Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Steven Price,
The standard suppression order does include a ban on any details likely to identify the defendant.
I think what was being suggested was also a ban on saying that the person was famous, or a celebrity, etc.
-
No matter what legislative change Simon Power might be minded to introduce...
Already done.
I refer you to clause 204 of the The Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to Steve Parks,
What do you reckon Graeme, get rid of the threshold? Does it achieve anything?
I'd probably just get rid of it, but use a modified Sainte-Laguë method to make it slightly harder for a party to get a single seat.
I recognise that this might not find favour with enough people, so I'd certainly lower it. Perhaps 2.5%. Certainly no higher than 3%. A party with 3% of the vote is pretty much certain to get four seats in Parliament. A party with one or two seats in Parliament is kinda just making up numbers - it's difficult for that party to meaningfully play the role one expects of a parliamentary party. Four seats in Parliament is sufficient that the party isn't a joke and can play a meaningful role in the passage and scrutiny of legislation and in holding the Government to account. It is large enough that we really shouldn't be telling people that their collective votes are worthless (a party with 3 seats gets pretty close to this as well, but I think with a four-seat party it's almost inarguable).
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to BenWilson,
I like the way you’re thinking. Vote for review and select MMP as your preferred option?
Perhaps I’ll explain … the referendum questions are as follows:
Part A
Should New Zealand keep the Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP) voting system?
O I vote to keep the MMP voting system.
O I vote to change to another voting system.Part B
If New Zealand were to change to another voting system, which voting system would you choose?
O I would choose the First Past the Post system (FPP).
O I would choose the Preferential Voting system (PV).
O I would choose the Single Transferable Vote system (STV).
O I would choose the Supplementary Member system (SM)If the first option wins in the first question, then the Electoral System will conduct a review of the MMP system, and make recommendations for possible change. There is no way to select MMP as your preferred option in the second question – support for MMP is registered by your vote in the first question.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to Steve Parks,
I have this notion that counties with PR and no threshold (like Israel) have significantly less stable governments than ones with a small threshold (like Germany), but I’ve done no research into this point.
There is a 2% threshold in Israel.
There is a 2% threshold in Denmark.
There is no threshold in Holland.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to BenWilson,
I’m somewhat disappointed that making minor reforms to MMP was not one of the options in the upcoming referendum.
There are two questions in the referendum.
You can kinda look at the first question as asking:
Would you prefer:
1. The holding of a review of the MMP electoral system by the Electoral Commission, to look at changes that could be made to that system?
or
2. There to be a referendum in 3 years times between the current MMP system, and the alternative electoral system the gets the most votes from the list in question two?That is, if MMP wins, consideration will be given to making changes to MMP, such as the threshold, overhang, etc.
-
Half the UH every general election, maybe, or even a third. Long terms is a good way to avoid the short-termism that we see at present.
How would half the UH being Maori work? Small UH and half are elected by the Maori roll?
I'm not sure how it was proposed to work. But there are a number of options
In the Electoral Reform Bill that was introduced by National following the 1992 indicative referendum (and which set up the referendum and the contingent MMP system), there was also a bit that would have set up a referendum on a senate (maybe only if FPP stayed?). Labour wasn't keen, and it was dropped in one or other of the committee stages. That proposal would have created a 30-seat Senate, elected under STV from 6 senatorial districts.
That Bill, as introduced, also would have removed the Maori seats (if MMP was adopted). Bolger's suggestions around a half-Maori Upper House came later.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to vangam,
And the Legislative Council wasn’t always the lapdog of Parliament.
No. But it was when it was abolished, which is why it was abolished.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to Matthew Poole,
An effective upper house would’ve put paid to National ramming through changes to education, employment and sentencing legislation under urgency and with near-immediate effect.
A proportionally-elected upper house would still have a National/ACT majority. It might have delayed things by a couple of weeks, but you really have to play around with things if you want an upper house to act as a proper check (e.g. staggered elections, or half-Maori as Jim Bolger suggested etc.).
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to vangam,
Why the hell did we get rid of it?
It didn't do anything. It was wholly appointed, and agreed to whatever the House wanted, frequently with little debate.