Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #2:…, in reply to Tim Hannah,
It seems a little unfair at Point 2 to ding Matt McCarten for talking about the very close to the threshold Green result in 99 by stating they didn't didn't stand in 96.
Yeah, I figured he was just confusing his dates, and transplanting what happened in 1999 to 1996, but I included it for two reasons:
1. the assertion that the accommodation (such as it was) in Coromandel was a result of what happened three years earlier takes it beyond mere date confusion.
2. I got to point out that Nandor stood at the 1996 election :-)
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #2:…, in reply to BenWilson,
I doubt it would have made a lick of difference, Hitler was brought in by huge majorities, and if he hadn’t been, it’s quite likely he might have seized power anyway, as he eventually did, even though democracy actually installed him.
The Nazi Party never received a majority.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #2:…, in reply to BenWilson,
It's a big call to blame the incredibly chaotic times in that country at that time on the electoral system. I expect it was incredibly fractured because their entire society was incredibly fractured
I suspect so too. I make the same point about other Parliaments with low thresholds. However, the point remains that a 5% threshold could have stopped some of the fractiousness from getting representation in the legislature.
-
And again, I have now opened this for discussion. You'd think that might be the default :-)
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Actually, I was being flippant – I wouldn’t think Bomber would be up for elected office, but maybe he feels otherwise? (They make you wear a suit, FFS)
I know.
But that doesn't mean the information in response can't be helpful.
Have you seen Bomber? He's always wearing a tie!
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Phil Lyth,
What has Sykes got to do with this? Surely you mean ‘any party winning one electorate needs ~3.6 – 3.8% of the list vote to get four list MPs’.
Rich wanted John Minto, Sue Bradford and Bomber Bradbury in Parliament.
If Annette is not on the list, this needs ~2.8-3.0%.
If Annette is on the list high up, it needs ~3.6-3.8%. That Annette is considered likely to be on the list is information Rich may not have had, or at least may have ignored in this matter.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I have no idea how Hone plans to organise his list ranking, but hope we might get John Minto, Sue Bradford and Bomber Bradbury in Parliament
We should know how by the end of the month how Mana will work out their list. Parties are required to submit their list ranking procedures to the Electoral Commission within a month of registration.
Hone + 3 list MPs will need ~2.8-3.0% of the vote (65k+ votes depending on turnout). To get Hone + 4 list MPs (i.e. assuming Annette Sykes is no 2) will need ~3.6-3.8% (85k+ votes).
In 2008, the Maori Party got just under 56k votes.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Yeah, but truly, who’s going to sit down in a polling booth and rank 50+ candidates? If we had open lists, there would need to be an opt-out and I suspect many would take it.
You don't. The voting paper looks pretty much the same as it does now: Party vote on the left, electorate vote on the right.
Except underneath the party vote is a little box. In that box, anyone who wants to can write the number corresponding to one candidate on the party list of the party for which they voted. The number of votes each list candidate gets is added up over the country, and if XYZ party earns the right to 8 list seats, then the top 8 people as voted by people who bothered are it (although many places that do have open lists operate a process where list candidates need to get a certain number of personal votes before the original list order is displaced).
In short, the ballot doesn't have to be horrendously long and it won't be compulsory to do it, but just giving people the option would mean arguments about unelected list MPs would be weaker.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Allowing easier public input into list ranking might appeal to some voters.
Perhaps, but I really that’s for parties to determine – and be rewarded by the electorate as they see fit
The Party can write the list, but voters should get to choose who gets elected from it!
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to BenWilson,
anyone want to place bets that we’ll hear significant support from the Maori Party for whichever system seems likely to allocate the most guaranteed Maori seats?
I would bet that we won't. The Maori Party appears to support MMP and has for a while, despite MMP resulting in the fewest Maori seats of any of the systems on offer.