Internet Party will endorse other Party if sub 5%

By   /   February 11, 2014  /   20 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

Internet Party will endorse other Party if sub 5%

If the Internet Party does not get over 5% in the polls before the ballots are printed, Dotcom will pull the party and endorse all supporters of the Internet Party to vote for a political party prepared to adopt the Internet Party’s policies.

Screen Shot 2014-02-11 at 10.35.40 am

This after 1 in 5 said they would consider the party once the policies are released.

I think the court case against the Government next month will be a big part of the momentum behind the party.

Want to support this work? Donate today
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook


  1. Disraeli Gladstone says:

    Important to note from that one in five poll is:

    “It was least popular among National voters just 10.8 per cent said they would consider changing their support to Dotcom’s party.”

    The blogosphere was divided over whether National would suffer. I think that shows it wouldn’t. The younger, centrist Nats are not fans of Kim Dotcom. They may support some of his policies, but you only have to go online and talk to these voters and see these people do not like Dotcom himself and are unlikely to support the Internet Party. This polls merely cements that view. National, out of all the parties, were least likely to shift their votes to Dotcom.

    NZ First and the Greens (along with undecided) were most likely to move to Dotcom. Which explains why Russell Norman was keen to try and talk Dotcom out of making a political party. Norman is an intelligent political operator; he knew the Internet Party would hurt the Left more than the Right.

    • The Daily Blog martyn bradbury says:

      Depends. If it knocks NZ First under 5% and brings in voters who wouldn’t have voted, the 10% from National is icing on the cake.

      • Disraeli Gladstone says:

        But it’s not 10% of National voters will vote for the Internet Party.

        It’s 10% of National voters will -consider- voting for the Internet Party once they release some policies.

        That means National voters by far are already closing their ears to the Internet Party before it even release some policies. Probably due to not liking Kim Dotcom who stands like a colossus no matter what policies the party release.

        Just because you’re considering voting for a party, doesn’t mean you will. The Lib Dems in the UK in 2010 had up to 70% of the population considering them at one point. They got just over 20%. That’s barely a quarter of the people who were considering them. And they are (were) a major, established political party, not some newcomer minor party.

        I don’t see the Internet Party taking more than 1% off National, if that.

        • mike says:

          KDT is a convicted fraudster in other countries, which is probably the main reason why no-one on the right wants to support his party.

          • Dave Rutherford says:

            Except of course for Banksie, about to go before the courts on charges of Electoral Fraud, and who was only returned as the member for Epsom under a construct, which if not fradulent, was certainly gaming the system.
            Or David Garrett, identity fraud.
            Or Sir Douglas Graham, financial fraud.
            Or Rodney, the perkbuster general, caught with his snout well and truly in the trough.
            Fraud didn’t seem to matter much to the right in these cases, till after they got sprung?

            • Haha you took the words right out of my mouth! From past experience we know that they only occupy the moral high ground until caught. I think is far more upfront and honest than any of them. I am glad he has decided to withdraw. I can’t even bear to entertain the notion that National could win this year.

      • The thing is… Dotcom’s Tweet does not exclude his support going to a centre or centre-right party, merely that it would go to a party that ‘adopted’ his policies.

        The question is, what are his policies, and how many TDB readers are prepared to obey Dotcom’s instruction to vote for a party he anoints?

        His approach to achieving Parliamentary representation, or not, is verging on the defeatist. Surely this in itself must turn off a percentage of the percentage of support he could potentially net.

        And besides, who exactly, after the fiasco of the past two months, is now prepared to be his proxy candidates? What credibility would they be able to assert now the public know there have been quite a number of other potentials who have already turned Dotcom down. Only Wallace Chapman emerged from those revelations with his credibility intact.

        Add to this Dotcom’s ‘trust me to know which party you, my dear supporters, should vote for’ style is beyond credible. I mean, really…

        Do we need to dig out the story of the Pied Piper to understand how this tale will end?

  2. blue leopard says:

    This is great news to hear that Kim Dot Com is sending out this message; it indicates that he is not keen on ‘wasting’ votes – very politically astute and politically responsible.

    • I was thinking the same thing, Leopard.

      How often do we lament the lack of honesty in politics; the secret agendas; the dodgy deal-making – but when a political figure announciates their intentions with crystal clarity, we look askance at it.

      Maybe that shows how low our estimation of politics is, when our immediate reaction is one of cynical disbelief.

      Imagine if every political party was open and honest. To quote a certain movie charachter, we couldn’t handle the truth.

      • blue leopard says:

        @ Frank

        lol what an excellent comment – so thoughtful and the veracity/candour of it really made me laugh.

        Incidentally, not so very long ago I watched ‘A Few Good Men’ again especially in order to see that scene – it really is a very good line and [delivered superbly by Nicholson]

  3. Shrubbery says:

    A new political party having to consider pulling out of an election because it’s counter-productive to their aims if they don’t meet the threshold is a perfect example of why there shouldn’t be a threshold in the first place.

    • Danyl Strype says:

      Hear, hear. The whole point of MMP was supposed to be allow minority segments in society to get their voice into Parliament. All the 5% threshold does is stop this working.

      Mind you, if we want to see more meaningful participation in democracy, I think we need to do something much more radical than tinker with the rules of MMP. I think we need to throw out representation altogether and move to a system of liquid democracy, where anyone can participate in decisions, or delegate their vote to recallable delegates.

  4. Nick Taylor says:

    What policies?

    There aren’t any are there?

  5. Martino says:

    “1 in 5 said they WOULD consider the Internet Party once the policies are released.”

    That is actually a fair comment to make from responsible voters about a not registered party without policy or candidates.

    I too would, subject to an appealing programme, not exclude considering a party in future that does not exist yet.

    Any polling of such potential, however, in the absence of any detail, is redundant.

  6. […] Dotcom has made an announcement which could be significant for the election results.  If the Internet Party is not looking like it […]

  7. I recall in the mid 1990s, that The Alliance was polling amazingly high – up to the mid-30s in some polls. (Labour were ‘sh*tt*ng’ themselves!)

    Of course, that didn’t translate into actual votes in 1996 (the first MMP election), where The Alliance won only 10.1% of the Party Vote (less than 1993).

    That’s because even in the early days, I suspect voters understood the proportionality of MMP and that you’d most likely get what you voted for.

    Whereas, under FPP, you could safely lodge a “protest” vote against National or Labour, and vote for a third party knowing they wouldn’t really gain much power/seats in Parliament. But it would still “send a strong message” to the Big Two.

    Which explains why The Alliance’s vote dropped from 18.2% in 1993.

    My suspicion is that any “support” for KDC should be seen in that light.

  8. Intrinsicvalue says:

    Martyn, it seems we have seen over the past day or two the real story behind KDC’s announcement. A dirty deal with the leader of the Greens to avoid extradition. When will you write on that?

    • The Daily Blog Martyn Bradbury says:

      Because it’s simply not true.

    • Marc says:

      You are an MSM sponge brain, it seems, without any capability to think logically and independently. Take some vitamin tablets, and do lots of walking and other exercise, as your brain, liver and guts need to be retuned to reality.

      Best wishes, dear friend IV!

      • Intrinsicvalue says:

        OK, done that, back again after 3 days, and the evidence is even stronger now. There is a stench around Mr DotCom that is going to get even smellier.