The Nat/Act compact in Epsom is unaffected by a change to coat-tails – makes not one iota of difference.
What is happening in Epsom (Ohariu) is a different game; it’s the adjunct party rort. Act is effectively an adjunct party to National.
Example: National gets 50% of party vote so gets 60 seats total, regardless of whether they win Epsom or not.
Epsom electorate goes to Act. Act gets total party vote of squat – not even enough to get one seat proportionately – but they do get a seat via electorate vote (same thing happens in Ohariu).
Net result National/Act get 61 seats from 50% party vote.
Effectively, Epsom Nat voters get two party votes – unlike the rest of us who only get one.
This rort is far worse than the coat-tails provision.

Commissions of enquiry aren’t supposed to be a “scientific document”, David. Where did you get that notion from?

I think you’re being wilfilly obtuse, and playing silly word-games. This is apparent as you bring up red-herrings instead of addressing any of the issues raised by Frank.

I think it’s perfectly clear, and that is why you’re trying to muddy the waters. The purpose of which is to hide the fact that National failed to implement the Commission’s final report and this has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons. The left can now play by the same rules as the right. This is something you are either unaware of, or trying desperately to gloss over.

An Electoral Commission report is an opinion from an appointed group, not a scientific document

Rubbish. It was never meant to be a “scientific document” and for you to assert so suggests your lack of understanding of a commission process.

Your suggestion that I “seem to conflate the electoral commission findings with the electoral deal hypocrisy” – is nonsensical.

The Commission sought public submissions and many of the submitters pointed out “electoral deal-making” as unacceptable. The Commission duly reported those findings back to the Minister, along with recommendations. (Who then rejected them.)

You seem utterly bewildered at how a Commission on Inquiry operates.

If anyone is deflecting, it seems to be you, David. You are avoiding the issues raised and bringing up irrelevancies.

Exactly JACK RAMAKA, even if I don’t agree entirely with either Winston or Hone on everything – but I do agree with about 80% of what they say.

The big factor is those politicians genuinely want the best for NZ and New Zealander’s – even if they have different ideas about how to go about it.

Makes a change from the power and money hungry careerists out there mostly in National and ACT, just doing things for themselves their lobbyists and backers who might not even be in NZ.

Even if they are nice people in Natz they tend to be in a ideological bubble, of private school, followed by working in a nice job they are helped into and then to politics, so have no idea of reality, which is just as dangerous.

Both Winston and Hone are demonised in the MSM because they do have integrity and won’t sell out, and therefore deemed ‘dangerous’ to many. In fact you can tell the better politicians just by seeing how many smears against them are published in MSM.

Likewise Andrew Little wants the best for NZ and so do the Greens as an institution – (they may have lost their way a tad over too many Gen Zero development ideas) but they also have the integrity and will help lead NZ into a much brighter (and real) future.

Anyway I’m hopeful for a change of government that has genuine people as politicians who want the best and have enough nous (that is where Winston and Hone come in) to not believe every free trade/arms/foreign policy/corporate lobbyist salesman coming in, or blow up the middle class (cultural revolution style, Greens) or through free trade globalism (Blairites in Labour) that has worked so well in the USA and UK (sarc).

Surely that is how MMP is supposed to work? That is the broad church betweens parties that genuinely want the best for their country and can collaborate to do so. Not just take short term gains for a few for long term destruction as our present government are doing.

National Party correction

Agree Labour/Greens/NZF covers all the bases and Mana if required Hone Harawira is actually quite sensible when you listen to him and is portrayed badly by MSM as is Winston Peters NZF.

In fact, you were very quick to come to Gosman’s aid, to support his comments. Gosman is an ACT Party apparatchik. ACT has benefitted from the coat-tailing provision, and has objected to removing it.

So that puts your apologism into context.

I put my sub-heading – “It’s only ‘hypocrisy’ when the Left do it!“ – above for good reason. It was fully expected that someone like you, and Gosman, would come along to try to reinforce the Right’s bullshit narrative of “hypocrisy by the left”. Predictable.

So voting isn’t the answer, voting for someone who has the answers is the answer.

What are the answers? We don’t want it that $500.000 is an affordable house but what is an ‘affordable house’?

What is the ‘The Kiwi Dream’ ? Quite specifically, not just what needs to be changed to see the dream achievable, changed to what?