Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, over 50% (ignoring thresholds) of those voters will have voted for one of the parties making up that government, by definition. That to me is democracy, not electing a government that 60% of voters voted against, for instance. If voters don’t like their parties coalition choices (as I suspect many Maori party voters do) then the remedy is to stop voting for them.
I'm not sure that that's enough for some people. To a lot of people - including me - democracy also incorporates parties campaigning on platforms - people and policies - that voters can accept or reject.
It is not a defence to the claim that the 1984-7 Labour Government didn't have a mandate to make the sweeping changes that it did to say: "oh well, you can not vote for them later". If a party campaigns for something, or against something, and that support or opposition is reflected in the result, basic democratic principles suggest that should be followed.
Many people are rightly annoyed at the National Party because John Key promised they wouldn't raise GST. Some National voters and Labour supporters would be rightly annoyed if National sold TVNZ tomorrow. National voters because he promised he wouldn't and maybe that's why some of them voted National, and Labour supporters because maybe Labour could have done better at the last election (even won it) if the National Party had been upfront.
I'm suggesting that it is more democratic, and more fitting of the public mandate model of democracy, that we apply the same principles to party coalitions as we do to policy platforms.
In 2005, the Māori Party was Labour's "last cab off the rank". Although it wasn't repeated prior to the 2008 election, I never saw a public repudiation of this position. Yet a coalition of runners-up headed by a second-place Labour Party would likely have needed its support. If a party says - or implies - or lets voters believe - that it will not enter a coalition with a particular party, people might vote for that party on that assumption: "I can vote for the Labour Party because it will mean that the influence of the Māori Party over government will be small, because that concerns me."
I don't see a fundamental distinction between breaching a policy pledge and breaching a coalition pledge. If a multi-party coalition wants public legitimacy and a mandate, then voters need to know what they're getting into before the election.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to Wilbur Townsend,
if you had a Green/Maori/NZF/Labour Government, where Labour had less seats than National, then, sure, a lot of National voters would be upset – but, as those voters wouldn’t represent a majority of voters, that’s not really an issue. I don’t think Green/Maori?NZF voters would have an issue either, as they’re likely to have a different view of the mmp system. So I can only see there being an issue when Labour voters are upset with their party forming a government, which seems a little ridiculous, though plausible.
I think you can definitely have an issue if the supporters of the 'losing' party don't consider the 'winning' party the legitimate winner. The breakdown in civil society can have an impact across the political arena: the more extreme aspects of the Tea Party (birthers, etc.) are an example of what can happen.
I also think that whilst Labour supporters might be fine with it, this group isn't synonymous with Labour voters. I think there would be some people who voted Labour who would consider such a move as grasping political power, because they looked at the results and accept that they 'lost'.
I do think that had this happened in 2008, Labour would have suffered in the polls (perhaps to the extent of leaving them out of office longer later) and that support for MMP would probably have dropped too.
My post is at least somewhat aimed at investigating how this negative perception can be countered, by whichever party manages to pull off a coalition of runners-up first.
-
noting that National, Act, United and the Maori Party would constitute a four-headed ‘hydra’.
Except that it only needs two heads: National and ACT, or National and the Maori Party. It's not five parties needing to combine to form a majority, which is what was 'feared'.
-
Legal Beagle: Coalition of Losers, in reply to sumware,
The House is elected using preferential vote in 150 single-MP constituencies. The overall votes don't matter, although the media, and even the Australian Electoral Commission, like to tell everyone what that result is. Just as happened under our first-past-the-post system in 1978 and 1981, it doesn't matter in the House which party gets the most votes, or which party gets the most first preferences, or wins the two-party preferred count.
Constitutionally, that is. There's certainly the possibility that there might be public disquiet about a result that went a different way.
-
I suspect a more significant problem with making all council pools free is likely to be that a model that fits a basic open-air pool would be difficult to apply to the Mt Albert Aquatic Centre, with its hydroslide, wave machine, spas and saunas.
Having taken a couple of free swims off the ratepayers of Auckland over the Christmas/New Year break, I can say that this didn't appear to present a problem in the council pool I went to, where you paid for use of the Spa or Sauna or Steam room and didn't for the main or kiddie's pool.
-
Isn’t that exactly what you asserted about fifteen centimetres above? (Although yes, that does change the complexion of things)
No. I said earlier that the suppression of the reasons for the decision *about the jury trial* was at the request of the defence.
I said later that I believed that probably all of the suppression of everything else in the case - e.g. suppression around the bail hearings, suppression around evidence rulings, etc. was at defence request/with defence agreement.
-
When did that transpire?
Throughout. I don't have the facts on hand to responsibly assert that all of the suppression has been at defence request, but I know of no suppressions in this case that have been imposed in the face of defence opposition.
-
I’d observe that suppressing the case for why the defendants are not getting a jury trial is troubling
The suppression of the reasons for the decision is at the request of the defendants.
-
I’ve *never* been called for jury service…maybe it’s because I live in a remote area (but there are jury trials in Greymouth.)
As at the middle of 2009 (for when I have the stats) 53% of New Zealanders 18+ resided outside High Court jury districts, and 23% outside District Court jury districts.
These numbers will be somewhat lower now (the distance was increased from 30km to 45km in the same legislation that lowered the number of challenges and brought in majority verdicts etc. ) - somewhere around 49% and 17%.
-
Is there a limited number of challenges for each side
I believe it’s six per side, but whatever it is can be varied by the judge with the agreement of counsel – as is the case with the majority of the rules that apply to running a trial.
It changed reasonably recently. It's now four per defendant per side without cause (but the prosecution never gets more than eight). And I'm pretty sure it can't be varied.
There are also an unlimited number of challenges for cause, but these are rare (they could be used for things like "the defendant was at high school with this guy" or "we are aware that this person is the partner of a mongrel mob member, and the victim was a mongrel mob member").