Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #5:…, in reply to Brendon Steen,
Are there no rules against deliberately misleading people about the way voting works? There should be. As you say, they could easily make their point without being misleading.
Maybe.
The Electoral Referendum Act 2010 states that the Electoral Act 1993 applies, with any necessary modifications, to the referendum.
Section 199A of the Electoral Act states:
199A Publishing false statements to influence voters
Every person is guilty of a corrupt practice who, with the intention of influencing the vote of any elector, at any time on polling day before the close of the poll, or at any time on any of the 2 days immediately preceding polling day, publishes, distributes, broadcasts, or exhibits, or causes to be published, distributed, broadcast, or exhibited, in or in view of any public place a statement of fact that the person knows is false in a material particular.
As you will note, this doesn't apply yet (only in the last 48 hours and on polling day. And I'm not sure the ad is explicit enough in it misleadingness to count as "a statement of fact that the person knows is false in a material particular".
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #5:…, in reply to Sacha,
What does the Electoral Commission think about this?
I didn't seek comment from it, so I don't know. It's possibly more of an advertising standards things, however.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Would they still get replaced if the resigning electorate MP was from the same party as them? Surely not.
Yes. Indeed, this is the one instance where it seems common sense. If an electorate MP resigns from Parliament, their party loses one MP. If one of their list MPs then becomes the electorate MP, they’re still down one MP (having gained an electorate MP in the by-election, but a “lost” a list MP to the electorate). Only by replacing the list MP can they get back to their full strength.
-
And comments opened. Sorry guys.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Hans Versluys,
Won’t that lead to (say, in a return to FPP) elections only basically fought in Maori electorates as they will be effectively be the cross-bench seats and they will determine a Labour or National majority?
No. FPP elections would be fought in the marginal electorates. Some of the Māori electorates may be marginal as between Labour and the Māori Party/Mana Party. It's possible in close elections that seats held by the Māori Party will be cross-bench seats that National and Labour will bid to gain the support of, but mostly elections will result in a National or Labour majority as decided by the marginal (general and Māori) electorates.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
No, what I actually meant was: has any party got into parliament for the first time without one of its candidates already being a sitting MP? (as the Conservative Party are trying to do at this election).
Yes. Technically, every party does this every election. There are currently no members of Parliament.
[edit: see below, in my hurry, I've been fact-checked on this one - the period where there are no MPs doesn't begin until the close of polling day.]But in real reply to your question, yes, ACT was elected in 1996 without a current MP among its candidates. And it won’t be for a first time, but ACT may do it again this year.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to FletcherB,
… Would that qualify for the description of one party buying a support party?
No. Not without more involvement from the major party.
Would that almost be like your first question about major parties pretending to be two different parties for list and electoral votes?
No. Because it wouldn't cause disproportionality, and wouldn't artificially increase support. Indeed, it increases the chance that the party will lose the electorate it wants to win, and likelihood of some wasted votes.
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to George Darroch,
Meanwhile, there was an actual news story. The Greens announced a Kiwisaver package with significant implications for savers and savings.
Significant implications because it's inconsistent with Labour policy and suggests they won't be able to come to an agreement/will only be able to come to an agreement which effects significant costings? Or for some other reason? Because the only way (at this election) that a Green policy on Kiwisaver will actually have significant implications is if their policy becomes the policy of the National or Labour Party's.
The Mana Party and Libertarianz have policies that would have significant implications for large swathes of people, as well, but they're about as likely to be enacted as the Green Party Kiwisaver policy.Green Party other policy? Sure - there's a possibility. Green Party Kiwisaver policy? Highly, highly unlikely to have any implications on anyone at all (unless of course, they're terming it a bottom line that will have implications for government formation - like the Green Party's GE moratorium policy in 2002(?)).
-
OnPoint: 3 News Exclusive Investigation…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
But to dismiss the burden of that debt for the students of today is to demonstrate such an amazing lack of empathy that it leaves me sad for those who have to work for you.
I totally assumed that it was a joke. Did you not?
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
It’s a cheque that’s guaranteed by the bank and is as good as cash.
Is that different from a bank cheque?