Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #5:…, in reply to izogi,
Did this even happen under FPP? The earliest ones I remember were in the early MMP years.
There were occasional votes where MPs cross the floor, under both MMP (Donna Awatere-Huata on Maori seats, Taito Phillip Field on Civil Unions), and FPP (Marilyn Waring on nuke ships(?)), but these have been rare in New Zealand for a long time. I suggest that it is in party because our Parliament is so small. MPs voting against their party/the Government is relatively common in the UK, but if we wanted that sort of independence in New Zealand (which is what the anti-MMP crowd says is good about FPP/SM) then we'd need a lot more MPs (so that the executive and patronage couldn't extend far enough to overwhelm an independent caucus).
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to annamarama,
But if many people did that (or didn’t do that, rather) – say everyone on the electoral roll cast their electoral vote, but only half of them cast a party vote, would the overall no. of MPs change?
(I’m guessing no, because I suppose that would wreck proportionality in other, different ways. Which means I probably need a better retort.)
Your guess is correct. If even one valid party vote is cast, Parliament will just as big as usual.
Which raises another good question: what happens if no-one at all casts a (valid) party vote?
I believe the answer would be that all parties would share equally in the seats, with any leftovers decided by lot, but I suspect it would be something that the Court of Appeal determined.
The retort you may want is that some people consider that that is a problem, but one of the things that will happen if we vote to keep MMP is that there will be a review of the details of MMP by the Electoral Commission, and that review will look at whether we should move to open lists, where voters get a say in which list candidates are elected.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #5:…, in reply to Adam Maynard,
Why does MMP require 120 MPs?
Because, if it has fewer MPs , then either:
1. Electorates will have to be too large, or
2. There will not be enough list MPs to ensure proportionality.That said, I dispute that FPP can work with 99 MPs (or 120 for that matter). A major advantage claimed for FPP over MMP is that it means that local MPs are responsive to local voters, instead of to party dictates. In New Zealand, this hasn't been the case for a long time. With only a couple of one-off type exceptions, MPs have not really crossed the floor against their party in a very long time in New Zealand. If one supports FPP because it means local MPs will vote with their constituents and against their parties, you need a lot more MPs (so that cabinet and the executive have much less power over Parliamentary Parties).
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #5:…, in reply to Ian MacKay,
I support MMP.
If I just vote in favour of MMP and not tick an alternative, does that make MMP stronger, weaker, the same?
If I did give a second tick to say PV, would that help to undermine say SM?1. The same.
2. Yes. It would make it ever so slightly more likely that PV would be the alternative and not SM, should we have a second referendum. -
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Richard Aston,
What was the rationale behind giving more partly list seats to a party that gets an electorate?
It increases proportionality, and diminishes the unfair aspects of having a threshold at all.
The basic argument is that the rationales for denying representation to voters who support sub-5% parties are far weaker if that party is going to be in Parliament anyway.
e.g. the 5% threshold is there in part to stop there being a whole bunch of single-MP parties in parliament, which would be bad for stability.
This need for stability is considered so important that we are prepared to say to some voters that their votes don’t count.
But that rationale for denying the supporters of that party a voice in proportion to their strength diminishes substantially if that party is going to be in Parliament anyway. In short, well, they’re going to be there anyway, you might as well give them a chance of being effective (in proportion to their share of the party vote).
Denying them their proportional voice doesn’t decrease the likelihood of largely useless one-MP party (indeed it increases it), but it also increases the likelihood of a an effective Parliament (limiting sub-5% parties with one MP to that one MP means that party is less able to participate in debates, select committees, the scrutiny of legislation, holding the government to account etc.).
Other rationales for denying Parliamentary representation to parties with low level support apply too: e.g. the threshold keeps out extremists: well they’re there anyway. The threshold discourages splintering of party support and encourages parties to form groups large enough that if they make it into Parliament, they’ll have a big enough voice to actually be effective: well, they’ve already fractured, and have made it into Parliament anyway etc.
I wrote a post a couple of weeks back about changing my mind about the single seat rule, which you can read here.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Phil Lyth,
I had thought about that and considered that s129(2) would come into play – the writ for the issue of the by-election can be delayed for up to 21 days – and under s129(3) for another 21 days if thought necessary for special reason.
By that time the writ for the general election would have been issued, overtaking a by-election.
That's not how I read it. Section 129(4), which is the bit which allows the GG not to issue a writ, turns on when the vacancy arises, not when the writ would issue.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
That’s a difference with Westminster, where they cease being an MP when parliament is dissolved.
I can't say it makes sense to me that there a members of a Parliament which doesn't really exist.
Can NZ MPs still use parliamentary facilities during the election period?
Yes, but not for electioneering. Free flights, and the mileage allowance etc. yes.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Phil Lyth,
So I’d say there are 119 MPs in office (vale Allan Peachey).
That's another iFAQ: does there have to be a by-election?
No. The section that requires there to be a by-election upon the vacating of seat (by, for example, the death of an MP) has a subsection that states:
This section does not apply to a vacancy that occurs in the period between a dissolution or expiration of Parliament and the close of polling day at the next general election.
Were it to happen after the House had adjourned, but before the dissolution, I anticipate that the House would need to be recalled however, to pass a motion deciding not to hold one.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #5:…, in reply to merc,
I could make a very strong case to have that ad pulled on the basis that there is no arrow leading from the MMP tickbox suggesting your selection terminates there.
Feel free. I believe the ASA tries to make decisions very quickly during election campaigns, and I imagine they'd apply the same urgency to Referendum.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Phil Lyth,
S54 of the Electoral Act provides that people holding office as a Member of Parliament
Yep. Wrote it in too much of a hurry. But it appears I'm not the only one :-)