From the Campaign for MMP
Thanks to Bomber Bradbury, the name of Alex Fogerty has come to the fore as one of the 16 founding members of the “Vote for Change” campaign against MMP. Fogerty is a neo-Nazi.
Here’s one of the evil faces of bigotry:
A post from Fogerty in April 2005, which he confirmed to the Nelson Mail that he wrote, reads: “I’d love to get rid of all Jews, blacks, gypsies, retards and social degenerates, I would love to have genetic cleansing.”
His message added that genetic cleansing did not mean killing anyone, just forcibly removing them from a country.
Mr Fogerty said he had made some comments on the internet he now regretted.
Fight Dem Back had taken these comments, including the one on genetic cleansing and another where he congratulated Australian groups for the increasing attacks on Jews, out of context, he said.
The comments were made in private and freedom of speech meant he could make them, he said.
He was not racist and had talked to “every ethnic group”, but did not agree with New Zealand’s immigration policy, and thought some of the Nazis’ ideas were good (my emphasis).
Great poster boy for the anti-MMP campaign, huh?
And great pick for one of your 16 founding members, Peter Shirtcliffe, Michael Bassett, and the rest of the “Vote of Change” founders! I guess Mussolini’s concept of the Corporate State isn’t lost on you after all.
In 1978 and 1981 a government was elected despite getting less votes than its main political opponent. No wonder we switched to MMP. It’s fairer.
Cameron Slater, most likely deliberately, has got it completely wrong on the MMP referendum. Slater blogs:
Some people are already suggesting that MMP should be reformed but that is not the question in this referendum. What we are being asked to do is choose MMP warts and all as it currently stands, or vote for change. If we vote for change then we can choose one of four other systems.
If you like MMP just as it is then vote for that option, if you like anything else, including a changed MMP system then Vote for Change.
That’s utter crap! There are lots of voters who think aspects of MMP could be improved. But the referendum process specifically allows for a review of MMP to consider such potential improvements should MMP be endorsed – see sections 74 and 75 and 76 of the Electoral Referendum Act 2010.
76 Scope of review
(1) The matters that the Electoral Commission must review are—
(a) the requirement that a party must achieve at least 5% of the total number of party votes before it may be eligible to be allocated the number of list seats (if any) needed to ensure that the party’s total number of seats reflects its proportion of the total party vote; and
(b) the alternative requirement that a candidate of a party must win an electorate seat before the party may be eligible to be allocated the number of list seats (if any) needed to ensure that the party’s total number of seats reflects its proportion of the total party vote; and
(c) the ratio of electorate seats to list seats that results—
(i) from the effects of population change on the number of general electorate seats; or
(ii) if a party’s constituency candidates have won more seats than the party would be entitled to as a result of the party vote; and
(d) the capacity of a person at a general election to be both a candidate for an electoral district and a candidate whose name is included in a party list in a general election, and the capacity of a member of Parliament who holds a list seat to be a candidate in a by-election; and
Order of candidates on party lists
(e) a party’s ability to determine the order of candidates on its party list and the inability of voters to rank list candidates in order of preference; and
(f) any other feature of the voting system referred to the Commission under section 5(d) of the 1993 Act.
(2) In addition to the matters specified in subsection (1), the Electoral Commission may, in undertaking the review, consider other aspects of the mixed member proportional representation voting system.
(3) Despite subsections (1)(f) and (2), the Electoral Commission must not review—
(a) Māori representation:
(b) the number of members of Parliament.
A huge fail on the facts for Slater, and an indication that the anti-democratic forces the “Vote for Change ” people represent are going to play an evidence-averse dirty game.