Thanks DC Harding, all feedback gratefully received! On your points 1) The current reality, for better of worse, is that Parliament could abolish the Maori Seats with a simple majority. I guess you may argue that such a drastic change ought to require a "super majority" (which is typically 75%) or a public referendum, and that's a defensible argument. I was just pointing out what the current Government would have to do if they wanted to abolish (I'm extremely doubtful they would) 2) I make no bones about my view that Te Pati Maori is predominantly currently composed of crazy anti-democratic divisive types, and clearly represent only a small minority of Maori. I do happen to think, on balance, that with MMP Maori seats have now done their dash. That's not racist view. Plenty of Maori would like to see those seats gone, including Peters and Jones. I agree Maori never, prior to colonisation, regarded themselves as a singular race (or nation). But neither is there a unitary "Maori world view". That's myth. People with Maori ancestry have all sorts of different views, including on their attitudes to traditional Maori cultural beliefs and practices. and Maori are free to adopt traditional Maori practices and language to whatever extent they like (a right guaranteed in Article 2 of the Treaty); indeed, that's officially encouraged. Maori seats aren't remotely necessary for that. And yes, Maori seats are democratic because they're currently a product of Parliament having passed laws. Are you Maori, btw?Cheers, John
I don't have time to really dig deep into how false your narrative above is, however, I will point out a couple of things. 1). If government wanted to change the electoral system in this country, including the removal of of the Māori Electoral Roll, they'd need to have a super majority of 70% of the house - not 50%. It is a fundamental constitutional change for this country.
2) Act, New Zealand First and others over the years, have used the "electorate vote" to get into Parliament. And yet, the way you write it, is it's only about Te Pāti Māori. You completely leave out that Labour has the 7th Māori Roll seat and skipped the entire history of New Zealand First taking all 5 of them a short time ago.
Your complete bias over the Māori seats is obvious. What you haven't done is developed an argument that would see Māori agree with you. You're using Māori solely as a race based argument, which is a pakeha construct. Māori don't see themselves as a "race" - Māori, as a whole, never did. It wasn't until Non-Māori got here, that Māori was a "construct". Māori are individual whanau, hapū and iwi - first. What your argument also doesn't acknowledge is the "why" they existed in the first place. Yes, it was decided that Māori representation was required - but you have said "why". It's in the "why" that is still relevant today. It is about the Māori worldview. IT isn't about race. It isn't about Māori people wanting to be separate, it isn't about ensuring that tikanga Māori is the only lore/law that is granted assent. It's about ensuring that the indigenous ways of being and knowing is at the table, as Māori have the right to live, breathe and be Māori. The Treaty of Waitangi never asked Māori to cede their ways of being and knowing or their ways of life.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed.
What I will congratulate you on is your stance on Māori seats being democratic. You're one of the few people, whose commentary I've read, acknowledges this.
The 3% threshold is an appealing idea in our household, especially with respect to the two nut-job parties you discuss - the seriously (now) miss-named ‘Green’ Party, and your hilarious “Te Potti Maori”.
I reckon MMP has matured enough now that most kiwis ‘get it’, so as you say, lower the threshold and let democracy take its course - if what you stand for is popular enough, you’ll get elected.
I reckon lowering the party vote Parliamentary-admission threshold (to, say, 3%) might encourage the creation of a party oriented more toward younger people, who I think have been hard done by (COVID response, crash the economy, housing crisis etc)
Thanks DC Harding, all feedback gratefully received! On your points 1) The current reality, for better of worse, is that Parliament could abolish the Maori Seats with a simple majority. I guess you may argue that such a drastic change ought to require a "super majority" (which is typically 75%) or a public referendum, and that's a defensible argument. I was just pointing out what the current Government would have to do if they wanted to abolish (I'm extremely doubtful they would) 2) I make no bones about my view that Te Pati Maori is predominantly currently composed of crazy anti-democratic divisive types, and clearly represent only a small minority of Maori. I do happen to think, on balance, that with MMP Maori seats have now done their dash. That's not racist view. Plenty of Maori would like to see those seats gone, including Peters and Jones. I agree Maori never, prior to colonisation, regarded themselves as a singular race (or nation). But neither is there a unitary "Maori world view". That's myth. People with Maori ancestry have all sorts of different views, including on their attitudes to traditional Maori cultural beliefs and practices. and Maori are free to adopt traditional Maori practices and language to whatever extent they like (a right guaranteed in Article 2 of the Treaty); indeed, that's officially encouraged. Maori seats aren't remotely necessary for that. And yes, Maori seats are democratic because they're currently a product of Parliament having passed laws. Are you Maori, btw?Cheers, John
I don't have time to really dig deep into how false your narrative above is, however, I will point out a couple of things. 1). If government wanted to change the electoral system in this country, including the removal of of the Māori Electoral Roll, they'd need to have a super majority of 70% of the house - not 50%. It is a fundamental constitutional change for this country.
2) Act, New Zealand First and others over the years, have used the "electorate vote" to get into Parliament. And yet, the way you write it, is it's only about Te Pāti Māori. You completely leave out that Labour has the 7th Māori Roll seat and skipped the entire history of New Zealand First taking all 5 of them a short time ago.
Your complete bias over the Māori seats is obvious. What you haven't done is developed an argument that would see Māori agree with you. You're using Māori solely as a race based argument, which is a pakeha construct. Māori don't see themselves as a "race" - Māori, as a whole, never did. It wasn't until Non-Māori got here, that Māori was a "construct". Māori are individual whanau, hapū and iwi - first. What your argument also doesn't acknowledge is the "why" they existed in the first place. Yes, it was decided that Māori representation was required - but you have said "why". It's in the "why" that is still relevant today. It is about the Māori worldview. IT isn't about race. It isn't about Māori people wanting to be separate, it isn't about ensuring that tikanga Māori is the only lore/law that is granted assent. It's about ensuring that the indigenous ways of being and knowing is at the table, as Māori have the right to live, breathe and be Māori. The Treaty of Waitangi never asked Māori to cede their ways of being and knowing or their ways of life.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed.
What I will congratulate you on is your stance on Māori seats being democratic. You're one of the few people, whose commentary I've read, acknowledges this.
Eminently sensible points. Does the current Government have the balls to change our Electoral Act?
Thanks John,
The 3% threshold is an appealing idea in our household, especially with respect to the two nut-job parties you discuss - the seriously (now) miss-named ‘Green’ Party, and your hilarious “Te Potti Maori”.
I reckon MMP has matured enough now that most kiwis ‘get it’, so as you say, lower the threshold and let democracy take its course - if what you stand for is popular enough, you’ll get elected.
Bring it on!
I reckon lowering the party vote Parliamentary-admission threshold (to, say, 3%) might encourage the creation of a party oriented more toward younger people, who I think have been hard done by (COVID response, crash the economy, housing crisis etc)
Yeah, and as you’ve also noted, perhaps a party wholly focussed on the natural environment