"But it seems to me the people elected five Act MPs - not four and an independent..."
That's according to Rodney Hide.
There is talk that Sensible Sentencing contrived the placement of David Garrett at number 5 on the ACT list. That Rodney Hide had to swallow this because he needed the votes that SST would bring. One commentator put the number at 100,000. I do not know what the size of the Trust's membership is, and there is no guarantee that members would vote ACT simply because they belonged to the Trust.
However if it is correct that a sizeable share of ACT's 2008 party vote came from SST members (as the left would have us believe) then with their continued support David Garrett does have a mandate as an independent MP.
I mean the SST could spin their continued support as embracing redemption which adds credibility to their hard-line-on-only-the-worst-offenders claim.
There are around 2,350,000 voters so each MP is worth 19,500 votes. Are there 19,500 people who want to be represented by David Garrett?
I don't but I never made any secret of that. It just irks me to hear the PM telling Paul Henry this morning that New Zealanders have spoken and the polls say Garrett isn't wanted.
Neither was ACT by the vast majority of people. Isn't that the point of MMP? That small minorities get a voice?
(My apologies if this proposition has already been put elsewhere. I haven't seen it.)