Bring on the electioneering craziness

Now that the RWC is over and the rugby fever enters its euphoric dying phases, we're looking forward to another important recurring event – the General Election.

This year's General Election will also include a referendum on our voting system – whether we should keep MMP or opt for something else.

The RWC has meant a shortened election campaign – a boon in some ways as everyone gets sick of the politicking, but given its importance in determining the shape of things to come, perhaps not ideal.

Although National has put the voting system on the table again with this year's referendum, thus far there has been little campaigning to promote other systems. I'm a definite fan of MMP – I think the requirement to negotiate with other parties and collaborate on policy far outweighs the fannying around that can and has happened at coalition formation time. Winston Peters, I'm looking at you.

But, in a system set up to bring parties of differing policies together in collaborative government, the reluctance of the leaders of the two main parties to debate the leaders of the minor parties seems to me to be denying voters an opportunity to see just how they might work together, and dig a little deeper into the existing alliances formed before the election. Regardless of how well National may be polling, our current system of government is MMP, and I think the major parties need to show they can work with the minor parties – be it as part of a formal coalition, or as a confidence and supply partner on key policies.

Take National's tacit commitment to getting right wing buddies ACT back into power. They're supposedly not campaigning in seats like Epsom, which Rodney Hide took in 2008, in the hope that John Banks will repeat Hide's feat and take a bunch of friends with him to parliament. Don't we, the voters, deserve to see how ACT and National propose to work together? Especially when ACT's leader Don Brash is a failed National leader who is suddenly espousing liberal drug policy seemingly at odds with ACT's normal point of view.

Perhaps we don't need to worry. In the ultimate case of 'do as I say, not as I do', John Key has admitted that while he wants the voters of Epsom to vote for John Banks, ensuring ACT a place in parliament, he won't be casting his ballot for John, instead backing his own party's candidate Paul Goldsmith. Perhaps John Banks will have a fight on his hands after all?!

However, with the Greens currently polling above 10 percent and showing every sign of being the only significant minor party post 26 November, wouldn't you like to see how John Key or Phil Goff might work with Russel and Metiria? Where the Green's long term policies might fit into the necessarily short term thinking spawned by the three year election cycle?

Either way, I'm amped to see the first leader's debate next Monday, even if it is just John and Phil. Given that Phil doesn't seem to get out much, it'll be interesting to see 1) how he performs and 2) how he's reported; particularly now the various parties have launched their campaigns and Labour is campaigning on policy rather than personality. They've obviously picked the key strengths of National – John Key's personal popularity – and realised that Phil can't compete with John's charisma and have instead decided to campaign on content. I suspect that with a shortened campaign period, the message won't get through. Roll on 26 November!