Posts by Steven Peters
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Brent Jackson,
Yes, well put. If we had a ‘five seat threshold’ (which sounds perfectly reasonable) this translates to roughly 3.7% of the party vote. Yet this would be ‘unreasonably’ low for the Electoral Commission, who would not go below 4%. It was worried about too many parties in the Parliament – or ’fragmentation’ – and to few MP’s in a party for it to be able to function ‘effectively’ in the House. How would they know? Isn’t the role of a party to represent its constituents, not to meet the criteria for effectiveness according to the Electoral Commission (or anyone else, for that matter).
Secondly, and correct me if I am wrong, under the current 5% threshold, theoretically there could be up to 20 parties in the House, at 4% up to 25, at 3% up to 33. The Parliament could become fragmented at their recommended 4%.
-
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Brent Jackson,
On second thoughts, a ‘four seat threshold’ equates to a little under a 3% party vote threshold. Would this adequately compensate small parties for the loss of the one seat electorate threshold? – maybe not. They may want lower one, so could we have a three seat threshold, as you suggest. Maybe it is a case of ‘Yes we can’.
But who would oppose such a move, but agree to a four seat threshold (3% of the party vote), or perhaps not go any lower than a five seat threshold (3.75% approx)? -
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Brent Jackson,
Exactly. It shifts the debate over to the question of 'when does a so-called 'small ' party become a so-called 'ineffectual' party?. The Electoral Commission has seemingly decided, tout court, that anything under a five or even six seat party (4% threshold entitlement) is 'ineffectual'. This assumption needs to be rigorously scrutinized, and switching the debate from abstract vote percentages, to a seat threshold, which is more easily understandable by all, will aid this process, in my view.
Your suggestion of a three seat threshold, Brent, equates to a 2% party vote threshold. I think the Electoral Commission would disappear on the argument if you put that to them, as probably would most parliamentarians, and half of the public. Something higher might be more achievable. -
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
You say " A party ‘earns’ 4 complete seats in a 120 seat House at 3.333% of the vote."...yet on the figures you gave earlier, the mean is about 2.8%. That seems a substantial rounding (down), if that is what it represents. Any thoughts on my suggestion of a say, four seat threshold, rather than a 4% party vote threshold?
-
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steve Todd,
To take your last point first, Steve, the Electoral Commission has proposed the abolition of the one seat threshold, correctly in my view, but they have not adjusted the party vote threshold sufficiently to compensate small parties for its loss.
I agree with your view about the party vote threshold - it is a very blunt instrument - and the higher it is, the deadening it is, in what was designed to be a more proportional and nuanced electoral system. It is almost like a remnant of FPP, the (over the threshold) winners take all.
You are suggesting a 3% party vote threshold - which would qualify a party to four list seats. Yet, on Graeme's figures, if a party in 2008 achieved 2.8% of the party vote, they also qualify for four seats - but under your suggested 3% threshold would not get into parliament - correct?. -
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Thanks for this Graeme. So we are looking at roughly 0.4,1.2, 2.0, 2.8, 3.7 and 4.6 for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 list seats respectively. Assuming the operation of the EC recommended 4% party vote threshold, if a party were to achieve, say 4.40% of the party vote, it would receive five list seats (is it rounded down, not up?).
Given that the voting percentages are variable to seats proportioned, I would have thought the EC would have proposed a minimum 'seat threshold' to enter parliament, instead of a 'vote threshold'. Why not a a '5 seat' threshold, which is a little under their favored 4% party vote threshold. Why, in your view, did they not take, or at least mention, this option? -
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steve Todd,
A graduated threshold at the National level? I would be interested in hearing what you mean (s.peters@clear.net.nz).
Could anyone tell me what % of the party vote would be required for a party to be entitled to three MP's in Parliament (and 2 or 4 MP's if you have the time).
I agree regarding your view, Steve, regarding submissions to select committees. This is part of the reason why ignoring the Electoral Commission review is a festering sore, because it undermines public faith in the referendum, review and public submission processes, turning us into cynics about our democracy. -
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steve Todd,
Thanks for that informative post, Steve. Simply because candidates call themselves so-called 'independents', does not precludes MMP at the local level. If you are standing as Mr Frank Lee, Independent, then that is the name of your party, as in the Jim Anderton Party. You only require a membership of one, but you need to have a registered 'party' name for your candidacy. Its all a bit academic unfortunately, as LB electoral change does not appear to be on the radar screen.
The nature of our MMP system is in a state of flux at present. There is unfinished business lying on the table regarding the last referendum resulting review, and lack of action by the current coalition govt. on the (needed) recommendations. This will all go into the mix at the next election campaign, and, it won't go away until it is sorted, in my view, as the public have wisely expressed their desire for change to the system through the referendum.
I do not support the absence of a party vote threshold, although the Netherlands operates one and it seems to work. I think the EC's recommended 4% is too high, as it fails to compensate for the also recommended abolition of the one seat electoral threshold -the default mechanism put in place by the Royal Commission (1986) to allow small parties to enter parliament. As such it is a retrograde step from 1986 - absurd - no wonder the governing coalition rejected it -there is nothing in it for small parties, traditional players in our electoral history, especially since 1996.
Had the EC recommended a PVT of 3%, or even 2.5%, this may have incentivised existing small parties to support the EC proposals. A 4% PVT is unachievable for genuinely small parties, as opposed to medium size (Greens, NZF).
unachievable, whereas 4% is.
Next parliament, Winston Peters is going to give the two major players his own version of the 'Chinese Burn'. It is a sad commentary that the unattractive rump of NZ's deeper and darker (metaphorically speaking) political centre is going to have such prominence in our politics. But then again, maybe that is what we deserve. -
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steve Todd,
Thank you for your apology – accepted. Yes MMP unsuited to current local/health elections. However, I wouldn’t give up on STV for national elections just yet, if I were you, as I think dissatisfaction may grow with MMP, if the party vote threshold is not reduced significantly. After 2014 there will only be four parties in parliament, (excluding those in the dedicated Maori electorates – which will be all, or mostly, Labour Party seats anyway). Those four are Nat, L, NZF, Gr, which, In my view, do not do justice to the diversity of the NZ electorate, and the specificity that so-called ‘testimonial’ parties can provide. My vision is for more smaller parties in the House, particularly for the marginalized and voiceless (‘the poor’, the disabled, children, future generations, animal rights). My vision is that with a small enough threshold, supporters and members of these groups (which make up a sizable percentage of the electorate) will organize into pol parties, and could gain a voice, and crucially votes in our representative politics.
But I digress. STV is no doubt superior than plurality forms of voting, so I imagine it is getting rolled out across all the local bodies/health over time?
However, from my experience, local government and health are in need of structural reform. Here in CHCH we have STV, but the council has a massive empire; an international airport, huge trading companies, stadia, rental housing, land, commercial buildings and who knows what else.The state hospitals are typical of the ‘free’ but compulsory model, which leaves little room for a more nuanced mixed and interlinked system of public and private providers. -
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steve Todd,
Being patronizing doesn't strengthen your argument,Steve.
Local and DHB elections may be different, but the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform found 'MMP is clearly superior to STV in providing proportionality of seats to votes, and to do so consistently'.
However, the role of party politics is, ostensibly, less important in local and health elections. .
At the national level, could STV as you propose it, secure for parties that gained say 3%, of first preference votes, 3% of the seats in the House.? If it did, a might be a convert.