Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #5:…, in reply to Sacha,
It hasn’t been adjusted enough to match MMP, let alone some of the other decision-making traditions this nation’s cultures know.
It has been adjusted a lot. Proportional representation on Select Committees; the role of the Business Committee; speaking slots; party votes are a particularly big one, but in a number of other areas as well.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #6:…, in reply to peterpeasant,
This thought raises the question that no one wants to ask about the elephant in the room.
Do we need to have Maori Seats under MMP?
We have The Maori Party.
We have The Mana Party, including Bradford and Minto.
You really think no-one's talking about this? Here maybe not. But it's very common elsewhere.
And in reply to your observation: we have the Maori Party because of the Maori seats. We have the Mana Party because of the Maori seats. With a 5% threshold, direct representation of Maori in Parliament without Maori seats will likely be much diminished. This may be one reason that the Royal Commission recommended that parties representing Maori interests shouldn't have a threshold. It was on that basis that they recommended that if we were to go to MMP, then the Maori seats should be abolished.
Given an MMP universal franchise democracy society how can Maori seats be justified?
I would also note that we are going through a process to determine whether we should keep MMP. It might be that we would adopt a different system, under which the Maori seats may play a different role.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Angus Robertson,
How much later? It has been 3 days.
I can’t figure how a party with more MPs than its proportionality allows can do anything but cause an overhang.
How much later? A couple of paragraphs: I got to it later in my post.
An example: the Maori Party runs candidates in electorates, but doesn't submit a list (so isn't on the party vote side of the ballot). It wins 4 electorates. It keeps these 4 electorates. The other 66 electorates are each won by Labour or National.
When the entitlement for lists is worked out, the Electoral Commission works out which parties 116 MPs should come from. National's and Labour's places are filled first by the people who won electorates, and then enough people from the list to take them up to the right number. All of the MPs for the Green Party come from the list. These 116 MPs from National, Labour and the Greens, (66 from electorates, and 50 from lists) and the four Maori Party MPs (from electorates) are the members of the Parliament. 120 total. No overhang.
Now consider this scenario: the Maori Party runs candidates in electorates, and also submit a list (so isn't on the party vote side of the ballot). It wins 4 electorates. It keeps these 4 electorates. The other 66 electorates are each won by Labour or National.
When the entitlement for lists is worked out, the Electoral Commission works out which parties 120 MPs should come from. National's and Labour's places are filled first by the people who won electorates, and then enough people from the list to take them up to the right number. All of the MPs for the Green Party come from the list. Two of the 120 MPs should come from the Maori Party. There are 118 MPs from National, Labour and the Greens, (66 from electorates, and 52 from lists) and the four Maori Party MPs (from electorates) are the members of the Parliament. 122 total. 2 Overhang.
-
Speaker: The Public Broadcasting Imperative, in reply to Gregor Ronald,
faked-up nature docos involving contrived dangers
This isn’t new, and indeed, it wasn’t new in 1976. e.g. the Lemming cliff scene from the Disney True Life Adventure, and, for that matter, Nanook of the North.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Paul Campbell,
I guess there’s an intermediate version that runs electorate candidates (who promise to resign asap) and an empty list
Electorate resignations would just lead to by-elections. Perhaps just a list with 1 person on it who promises to resign. The 99 MP party had a list of two (and the Bill and Ben Party).
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Tim McKenzie,
That’s a shame.
I agree. Someone could run a no confidence party with an empty list that reduced the size of Parliament by one for every MP they earned.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Tim McKenzie,
And another infrequently asked question: When are you going to stand as an independent candidate, Graeme?
Not before we adopt STV, which is the only system where independents seriously have a chance of being elected in New Zealand.
[And probably not then, either] -
Legal Beagle: Now it's up to you, in reply to Jackie Clark,
Thanks again for this Graeme. My work colleagues wanted to know about the referendum, and being able to email them the link to the referendum tool is invaluable.
Happy to help. It's good to know that it's getting some use!
If they've got any questions about any of the systems, feel free to send them through, and I may be able to combine them in a post.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #6:…, in reply to peterpeasant,
The NAZIS came in via a preferential system.
Nope. Proportional. The change after the war was to introduce electorates (and the new threshold, I think).
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #6:…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
OK two men who may be not quite 40 and one conservative Maori man. Not much a nod towards equity.
And looking at October above:
Raybon Kan, Simon Pound, Penny Ashton, Tino Pereira, Mark Inglis, Jeremy Elwood.
I think.