition partner), National had a strategy of actively suppressing minor parties, there is always variation in voting patterns between seats... the permutations go on forever.

But if you bear with me, even with the traditional low turn-out the Māori seats offered over 79,000 votes for the two major parties in 2005. When the difference between Labour and National was as few as 45,000 votes, you've got to wonder what would have happened if National had campaigned with policies to win the votes on offer. As it was they won less than 6,000 votes in these seven seats. The assumption they could have won half of those 79,000 is probably too large, but even 20,000 would have made a difference to their overall vote.

In fact, using the calculator at the Electoral Commissions website and assuming all other variables to remain the same, a swing of 20,000 votes in the Māori seats would have given one further list seat to National. The less likely "half of the major party votes from the Māori electorates" would have would have given National two list seats, and taken two from Labour.

Perhaps wedge politics isn't quite the right strategy?

Digg this Scoopit!

Too lazy to write | Apr 13, 2006 16:26

Happy Easter people, and don't forget about the baby Jesus (oh, and I couldn't resist copying Keith's very humorous bylines).

Digg this Scoopit!

Who's got the goods? | Apr 09, 2006 09:07

After attending the 'Public Sector blogger' discussion at the National Archives last week I thought I'd better give you all a run down of what was said. Especially in relation to the important question: "that suppression order, and writing about stuff when you aren't technically supposed to have an opinion". Problematically, I wanted to also try to finally give you the run-down on where I reckon all the best noodles are.

A conundrum it seems. Let me answer this problem by just stating the obvious. Eat more fowl. You know the little bastards are asking for it. With their beady little eyes and freakish-skinned feet...

For those of you who aren't here for the noodle talk, just skip past the blockquote.

One good place is HK Cafe on Cambridge Terrace. The décor is conversely hip or tacky depending on which way you're facing in the restaurant, but the BBQ duck on rice is a great deal at $9.50. And seriously tasty. They also do a very reasonably priced dumpling soup that should not be overlooked. Although, I discovered last night that the wonton noodle soup is the exorbitant price of $10.50! All in all though it's the most authentic restaurant of its type I've encountered in Wellington.

The next, and little-known, place is Tans BBQ. With no street frontage it's not easy to find, and hides in behind the Fish N' Chip place next to the A-Mart over the road from New World. To be honest? The BBQ Duck soup ($8.50) is served simply and in foam bowls, but the duck far surpasses HK Cafe. There are too many noodles in there, and the décor is pretty much "Alley-chic", but who the hell cares?

For simple wonton noodle soups I'd recommend two separate places. Upstairs at whatsamathingo in Manners Mall, and Basin Noodles on Adelaide Rd. The former involves trying not to look like you've been into the porno stores when you go to leave the building, but they do a great lunch. What I'd consider 'real' egg noodles, decent amounts of BBQ pork, and a great chicken broth. The latter has the exact same dish, but far, far better. For the glorious price of $6.5 you get to share a table with a stranger in a slightly dingy premises and indulge in probably the best noodles in town. I've eaten there a number of times, and you're guaranteed to get a huge bowl of noodles topped with shrimp, BBQ pork, home-made wontons, the works. But! In an extra bonus you also (on occasion, it's a bit erratic) get some kind of savoury chilli sauce and a type of vinegar to garnish the dish. Fantastic.

Ok. Now for serious business. The public sector bloggers talk I attended last Thursday was interesting. It was myself, Tom from WellUrban, Hayden from Grabthars Hammer, and Geoff of Thorndon Bubble, and we ranged across a number of subjects.

I had kind of wanted to expand the issue of free speech and the obligation to adhere to the Public Service Code of Conduct, but we never really got round to it. As it turns out I pretty much said everything I needed to say back in November of last year, and I still concur with many of the points I made in that post. And that includes the effective suppression of a democratic voice the Code of Conduct creates.

The Nichols case featured fairly heavily in discussion though, which is hardly surprising considering the timing. I'm drawing a long bow, but in a way the Code of Conduct acts like a suppression order because it ensures that particular ideas and knowledge are not discussed openly in the public sphere. Sure people will discuss their gripes and ideas between friends, but airing these ideas in public is not advisable.

By way of example, a few weeks ago I learned the details of the emails that are/were being circulated about the Nichols case, but did not air them here. You can guarantee that it would have pushed my readership through the roof, as Farrar is doing (and as is common to many bloggers), but do I really need that much attention?

The simple fact of the matter is that, despite the suppression order, cops are just not the sort of people you want to fuck with. My most recent official interactions with police have been on the whole very positive, but growing up in the parochial atmosphere of Mount Maunganui in the 70s and 80s the very last people you involved in your life were the local cops. Two phrases spring to mind, when thinking about the local constabulary in the old days of the tit on the head, "thugs", and "god-complex".

So I won't say anything about the allegations of rape Nichols levelled, and the matter has been settled by the Court. What did interest me, and what was not discussed at the blogger discussion at the Archives, is the morality of the defendants. It was publicised that the jury were asked not to consider the question of the immorality of the defendant's behaviour, and Russell mentioned this the other day.

What in the hell were they thinking? There's a good chance that they were unaware of what they were doing, being themselves "young, dumb and full of [expletive]" as the saying goes, but doesn't their behaviour sounds a lot like grooming? I'm no shrinking violet myself, but what these guys were up to is not the sort of behaviour I'd encourage any son of mine to engage in.

Whether they choose to exercise it or not, cops possess extraordinary levels of power compared to the average bloke. A guy I know despises fireman because they use the hero image to pull chicks (when in fact they spend most of their time growing moustaches), and cops have long had the same kind of aura. Choosing to use that power to manipulate what was effectively a child into extraordinary sexual behaviour is almost despicable.

I know that at the age of 17 Nichols was legally an adult, and should have had more ability to control the situations she found herself in, but what we the public don't seem to have been privy to are the finer details of the defendant's behaviour surrounding their direct interaction with Nichols. Was there any systematic abuse of their role as police to gain access to other women for example? Did any interaction that could have amounted to grooming of Nichols occur, and was it inadmissible?

As I say, all these details are probably buried in the case somewhere, and I have no access to them. Hopefully someone else out there has the info, and the ability to shed greater light on this case so that everyone can learn from the wreckage of these people's lives. I know I've already learned the wisdom of the phrase, "don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys".

PS And speaking of cowboys, can anyone tell me how seriously to take this article? Because it scares the piss out of me. Rumours of a plan to use nukes against Iran? WTF?

Digg this Scoopit!