Posts by Andrew Geddis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
“Jordan’s greatest complaint about MMP was that it was unfair that when a party lost an electorate it got an extra list seat (and sometimes even the very same MP). He argued that this meant that parties (and MPs) could ignore the wishes of the middle New Zealanders who make up the marginal electorates.”
Well, only if somehow a party is losing electorates whilst keeping its party vote the same – which seems somehow unlikely. “Ignoring the wishes of middle New Zealanders” (whatever THAT means) seems a pretty good way to lose votes full stop … which then impacts upon a parties overall numbers in the House. And losing numbers in the House then hinders a party being a part of Government (or getting its way when a part of Government). And THAT’S the dynamic that really drives parties’ actions.
As for the idea that forcing electorate candidates to rely only on winning their seats to return to Parliament will somehow encourage them to become more independent/prepared to buck their parties – why will it work now when (as you note) it didn’t under the old FPP system? Marilyn Waring/Jim Anderton are (in)famous simply because they were so rare, despite all MPs having to rely on their electorates to returnt them. And under MMP we’ve had Damien O’Conner and Nikki Kaye go against their parties. So … how are things “worse” now?
The real problem, it seems to me, is that NZ doesn’t have the numbers in the House to allow for a tradition of strong back bench independence. With an executive of some 20-30 members, virtually every MP can have dreams of one day being a Minister … which requires them to keep their nose clean and support their party. So if you want some MPs who need to look for an alternative career option (in terms of being an effective backbencher, rather than serving time till they move to the front) then you need more MPs.
And finally, there IS something stopping list only candidates standing before voters at candidate meetings and asking for votes. They need to be asked to them. And if, for instance, Dunedin North had a bunch of no-name electorate candidates up against David Clarke (because the other parties know Labour is going to win the seat), then it is them who would get asked to Dunedin North candidate meetings … and not Meteria Turei and Michael Woodhouse (who you can bet would be list-only candidates).
-
OnPoint: 195,508 people can't be that lazy, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
"Registered job seekers include:
people who are required to register as job seekers because they, or their partner or spouse, are receiving a work-tested benefit
people who choose to register with Work and Income as part of seeking work, to obtain assistance with finding work." -
"The BSA decision is available here. You will note they adopt the definition in section 69, without mentioning that their jurisdiction arises out of section 21, and that they should therefore be assessing whether the programme was "broadcast under Part 6"."
Maybe so. But they didn't do that. And so the BSA quite clearly decided, on their interpretation of s.69, that this just wasn't an "Election Programme" as per the Broadcasting Act. Which is the complete opposite view to the Electoral Commission. So, with respect, you can't say that the BSA and EC somehow came to different views because of the different question they were asking. They asked the same thing - "is this an Electoral Programme?" - and then simply applied different understandings of what the s.69 definition is aimed at.
Point being, the fact two different bodies asking the same question came to different answers indicates that there's no real clear right or wrong answer here.
-
Of course, you can flip this (Carmel Sepuloni is confirmed as electorate MP after the judicial recount, Paula Bennett then launches an electoral petition which is successful). In that case, Carmel is out and while National doesn't gain a seat, Labour loses one ... reducing Parliament to 120 seats and making absolutely no difference to the NACTUF coalition's 1 vote majority.
So ... not really as hilarious. Not hilarious at all.
-
"Always has been. I am disappointed that we still have to wait at least 10 days for a result. In 2011, you’d think that specials could be got to returning officers a lot faster."
It's also to allow time for overseas votes to be returned ... Kiwis voting in London, for instance, have their votes flown back to NZ and distributed to their "home" electoral districts. Then there also needs to be time to compare the electoral rolls from each polling place, investigate any cases of impersonation - where a voter is shown to have received more than one ballot - and remove from the count those ballots that were improperly cast.
So, it's not just a case of sending a few votes from Auckland to Christchurch and counting them ... the announced result will be (unless a judicial recount takes place, or electoral petition is mounted) THE final result. So it does take some time to get this absolutely right.
-
Hard News: The perils of political confidence, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Steve,
No. Lange v Atkinson related to the question of whether there exists a qualified privilege defence for an individual who is sued in defamation by a politician, on the basis of things the individual says about the politician's public actions. It has nothing to do with privacy.
And what law does the PunkAs commentator think the Herald should be prosecuted under, if it doesn't publish the recording? The law of "not doing what I want"?
-
Factchecking the fact checker ...
"...the Electoral Act requires that parties have democratic processes for the selection of candidates. It doesn’t give an explicit consequence for a failure, but I anticipate the Electoral Commission could refuse or revoke a party’s registration."
You'd be wrong. There's nothing in the Electoral Act that permits the Commission to do this ... as noted by the High Court in the various Roger Payne cases. So the only enforcement mechanism is a member bringing a case to court challenging the party's selection processes on the grounds they are unlawful.
-
Legal Beagle: Up to 11, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Graeme.
I am that "someone". And you're welcome.
-
Legal Beagle: Up to 11, in reply to peteremcc,
Peter,
Yes - the "single seat exemption" was lifted from (the then West) German model ... which has a two-seat rule in place precisely to allow regionally popular parties representation.
-
"I assume they still have other party political broadcasts of this nature (i.e. outside election time)?"
Rules are here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/guidance/ppbrules/ ... basically, all "major parties" get one broadcast each at the time of "key events in the political calendar, such as the Queen's Speech, the Budget and party conferences."
But for the election, "the number of PEBs should be determined having regard to the circumstances of a particular election, the nation in which it is held, and the individual party's past and/or current electoral support in that nation"