should minnows contest the list?
In my recent post about the Alliance's current situation, we got into a bit of a discussion about whether or not small parties should contest the list, if they have little chance of making the threshold (5% of the vote).
Parties outside of Parliament find it very hard to reach the threshold, or win an electorate. Without the money and profile that an MP (or more) provide it is difficult to garner list votes, especially as NZ voters seem very canny about "wasting" their vote on a party that won't make it (witness the fate of the Alliance in 2002).
While some minnows are single issue parties, those take a broader approach must inevitably take votes off bigger parties that are almost guaranteed representation. For the Alliance the obvious parties are the Greens and Labour, and possibly the Maori Party. (We have also historically contested the "grumpy" vote with NZF). But the policies and principles, not to mention the personalities, of these parties are in fact quite distinct - so should minnows with little change of representation not run in the interests of securing power for bigger parties that they don't entirely agree with?
Part of my reason for supporting the continuation of the Alliance, and the strategy to contest the list in 2005, is that without the Alliance I will simply have no party to give my list vote to. I will, simply put, be disenfranchised, as I would find it nigh on impossible to vote for Labour or anyone to the right of them, and I would only vote for the Greens if I had absolutely no other options.
I suspect there are others like me - not a vast percentage of the total vote, but people who believe that one of the minnows is the only party that really represents their vision for NZ. Without the minnows many of us would not vote (on the list) or would do so in a very grumpy and unhappy manner. We can in fact think strategically for ourselves, and decide whether we would rather "waste" our vote on a minnow, or vote for the lesser evil to return the kind of Government we prefer. In addition the minnow parties can make a collective decision, given how the polls are shaking out in the lead-up to Election Day, to ask supporters to give their list votes to one of the bigger parties instead.
Without the minnows I believe our political environment would be poorer. Sure sometimes minnows put out bizarre policy, but one person's bizarre is another person's ideal. Diversity of opinions should be encouraged - no one person has all the answers, so best we share the ideas we have. If we were minnow-less the big parties would also be less vigorous - they keep an eye on what the minnows say, and pick up on the ideas that appeal to the public (some might call this stealing!! ;-)
Surely it is better that the minnows run and voters be left to make up their own minds?
10 comments:
As one of those who "would not vote (on the list) or would do so in a very grumpy and unhappy manner" without a party such as the Alliance, I wholeheartedly agree with your thinking.
The longer those in the Alliance and it's supporters continue talking about how they aren't going to make it to 5% however, the less time you'll end up with to try to raise the sort of profile needed to gather those votes.
My advice would be to get in early and hit it hard - if you can manage to get a rep onto the televised debates, a Peter Dunne like effect is not out of the question.
never fear Asher, we are over the "we're not going to make the threshold" fever, by and large, and quite focused on getting back into campaigning and so on. a number of people have pointed out that we certainly won't make the threshold if we don't try.
in terms of the televised debates - unless we are already polling high i doubt we would be allowed in. also the worm is apparently not going to feature this time around, so the likelihood of a repeat of the Peter Dunne experience is unlikely (also every time Laila mentioned tax our wormie went down!). but who knows what will happen over the next six months - there may be some event that gives us the cut through we need. if not we can certainly rebuild so that we are in a better position to seize opportunities that arise in the future.
I don't think anyone argued that you shouldn't contest the list - they just said it would be difficult, and possibly damaging to the prospects of a left-wing coalition. But I agree, that is something the voters can make their own minds up about. And if you manage to get back into public awareness, and fight a good campaign, then hopefully it won't be an issue.
"without the Alliance I will simply have no party to give my list vote to. I will, simply put, be disenfranchised, as I would find it nigh on impossible to vote for Labour or anyone to the right of them, and I would only vote for the Greens if I had absolutely no other options."
Absolutely. I feel the same way. While I agree with a lot of Green policy, I would question the priorities they may take into any negotiations, and IMHO being specific about priorities is as important as policies under MMP. While having GE free herbal puffs may be nice, for me these issues don't rate alongside social justice, education, infrastructure, employment and economic issues.
For these reasons I support the Alliance standing a list in the next election and campaigning hard till near election day. Endorsing other parties is still an option, but at the last minute, as a very reluctant strategic move if things are not going our way.
The Greens themselves in 1999 are a good example of why small parties should contest the list even if they (or others) are unsure if they are going to make 5%.
If I remember rightly the Greens were on about 2% for most of 1999. Then the Nats made the big mistake of attempting to paint the greens as dope smoking loonies, giving them great profile late in the campaign, helping Jennette win Coromandel and pushing the Greens just over the threshold after specials were counted. But they were nearly stuck with no seat and 4.9% would have been lost to the left.
(I was going to look up the 1999 polls but the database I use appears to be down)
Even if two parties have similar policy (and there are significant differences between the Alliance and Greens) I believe if they campaign on different priorities this can just as easily extend the left-of-labour vote as divide it. In 1999 the Greens proved there was room for us both!
Could the Alliance get over 5% in 2005, stranger things have happened. But I am thinking just as much of how to get a good result in 2008. But we are not going to achieve that playing dead.
"GE free herbal puffs may be nice". Oh I should point out this is only a cheeky jokey turn of phase and no 'attack' is intended by this.
Mr Hendren, lovely to see you! thanks for your contribution :-)
IS - I have heard a lot of arguments (not from you of course) that if we run we will be responsible for losing the centre-left govt and National winning. I have seriously had this thrown at me. By (a few) people within the Alliance. Hence my defensiveness! Labour people have also brought it up with me - frankly if they can't win re-election with the economy the way it is and Don Brash leading the National Party, it's not going to be because of the small percentage we garner!
But it's like Matt McCarten's bid for the Auckland mayoralty - Fletcher actually couldn't have beaten Banks, many of those who voted for Matt wouldn't have voted at all if he hadn't run, but the reinvention of history is that it was all the Alliance's fault. It was because Banks had been campaigning for months and months really - he had a lot of money and resources and Fletcher ran a bad campaign.
Span: I think you can counter those arguments by having backup plans for an endorsement if things look to be going very badly for both the party and the left as a whole. And by fighting a strong campaign and doing everything you can to get profile early. The Alliance has been basically silent on the national stage since 2002; it's good to see their press releases once again gracing Scoop (but you need more of them. The major parties comment on every issue; so should the Alliance... for example, you should have an opening position on the constitutional discussions ready to fire off the moment the PM makes her announcement.)
The point about attracting new or irregular voters is a good one. With our disgustingly low voter turnout (just over 70%), there's a large pool of non-voters to tap, and being able to attract even a few percentage points from this group can be a good ticket to power. The Greens do this as well, and its helped get them over the threshhold at least once.
Does American-style GOTV work in NZ? Do the Alliance have the resources to do it?
I agree about the endorsement plan and it's certainly an argument I will be running within the party.
I agree about the profile issue too - wanna join and help me nag spokespeople? ;-)
If I knew what GOTV was (please excuse my ignorance) I might be able to answer the resources question. But I would say probably not, whatever it is. Although we can try, possible, once we know what it is. (Sorry about all the seemingly royal "we's")
GOTV = "get out the vote". It's large aspect of US elections, as party activists attempt to both register new voters and ensure that they actually go to the polls.
As for membership, I prefer to retain my independence. Besides, I hardly think I'm in need of a political party to advocate for my views...
Ah well, can't blame me for trying :-P
In terms of GOTV (love learning new acronyms) I think that the unions are going to try a big push in 2005, but certainly it has always been a part of Alliance campaigns I've been involved in - it's pretty obvious that the worst off in our society are also the least likely to vote, so we do our best.
Post a Comment