Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check 4:…, in reply to Venetia King,
re the four alternatives to MMP going to be listed in the same order on all the referendum voting papers? Looking at the sample image on the official sites it would appear so, with FPP listed first (in alphabetical order). Do you think that could make a difference to the result?
They're in alphabetical order (by full name, not abbreviation, so STV comes before SM). I don't expect it to make a difference. These are four quite distinct alternatives. I suspect most people will have made up their mind, and those who haven't will vote for the one they've heard of when they get in the polling booth, not the one that's top of the list. It's not like a local body election where you get five ticks, like 1 or 2 of the candidates and somewhat randomly select your other votes.
-
Legal Beagle: Up to 11, in reply to tussock,
I’m torn on the second vote. STV would make a reasonbale alternative to MMP given my own desires, but FPP is more likely to lose to MMP in the following referendum than STV is.
I'm not sure that's true. If MMP loses the first referendum then it must be possible it will lose the second. Ask yourself: "would I prefer MMP to lose to FPP, or would I prefer MMP to lose to STV" and vote accordingly.
-
Legal Beagle: Up to 11, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
Am I missing something, or do I need to (strategically) vote to keep MMP rather than risk a no vote counting as a vote for FPP?
Whether your distaste for the possibility of return to FPP outweighs your desire for a move to STV is a matter I can't answer. There is a risk, but it may not be a great one. Certainly FPP seems most likely to win the second question, but even if it does, the plan is to have a second referendum, you could support MMP there if necessary.
I read on the referendum website that parliament would vote on whether to hold a second referendum between MMP and the most popular alternative – but does that mean that they could decide to change it straight away without holding a second referendum?
Not really. Parliament could technically do that anyway whatever the result, but a change to FPP would involve changes to entrenched sections of the Electoral Act, requiring a 75% majority in the House to change. There are academic debates about what entrenchment means, but the simple point is that parliament could. A change to SM (with a 70/50 electorate/list split) could be made without amendments to reserved sections, but the other systems are more complicated to implement quickly.
All major parties have said they'll abide by result of this referendum, and I am confident in stating that before there is a change in the voting system that there will be a binding referendum.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check 4:…, in reply to BenWilson,
So there’s nothing to the received wisdom that sunny days favor Labour?
There could easily be something to that, but I suspect it's not major.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check 4:…, in reply to merc,
Compulsory voting = game changer.
I'm not so sure. Academic opinion is divided. It seems likely to me that compulsory voting isn't beneficial so much to one side as it is to the incumbent. People who kinda think the government isn't too bad, but aren't big fans of it, are those who are less likely to vote, people who dislike a government, even if not vehemently, are more likely to vote. Governments tend to lose when the opposition gets its voters out and the government finds many of its voters stayed home. Compulsory voting would protect parties from some of the apathy that they sometimes experience at various stages of the election cycle.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check 4:…, in reply to BlairMacca,
Lazy question. Are we forced to vote for one of the four if we want to retain MMP?
No. You can vote in either question or both questions. Also, an invalid vote in one of the questions will not render a vote in the other question invalid as well.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check 4:…, in reply to Paul Campbell,
Thinking about it more I think that party lists are giant red herring ... The alternative is a separate US style primary vote ….
There are other alternatives. As I note, we could have open lists, where the people who are elected off the party list are those who got the most support indicated via ballot papers. Every party's list would be on the inside of the ballot box (or you could have read it previously) and you could indicate the number of your favourite list candidate of the party you were voting for and that would help push them up the list.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check 4:…, in reply to Richard Wain,
struggled to understand the STV bit as alluding to our cousins over the ditch (which makes me wonder how many Aussies get it too) but very good analysis.
I really only included it because it meant I got to correct Nigel Roberts.
In short, under STV you rank candidates.
Under STV in New Zealand, you can rank as few as one, and as many more as you want.
Under STV in Australia you have to rank everyone or else your vote is invalid. But they do let people make a couple of mistakes and still count. -
Legal Beagle: Up to 11, in reply to 3410,
So it seems. Strange then that all references in your post of two days ago to your conversion are in the present tense.
It really doesn't seem that long ago. Your pointing to that thread just showed me how long it was.
That said, and while I'm not big on all those fancy forms of tenses, they all seem at least some form of past tense to me:
Someone presented an argument.
I have been a supporter (i.e. in the past).
I thought X (i.e. in the past) and now my view is Y. etc -
Legal Beagle: Up to 11, in reply to 3410,
Au contraire!
Quite. However, if you look a little further down, you will note that by that time, I had already changed my mind, so your observation came after the same observation from someone else that changed my mind. If only you'd been earlier, this post could have been dedicated to you!