Posts by Steven Peters
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks Rich. This is quite intriguing, and complex for the ordinary punter - who said MMP was simple?. I am still interested to learn about how this particualar quirk could be maximally exploited by political parties.
Single voting would mean the district magnitude of the party vote would be each individual electorate. Any ideas why it was decided that the party vote be calculated using the entire electorate - or double voting? -
Legal Beagle: Council elections: FPP Q&A, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Thanks Kyle.
Thats pretty querky. If National had won Epsom in 2011, it would have cost it a list MP, and therefore its desirable for a different but friendly party to win it. Do you know how many electorates this scenario could apply to? ie.National allowing other favoured parties to win safe National electorates, thereby avoiding the loss of a list seat, but also retaining the numbers to form a government coalition?It could be important, as National could make arrangements in other electorates to do the same, for the 2014 election. I wouldnt blame them, as its in the rules, but is it possible, and to what extent?.
-
I know I am a little off topic here, but I would appreciate it if could someone could clarify something for me. As part of my interest in the rules of MMP, I am researching the ACT Party. At their 2013 conference, President John Boscawen said "The Epsom electorate votes overwhelmingly National with their party vote, but it remains an undeniable fact that had John Banks not been elected MP for Epsom, the National Party would not have been able to form a majority government with ACT and Peter Dunne’s United Future.Having ruled out Winston Peters as a possible coalition partner, National would have been left with only one alternative – The Maori Party. I believe had Epsom voters not elected John Banks, the Maori Party would have held the balance of power and would have been in a position to have decided who governed New Zealand. They would have extracted a huge price for their support!"
Is this factually correct? If National had taken Epsom in 2011, would not the result have been exactly the same for the Nats in terms of having the numbers to form a govt.?
-
I pity those in local body elections who have STV. Its not that the system is flawed particualrly, its just that it seems a battle between individuals, rather than the deeper principles they adhere to when organised into a party, even a party of loose cannons (at least you know where they are coming from). Voting in the STV health board election down here meant I had to read through 20 personal biographies (50% spin) of 200 to 300 words each, as well as sometimes lengthy 'conflict of interest statements' which don't tell me where the candidates loyalties really lie (themselves, or particularly trade union, or business friends, or medical profession, or politcal views) . Then I had to rank them in order of preference - and not make a cock-up or else the whole three days spare time reading and research is wasted (not to mention my votes). I dont mind this however, as I have a political habit, and need a fix, but 50% of eligible voters do not, and how many votes are wasted?. Dont get me wrong, if this is democracy, I'll take it, but I dont think its my first choice.
-
Ireland has STV. We could have the North Ireland, and South Ireland, Eirrre.
-
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steve Todd,
So at the National level, how would STV work under our current 70 electorates, or would new electorates be required with a different population base? . How many MP's would be elected from each electorate, how many candidates could each party put forward in each electorate. Could we still have seperate Maori electorates?
How would proportionality between parties be ensured? Would there still be a seperate party vote? -
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steve Todd,
The thing is Steve, candidates are much of a muchness - it doesnt reallly matter who they put up, because voters want to see the Party they prefer holding the power strings in Parliament. Under MMP, if voters dont like the candidate their prefered party puts up in their electorate, they can vote for someone else, or not vote for anyone. They retain their prefered party vote choice, regardless of the local candidate (ie they are irrelevant).
Would an open list party system under MMP tick your 'people power' box? -
I am not sure what you mean by 'people power' - are you meaning that you would prefer the system is
geared toward voters choosing candidates as individuals (and their beliefs) , rather than representatives of a party (and its beliefs). Short of banning political parties, how is this possible? -
Following the Australian election, we have the emergence of so-called 'micro-parties', which will have a presence in the Australian parliament, and thereby be of political influence in the overall mix of voting power. This is a term I havent heard before, and I expect we could hear in the rhetoric in any debate concerning a reduction in the partyvote threshold here in NZ..
How is it that micro parties are able to emerge in the Australian electoral system, and are they are symptom of disproportionality, rather than its opposite. Anyone care to comment? . -
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I can see who the lawyer is among us. As an aside, isn't it interesting how the word 'reasonably' (and its converse) is such a 'catch all' phrase, or 'knot', when in reality it requires thorough and precise unpicking. To the majority of parties in the house, the EC's proposed threshold to enter parliament, 4% and abolition of the one seat exemption,. was also 'unreasonable'. A close look at the public submissions on this issue, using the ECs own graph, shows 4% is also unreasonable, in my view.
.
Thanks for enlightening me on the number of parties point. The EC should have qualified their pv threshold by saying it was reasonable assuming the status quo party system and electoral seat outcomes, or close to it. Its good to know someone is looking after the status quo - but should they be doing it?Currently, electoral seats are divided between national and labour using first past the post. However, for the sake of argument, I was making the assumption that the party vote, and electorates, would be spread evenly between parties. But correct me if I am wrong :)