My previous article on Social Conservativism is right on the mark. We only have to recall the previous government's rule to provide evidence of two extremes; to the right is linear materialism of vulgar capitalism without the social consequences and to the left is social spending without a solid material back up.

Under the former extreme to the right, the previous government had neglected the infrastructure that much to stagnate social developments now requiring urgent upgrade to advance progress. The next government whether its National or Labour et al are left with a lot of upgrade work to catch up. And these follow business infrastructure and social developments such as Health, Housing; Education; Welfare; Immigration and so on.

Now, the opposition and its allies are offering to dig a hole on the right. The current static status is a fortuitous opportunity for populous politicians; the social gap has provided opportunities to attract voters on offers of social spending leading up to the General Election 2017.

Never had any previous campaigns had so much social spending on offer. However if you consider the cycle of economic developments, the so-called boom of a star economy was true to its linear materialism. It merely dug a whole to bury the social consequences while appropriating benefits for the private business sector. And consequently, the next government is expected to fill the hole left behind by the previous extreme right in a period of bust to progress away from the current static status.

So now we can associate boom times with benefits to the private business sector and bust times with social consequences to the public sector. But the cycle can be booming and busting at the same time; boom for the private sector and bust for the public. The only trouble is, a boom to the left is not a natural demand on production, it is rather spening tax payer revenues.

And so it follows that development under the two-party divide is black and white in compliance to the status quo. The reality of awareness is confined within the same boundaries provided by the political divide. This realisation reflects the social stratification of society; between the rich private sector and the poor public sector.

This duality formed the historical pattern of economic cycle of booms and busts. If National was the government, it expects a boom for the business sector the same time a bust for the public sector. But if Labour was the government, the opposite is true to expect boom for the public sector and static for the business sector.

The difference is: National is a business party maintaining business interests; Labour used to be a worker's party offering social developments.

There is no solid middle ground, only a dynamic of swing votes. These folks are not exactly those who couldn't make up their minds which way to vote. Instead, these folks are those who would have made up the middle ground. When developments on the right had dug a hole on the left, swing voters would vote the left to attempt at balancing the scale of developments.

When the left is too far to the socialist abstract without a solid base, swing voters would move to the right. Accordingly in time of Election 2017, swing voters are expected to favour the left vote to fill the hole left behind by the previous government.

However in the make-up of the two major parties, each is also structured on the same hierarchy of members arranged from the right to the left. National have members located towards the far right as well as members towards the left. To the less-extreme of the right are those leaning on the left and more to the centre of right.

Labour itself has members leaning towards the right as well as members leaning towards the left. Those members leaning towards the right are more to the centre of left or more conservative members of the left.

Notice in here the silent campaign from the socialist feminist or PC gender sector of Labour! They are unusually quiet in this campaign.

In any case; the moderate members of either side cannot cross the floor under party lines, but voters can. And these voters who can cross party lines I have given the name 'swing voters'.

In my previous article, I have associated representatives to positions of the political spectrum from the extreme right to the extreme left. And that clearly identified Mr. English the social conservative balance between the two extremes.

The two-party tradition had for a while reinforced tribal rule enforcing status stratification based on ethnicity. But this is gradually challenged by arbitrary rights and gender movements. These movements are picking up the young vote. It is therefore inevitable that arbitrary democracy and equality are gradually making inroads to the tribal industry.

In our post digital age, the rise of the young vote is inevitable in the near future; it hasn't caught up with realisation yet. May be it's due to the state of education and infrastructure catch up. But it looks like the digital age has already established its own digital divide. Is lack of education infrastructure the pretext for this development?

While there are struggles within both major parties, I'm thinking that swing and young voters will determine the outcome of this election. Both major parties have their own internal struggles between extremes and moderates. It certainly questions the sincerity of what politicians have offered and what would become of it after the election and negotiations thereof.

For steady progress and economic stability, I'm going for National and Maori Party to hold the balance between material and social developments. It's a vote for balance the Social Conservativism vote for democracy.