Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Voting Referendum: Jus' Sayin', in reply to Ben Curran,
find it annoying that there's only ever talk of wholesale change, never the option of tinkering with what we have. It seems rather excessive when with a little tinkering we'd have a system everyone but Garth George would be happy with.
That's kind of an option. If "keep MMP" gets at least half the votes on the first question in the referendum then the Electoral Commission will conduct a review of MMP which will look at tinkering with it. The review will look at:
1. The threshold for gaining list seats (5% of valid party votes or a win in an electorate);
2. The overhang (when the size of Parliament increases if a party wins more electorates than its party vote would entitle it in seats overall);
3. Dual candidacy (the ability for someone to contest both an electorate and on a party list AND the ability of MPs to contest by-elections);
4. Open lists (whether the party or the voters, or some combination, should determine the order that MPs are elected from the lists);
5. The ratio of list seats to electorate seats, and this has on proportionality;
6. Anything else the Government or Parliament later decides it wants them to look at, or they themselves want to look at, at except Māori representation, and the number of members or Parliament. -
And I’m going start with this piece from the NBR:
New Zealand parliamentary specialist Dr David Lindsey, of the University of Auckland, said business favoured FPP because it delivered a government on election night and certainty for the few years.
“FPP is great if you want stability and certainty for three years. You know what policies you are going to get,” Dr Lindsey said.
He said SM would get some support, not because it would result in a more stable government but from a business point of view would not make a material difference.
“SM may have an attraction in the general population because it minimises further the wasted vote. It takes the MMP wasted votes and re-allocates them.”
1. Except in very close elections, Supplementary Member (SM) is likely to result in a single-party majority government by whichever party wins the most electorates. It will usually give a government no different from first past the post (FPP).
2. SM does not take the MMP wasted votes and re-allocate them. This statement is so wrong I have know idea where the suggestion comes from. And compared with MMP, it does not minimise the wasted vote.
The 2011 referendum is not proposing any voting systems that change the number of MPs in Parliament or the number of Maori seats and all voting systems would have at least 120 members.
3. Every one of the alternatives to MMP in the referendum would change the number of Maori seats. Currently 7 under MMP, FPP, PV, and STV would see 12 or 13 Maori seats and SM would see 9 or 10. The 2011 referendum does not propose to change the method of calculating the number of Maori seats, but the results of that calculation would certainly change.
… the supplementary member systems means voters elect a certain number of MPs in straight first-past-the-post electorate races.
A number of MPs are also elected from party lists depending on the proportion of votes the party gets.
This can be done through a second vote or using the vote for the electorate candidate as an indication of party preference.
4. The Electoral Referendum Act says that if we adopted supplementary member, it would be the two vote version. The Electoral Commission’s advertising makes this clear:
-
p.s. it is my intention to be a fact-checker of referendum advertising (and coverage?) over the course of the referendum campaign. If anyone sees something they want checked, flick me a message.
-
I've had this stuck in my head since it aired a few nights ago. Daniel Radcliffe can not just act, but also sing and dance ... who knew?
-
There have been other great episodes of Media 7, Russell, but last nights was a great one of the "it's over already, can't you keep going?" type!
-
It strikes me as remarkable that while “misleading the House” is a political sin with real consequences...
I'd like some evidence to back this up, please.
Maybe just the name of two MPs who have suffered "real consequences" for misleading the house. Or even the names of the last to to go before the Privileges Committee and risk "real" consequences.
-
For once, I have music, rather than animation:
Okay. Animation too:
And I got directed to this Inside New Zealand double doco about a week about, which saw me watch the whole thing on youtube:
-
OnPoint: Budget 2011: Radioactive Space Donut, in reply to Joshua Arbury,
Interesting that transport is now the 6th biggest area of expenditure.
I think the point is that, given this is just a combining of two departments, it was probably already the 6th biggest area of expenditure (or close) and we just didn't know it.
-
Oh, but primary school teachers can top out (after 7 years) at $71,000. And the net ffect of Labour's top tax-rate on them was about $60 a year. Quelle horreur!
My calculation would have that at $660pa (i.e. 6% of $11,000).
-
I told him about the website and he said “say no more” or words to that effect, pulled out his phone, made a call and handed me the phone saying “there you go, sort it out”.
Best comment ever.
Well, in the last few weeks, anyway.