Friday, October 24, 2008

The Christian vote

Andy Moore has a new website, Christian vote summarising who he thinks Christians should vote for. He assesses five parties: Kiwi, Family, ACT, United Future and National, who he maintains the majority of Christians will vote for. All had a majority of MPs/candidates that opposed the anti smacking legislation just prior to the third reading of the bill.

If he's correct, a majority of Christians are going to vote National. Those who don't are going to have their party votes either wasted or supplementing votes for successful candidates from Ohariu and Epsom.

Moore says Christians will not vote for any of the other parties - he says they are not worth voting for. I would like to challenge him on this. I recon more Christians will vote Labour than the Family/Kiwi/ United Future/ Act parties combined. Well done on the site, but it is obvious who Moore supports. He said he has endeavoured to provide a balanced and accurate view. He gets a generous two stars for balance from me, but a few more for accuracy.

Moore should take another look at the value your vote website and see which party is the most consistently family friendly party in terms of the percentage/number balance of collective family friendly votes cast on the issues canvassed.

Because he's missed that party out.

It's fairly well known that I'm a Christian, and although I`m an undecided voter, as of today I don't intend to vote for any of the parties Moore maintains the majority of Christians should vote for. In fact there's only one I`d even consider voting for. Looks like I'm in a minority.




Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dave, which one are you talking about? I assume NZ First, as Peters was the most family friendly leader and this party was not considered by Moore.

But the highest parties on collective votes were United Future, Kiwi and Pacific (if we can take Copeland's and Field's record as reflecting these parties). UF and Kiwi were considered and rejected by Moore, so are you talking about Pacific?

Which is your current preference? Why? I am genuinely interested, obviously I'm a Family Party candidate and believe we are the best choice, but I am very interested to see who else Christians are considering and why.

I agree many Christians will vote Labour - because Christians are people too, and plenty of people just vote Labour because they always have and their parents always did. That doesn't mean Labour is worth considering, just that some people will vote for them anyway.

October 24, 2008 at 1:36 PM  
Blogger Swimming said...

Mr Dennis, the Pacific Party is not in Parliament. Therefore it could not have the highest collective vote on any issue.

October 24, 2008 at 1:55 PM  
Blogger Andy said...

Hi Dave.

Are you really an undecided voter? If there's only one party that you would consider voting for, then it sounds like you simply have to decide between voting and not voting.

Which party is it that you're considering?

I think the ValueYourVote website is a valuable resource for conservatives/Christians to use as they try and work out who they should vote for. However, I (and many other Christians) are not convinced that all the issues listed on the ValueYourVote website are actually a big deal. Let me quickly summarise whether I'm for or against or undecided:

1. Prostitution reform: for/undecided
2. Civil Unions: undecided
3. Relationships bill: ?
4. Parental Notification for teenage abortion: STRONGLY FOR
6. Care of Children: ?
7. Marriage Ammendment: ?
8. Anti-Smacking Law: against
9. Holiday trading hours restricted: against
10. Raising drinking age: against
11. EFA: against

The ? means I haven't heard enough about the issue to know where I stand. All I'm saying is, this is the way that Family First feels about these issues, but they are not necessarily right as so many people seem to be taking for granted.

And sadly, you are probably right about the number of Christians who will vote for Labour.

Anyway, all very intriguing...


October 24, 2008 at 4:24 PM  
Blogger Madeleine said...

Christians needs to stop assessing parties based on how many lollies they will hand out and how they stand to benefit and start taking a closer look at the proper role of the state and assess the parties on offer through that lense.

A correct Biblical assessment of the proper role of the state will narrow the field down to pretty much the few that Andy highlighted - you could make a case for the Maori Party (probably too statist really) and the Libertarianz (too internally inconsistent on issues like abortion)to be included but you definately could not include the Greens or Labour without being in error - genuine and sincere as you might be.

October 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done Madelaine.
Christians don't do that do they?
That's why so many will vote Labour based on emotion.
ie looking after the little guy.

Whereas the Maori party is racist so that rules them out.

There is only one real option if we want growth and a bigger pie and it isn't Labour.

But try telling that to all the middle class benefit holders with kids!

Which party voted on principle for the Kiwi family over repealing sec 59?


So who do you think would hold National to principle?

Not Peter Dunne or Winston!

October 27, 2008 at 9:50 AM  
Blogger Gavin Knight said...

good critique dave, my response at

October 28, 2008 at 10:21 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Clicky Web Analytics