WEBVTT - Andrew Dickens: Split voting is undemocratic

0:00:00.050 --> 0:00:03.950
<v Speaker 1>To the split voting thing. In the weekend, papers were

0:00:03.990 --> 0:00:08.049
<v Speaker 1>full of full-page ads paid for by a group called RCR. Now,

0:00:08.119 --> 0:00:09.740
<v Speaker 1>this appears to be the vessel for Don Brash and

0:00:09.760 --> 0:00:12.900
<v Speaker 1>Nick Mowbray to promote their tactical voting tactic to create

0:00:12.940 --> 0:00:16.900
<v Speaker 1>an overhang that could benefit the centre-right. I've already said

0:00:17.020 --> 0:00:19.520
<v Speaker 1>I don't like it. The same way Don Brash doesn't

0:00:19.560 --> 0:00:22.000
<v Speaker 1>like John Key telling people how to vote, I don't

0:00:22.020 --> 0:00:24.470
<v Speaker 1>like people telling people how to vote. And, of course,

0:00:25.130 --> 0:00:28.310
<v Speaker 1>their platform, this is Don and Nick, benefits in that

0:00:28.350 --> 0:00:30.230
<v Speaker 1>they have the money to buy the ads, so they're

0:00:30.270 --> 0:00:33.180
<v Speaker 1>out there trying to influence voters. Now, people have accused

0:00:33.200 --> 0:00:36.320
<v Speaker 1>me of not liking it because Don and Nick are

0:00:36.360 --> 0:00:39.300
<v Speaker 1>trying to benefit the centre-right. No, I don't like the

0:00:39.340 --> 0:00:41.780
<v Speaker 1>way Te Pāti Māori are doing it either. And if

0:00:41.840 --> 0:00:43.640
<v Speaker 1>the left were to do it, I wouldn't like it

0:00:43.940 --> 0:00:48.700
<v Speaker 1>as well. If, say, Jim Anderton, who was a multimillionaire socialist,

0:00:49.020 --> 0:00:50.440
<v Speaker 1>had tried it back in the day, I would have

0:00:50.479 --> 0:00:54.680
<v Speaker 1>called that out as well. And now, of course, National

0:00:54.720 --> 0:00:58.880
<v Speaker 1>has said the sweetheart deal with ACT in Ebsen is over. Again,

0:00:59.160 --> 0:01:01.560
<v Speaker 1>they're telling people how to vote. And they have been

0:01:01.580 --> 0:01:03.700
<v Speaker 1>telling people to vote for David Seymour for ages now.

0:01:04.080 --> 0:01:06.539
<v Speaker 1>So they're all as bad as each other. And the

0:01:06.600 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 1>problem with MMP is that we have two votes. So

0:01:10.459 --> 0:01:12.900
<v Speaker 1>we use our first and then we actually play around

0:01:12.940 --> 0:01:15.330
<v Speaker 1>with the second. So I actually looked over the weekend

0:01:15.340 --> 0:01:17.640
<v Speaker 1>at what might happen if we had just one vote

0:01:18.220 --> 0:01:21.530
<v Speaker 1>that counted for both the electorate MPs and the list MPs.

0:01:22.860 --> 0:01:26.300
<v Speaker 1>to create a proportional parliament. Could it work? Will there

0:01:26.319 --> 0:01:29.480
<v Speaker 1>have been studies? Yes, it could. It's not as subtle.

0:01:30.260 --> 0:01:32.780
<v Speaker 1>It's a bit simplistic. And it could still cause an

0:01:32.959 --> 0:01:36.360
<v Speaker 1>overhang if parties win more electorates than their national voting

0:01:36.410 --> 0:01:39.670
<v Speaker 1>share entitles them to. But not having the second vote

0:01:39.890 --> 0:01:43.390
<v Speaker 1>would certainly stop all this jiggery-pokery and attempts to game

0:01:43.430 --> 0:01:47.470
<v Speaker 1>the system, which seems somewhat undemocratic to me. For more

0:01:47.530 --> 0:01:50.580
<v Speaker 1>from Early Edition with Ryan Bridge, listen live to News

0:01:50.610 --> 0:01:54.240
<v Speaker 1>Talk ZB from 5 a.m. weekdays or follow the podcast

0:01:54.300 --> 0:01:55.140
<v Speaker 1>on iHeartRadio.