TOP Party one to watch in this election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

5% threshold essential to keep out the nutbags.

/[/url]

---

I disagree. Whether we like it or not, nutbags also make up our community and they deserve representation. That is what a democracy is all about.


Otherwise we will be ruled by elites only. Is that what you want? There is a sliding scale from elite to nutbag, who is the arbiter of where to draw the line?

I say don't draw a line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Panda-NZ-

They would have beaten TOP if Winston hadn't done his thing and "pivot" towards healthcare conspiracies.

---

You are right, they would have probably got about 3% of the vote if not more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcap

I disagree. Whether we like it or not, nutbags also make up our community and they deserve representation. That is what a democracy is all about.


Otherwise we will be ruled by elites only. Is that what you want? There is a sliding scale from elite to nutbag, who is the arbiter of where to draw the line?

I say don't draw a line.

---

Looking at the votes in the link I posted earlier 2,244,380 votes cast at 5% that is 112,219 people. If you can't find policy that at least 100,000 people agree on then maybe you should not be representing the nation in parliament.

Nutbags obviously make up a sizeable chunk of the population but they have NZ First or ACT if they want representation in parliament.

I wouldn't like taxpayer money spent on finding out if we are all now shedding spike proteins or finding out which of us are lizard people, or what happened to the bodies of all the kids who died at a north shore school after being vaccinated.

That said I did not think TOPs policies were crazy but maybe I did not understand them well enough as only just under 50,000 of us thought they had some good ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

Nutbags obviously make up a sizeable chunk of the population but they have NZ First or ACT if they want representation in parliament.

---

The Greens should have been at the front of your list! NZ First is mostly middle of the road commonsense and Act mostly Libertarian.

The Greens? There's your nutjob party. Racist, sexist idealogues who have no clue as to the consequences of their policies. (Even their own internal leadership policies!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaron

Looking at the votes in the link I posted earlier 2,244,380 votes cast at 5% that is 112,219 people. If you can't find policy that at least 100,000 people agree on then maybe you should not be representing the nation in parliament.

Nutbags obviously make up a sizeable chunk of the population but they have NZ First or ACT if they want representation in parliament.

I wouldn't like taxpayer money spent on finding out if we are all now shedding spike proteins or finding out which of us are lizard people, or what happened to the bodies of all the kids who died at a north shore school after being vaccinated.

That said I did not think TOPs policies were crazy but maybe I did not understand them well enough as only just under 50,000 of us thought they had some good ideas.

---

Not sure this is a fair comment. Sure - you are right, it was less than 50,000 voting for TOP. However - this does not mean that everybody else thought that they were lacking good ideas.

Some people told me, that they would have voted for TOP if there wouldn't have been the 5% threshold (the fairytale of the wasted vote turning into a self fullfilling prophecy). They clearly thought that TOP has good ideas without voting for them.

And obviously - not everybody voting for a different party thought that TOP's ideas are bad ...it is just- you can only pick one party to go with:)

Many people did not know about TOP's policies (or even where they are in the political spectrum). Obviously - in this case they couldn't assess them either - i.e. their lack of voting for TOP shows either a lack of political interest and / or insufficient marketing from the party (and yes, this is something TOP needs to work on).

Just as example - (and without wanting to point fingers) - even iceman didn't recognise that they are basically a blue-green party. Iceman is clearly politically interested, so what about the 90% of the population who are not?

From my personal point of view TOP's biggest problem is lack of visibility, and there are a number of institutional hurdles they have to overcome:

TOP has at this stage to rely just on volunteers, while their competitors in parliament have access to all the resources parliament offers: Better access to information, easy access to the media, paid staff and offices.

Even for the leadership debates was it quite funny to notice that the media always invited one of the 2% parties (Te Pati Maori) and gave them plenty of airtime, while always ignoring TOP. I am wondering how the elections would have gone, if they would have provided a level playing field?

TOP had to my knowledge something like a 50k budget for the elections. That's only $1 per vote! Compare this with the many millions of dollars parties like ACT or National had at their avail to buy voters attention :)

So, yes - plenty to do to improve TOP's visibility.

In this context I am not even too worried about some of the troll attacks we had on this thread. Remember - there is not such a thing as bad publicity. While the intent was clearly to annoy other posters and to damage the party, I think, they did help as well to make them more visible.

But - we can't just rely on trolls. Plenty of work to do to further develop TOP's policies and make them better visible.

Only if everybody knows about TOP and their policies, only then can we judge how many voters find them a good idea :);

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackPeter

Not sure this is a fair comment. Sure - you are right, it was less than 50,000 voting for TOP. However - this does not mean that everybody else thought that they were lacking good ideas.

Some people told me, that they would have voted for TOP if there wouldn't have been the 5% threshold (the fairytale of the wasted vote turning into a self fullfilling prophecy). They clearly thought that TOP has good ideas without voting for them.

And obviously - not everybody voting for a different party thought that TOP's ideas are bad ...it is just- you can only pick one party to go with:)

Many people did not know about TOP's policies (or even where they are in the political spectrum). Obviously - in this case they couldn't assess them either - i.e. their lack of voting for TOP shows either a lack of political interest and / or insufficient marketing from the party (and yes, this is something TOP needs to work on).

Just as example - (and without wanting to point fingers) - even iceman didn't recognise that they are basically a blue-green party. Iceman is clearly politically interested, so what about the 90% of the population who are not?

From my personal point of view TOP's biggest problem is lack of visibility, and there are a number of institutional hurdles they have to overcome:

TOP has at this stage to rely just on volunteers, while their competitors in parliament have access to all the resources parliament offers: Better access to information, easy access to the media, paid staff and offices.

Even for the leadership debates was it quite funny to notice that the media always invited one of the 2% parties (Te Pati Maori) and gave them plenty of airtime, while always ignoring TOP. I am wondering how the elections would have gone, if they would have provided a level playing field?

TOP had to my knowledge something like a 50k budget for the elections. That's only $1 per vote! Compare this with the many millions of dollars parties like ACT or National had at their avail to buy voters attention :)

So, yes - plenty to do to improve TOP's visibility.

In this context I am not even too worried about some of the troll attacks we had on this thread. Remember - there is not such a thing as bad publicity. While the intent was clearly to annoy other posters and to damage the party, I think, they did help as well to make them more visible.

But - we can't just rely on trolls. Plenty of work to do to further develop TOP's policies and make them better visible.

Only if everybody knows about TOP and their policies, only then can we judge how many voters find them a good idea :);

---

It's a tough road getting a party across the line. What they need is an All Black or Celebrity in the right electorate to get visibility with a couple of MPs in parliament.

Jonu, probably right re the Greens, but I heard a snippet that the greens biggest supporter bases are in the towns (they constantly sh*t on farmers without addressing townies excessive consumption and lifestyle) but interestingly they are apparently from the wealthier suburbs, so probably people who are doing OK and can afford to be ideological and don't think they will be the ones to starve to death when we "just stop oil". Not long haired dirty dope smoking hippies happy with a semi communist govt. provided they don't have to work, as I would have presumed.

Climate change appears to be real as to whether it is existential or not, time will tell. I am more suspicious of experts peddling fear after the covid fiasco but am going along with it without drastically altering my lifestyle. Fortunately I hate unnecessarily spending money or shopping so my carbon footprint should be below the NZ average but still up there on a global scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackPeter

Many people did not know about TOP's policies (or even where they are in the political spectrum). Obviously - in this case they couldn't assess them either - i.e. their lack of voting for TOP shows either a lack of political interest and / or insufficient marketing from the party (and yes, this is something TOP needs to work on).

From my personal point of view TOP's biggest problem is lack of visibility, and there are a number of institutional hurdles they have to overcome:

TOP had to my knowledge something like a 50k budget for the elections. That's only $1 per vote! Compare this with the many millions of dollars parties like ACT or National had at their avail to buy voters attention :)

);

---

So if that's a true statement and reflection on how things work, all it takes is an ardent supporter such as yourself to donate @ $70K to get Top from 2.07% of provisional votes, to over 5% next time.

Raf could have bought himself a job...

Politics is so easy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Getty

So if that's a true statement and reflection on how things work, all it takes is an ardent supporter such as yourself to donate @ $70K to get Top from 2.07% of provisional votes, to over 5% next time.

---

I think Gareth already tried that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Getty

So if that's a true statement and reflection on how things work, all it takes is an ardent supporter such as yourself to donate @ $70K to get Top from 2.07% of provisional votes, to over 5% next time.

Raf could have bought himself a job...

Politics is so easy...

---

What a stupid post.

I only made some valid observations about election spending.

You made up your own story using a dummie extrapolation and try to beat others with your non-sense.

That's what kindergarten bullies do.

Ah yes, aren't you one of these far right trolls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackPeter

What a stupid post.

I only made some valid observations about election spending.

You made up your own story using a dummie extrapolation and try to beat others with your non-sense.

That's what kindergarten bullies do.

Ah yes, aren't you one of these far right trolls?

---

If only we could get you away from your negative reputation button for long enough, you would see how pathetic you really are!

Like a besotted child who has a new spinning Top toy.

You are the epitome of bully.

Then, when embarrassed, you launch straight into smear.

If Top is as right leaning as you think it is, then maybe it makes anyone centrist seem far right.

Far out.