Legal Beagle: Fact check: Q+A on mayoral resignations
44 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
please don't make me regret leaving comments open :-)
-
Oh, Graeme, don’t confuse things with your stupid research-based facts. At least, don’t do it if you want a job as a Herald columnist.
-
Boag and McCarten are backroom political operators, not journalists. Truthiness is to be expected if producers keep inviting such a limited range of conflicted commentators onto their shows.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Boag and McCarten are backroom political operators, not journalists.
I did not call them journalists. My mention of "journalist" in the last paragraph is a reference to the journalists who were present on the panel.
-
Cecelia, in reply to
Yes, but I expected Corin Dann or Susan Wood to pull them up on this - or the esteemed political scientist on the panel.
-
I agree with the really really stupid comment in an FPP situation, main reason coming to mind being that if the elected mayor ends up not being sworn in and the mayoralty were awarded to the runner up, it completely invalidates the votes of everyone who indicated a preference for the mayor on good faith that that person would actually carry out the duty if elected.
If it were an STV election, like in Wellington for instance, are there additional reasons why it would be stupid? Perhaps the runner up shouldn't automatically get it, but in such cases it should be possible to reallocate all the preferences as if the initially elected candidate didn't exist.
In Wellington, if Celia had stood down, that might have resulted in someone like Jack Yan picking up many of her votes rather than John Morrison and he potentially could have become mayor, so it still doesn't deal with all situations like how the makeup of candidates might completely change if a particular person never stood to begin with, but in some situations I could see it being a reasonable alternative to a by-election.
-
There were journalists there, fair enough. And in the control room, you'd think.
-
Nice to see someone able to shine some real light on the situation
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
If it were an STV election, like in Wellington for instance, are there additional reasons why it would be stupid? Perhaps the runner up shouldn’t automatically get it, but in such cases it should be possible to reallocate all the preferences as if the initially elected candidate didn’t exist.
It is possible, but for mayoral elections - I expect for the reason you note about different people running - we don't do it. However, we do do it for lower level positions.
If a candidate dies (or their nomination in cancelled because they weren't qualified etc.) during the voting period then, if it's a mayoral election, we start over under both FPP and STV. If it's a lower level position, eg a councillor, the election continues, and any votes for that person are simply ignored if it's FPP, or transferred if it's STV.
-
Thanks Graeme. Good to know that the legislation is rational.
-
Scott A, in reply to
Or, to put it another way, it's quite good to see that the law won't allow a runner-up to take office by virtue of assassination (character or otherwise), without a fresh election.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I did not call them journalists. My mention of “journalist” in the last paragraph is a reference to the journalists who were present on the panel.
And considering certain sections of the commentariat have been screaming for Brown's resignation for the best part of a week, you'd think someone would have answered the bleeding obvious question. Isn't that what journalists do?
But sorry, Sasha, I don't give Boag and McCarten a pass just because they're "political operators". Being partisan and not talking out of your arse aren't mutually exclusive states.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
But sorry, Sasha, I don’t give Boag and McCarten a pass just because they’re “political operators”. Being partisan and not talking out of your arse aren’t mutually exclusive states.
And I would've thought that, being "political operators", a large part of their core professional competencies would be actually knowing what they're on about?
-
Can anyone sack the Mayor?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Can anyone sack the Mayor?
The minister can direct a new election of the whole council under certain circumstances. Convictions and other such things can force a mayor from office.
-
Michael Stevens, in reply to
Thanks - had a little slightly wine-fuelled argument about it last night :)
-
Common sense says there would be a by-election if Len Brown stepped down any time after Saturday night. I know this is the case in parliamentary elections.
Last week someone close to Palino's camp argued there would not necessarily need to be a by-election if the winning candidate resigned before the results were announced. I dismissed it as wishful thinking but maybe that's why Palino told Chung to go public with her story and force Brown to resign before the week's end.
I raised it yesterday with an expert(?) who said it was unclear in local government elections. When Michelle Boag raised it in the Green Room at TVNZ this morning I wondered if there was maybe some truth to it after all.
My mistake. I should have asked you in the first place. Ouch!
Matt McCarten
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
My mistake. I should have asked you in the first place. Ouch!
Matt McCarten
Thanks for the comment, Matt!
-
I'm a bit mystified why the death or withdrawal of a Mayoral candidate in an STV election doesn't just continue in the same way that an STV council election does - simply transfer any votes made down the voter's lists.
-
Well, at least they won't be drawing a name from a hat. Unless there's a tie? As in that Great Barrier Local Board.
-
Boag knows nothing about nothing, so why do they ask for her opinion?
-
izogi, in reply to
I'm a bit mystified why the death or withdrawal of a Mayoral candidate in an STV election doesn't just continue in the same way that an STV council election does - simply transfer any votes made down the voter's lists.
I think the clearest argument I've seen so far is Scott A's assassination argument. If the existing ballots are simply to be re-counted but ignoring the initial winner (whether it's FPP or STV), then there's an ugly but potential incentive for the candidate who is most likely to benefit from the mayor's demise to do something that ensures the mayor must stand down. In STV, this might not be second place, but it would be someone.
The other possible reason, I think, is still the one I suggested earlier. If you could imagine Jack Yan possibly picking up the Wellington mayoralty after Celia unexpectedly resigns or gets incapacitated. That'd be great for him, but in the current environment it seems unlikely that he would have become mayor if Celia wasn't running in the original election, probably because the factions that got behind Celia would have made sure there was an alternative candidate to attract their marketing and support on the ballot, similar to her.
I'm not totally convinced by this argument, especially under STV, but I think it's because I dislike the idea of factions and partisans driving candidate selections. With FPP, at least, there are clear reasons why an individual might choose not to run, if they think they'll merely split the vote of another similar candidate who's more likely to win. With STV, the vote-splitting problem doesn't exist (at least as long as everyone votes to theoretical perfection). Therefore if the mayor becomes incapacitated and an also-ran becomes mayor on re-distributed preferences, it's easier to say that it was the secondary choice candidate's own fault for not standing to begin with.
-
Ross Mason, in reply to
I dismissed it as wishful thinking but maybe that’s why Palino told Chung to go public with her story and force Brown to resign before the week’s end.
Bloody conspiracy theorist.
But then…..it is not beyond the pale to think that they might!!!!
They needed a lawyer.
-
Myles Thomas, in reply to
What they know is irrelevant. It's how knowledgable they sound. A great deal of confidence in one's own opinion goes a long way with these shows. It looks and sounds like serious analysis from experts but usually it's the opposite - a five minute conversation out the back based on half remembered notes from a drunken rant the night before, from the usual suspects. Laziness on all levels.
-
Greg111, in reply to
"The Local Electoral Act simply does not allow it. I suppose it could." This is a contradiction in terms Graeme.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.