Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: Gender quotas (and helping…, in reply to Steve Withers,
Peter: The Green party list alternates male / female right from the top.
I’ve long thought that the Green Party, in order to be fair to both men and women, should alternate its list like serving in a tennis tie-breaker: e.g. one woman, two men, two women, two men etc (or the other way around)
This would result in there being a 50% chance of equality, and, in the event of an odd number of MPs being elected, a 25% chance of there being an extra man, and a 25% chance of their being an extra woman. Rather than a 50% chance of there being equality, and a 50% chance of there being an extra woman, and no chance of there being an extra man, which is what you get is what you get if you just alternate from the beginning.
-
I was asked by people on the twitter to explain my views. Has taken somewhat longer than expected :-)
-
Speaker: Gender quotas (and helping…, in reply to Don Christie,
The Spreadsheet had one scenario. 40% party vote in 2014, followed by 42% party vote in 2017. I think I made a pretty good historical argument for why a 40% party vote was unlikely.
-
Speaker: Gender quotas (and helping…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
please show me an organisation that claims to select on merit and actually does.
The Oakland Athletics?
-
Speaker: Gender quotas (and helping…, in reply to Rachel Boyack,
When you assume an increase of PV on 2011 (even a 6 point increase based on where we are now), and the requirement for 45% women, the maths doesn’t deliver any demotions.
Except it may require that if you select a disproportionate number of men to contest electorate races (after all, you didn't adopt the man ban, so this is possible), which, if increase your overall vote share, you become more likely to win. Labour won 22 electorates at the last general election, six of which were won by women.
-
Okay, I’ve done the quantitative. Now to take issue with the qualitative.
Men: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J
Women: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, JAn equal selection looks like this:
Men: A B C D E
Women: A B C D EWhy are the best male and the best female assumed to be equally meritorious? Why aren’t there two A grade women?
The assumptions inherent in this analysis are also heroic. The best male and best female seeking a position are equally good. Every highly ranked male is better than every slightly lower ranked female, etc.
You might be right. It strikes me as unlikely, but it's possible, but this simply does not address the argument that others are putting. It rather proceeds on the basis that the argument that it is possible that the sixth best man might occassionally be a more meritorious candidate than the fifth best woman is wrong. It is not stated why it is false, just that it is. This is where those arguing for “merit” over “quota” disagree with you, and you do not address their argument at all.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Russell Brown,
The moderators were letting through some very strong comments, with swearing and even a suggestion that that the hosts were trying to cover their own past indiscretions, right up until the time the comments were closed.
Which just shows how offensive the comments they weren't letting through must have been!
-
Speaker: Gender quotas (and helping…, in reply to David Hood,
Graeme, do you have a quick source to the time series you used for this?
I'm afraid you'll probably have to assemble it yourself. I just used the result pages and a calculator.
http://www.elections.org.nz/events/past-events/general-elections-1890-1993
and
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Richard Aston,
Yes they closed the comments ( why?) but reading them all gives me more hope, a resounding WTF are these radio guys thinking.
Is it possible that Radio Love comments are moderated, and that these comments were the acceptable ones, and that comments were closed off after a large number of disgusting comments that couldn't be approved to be shown and that comments were shut down because the moderator decided he or she didn't want to read any more?
-
Speaker: Gender quotas (and helping…, in reply to Russell Brown,
To justify an assumption of multiple demotions of male MPs, you need to assume
Don't make me test this assumption by going over past lists! I am prepared to have a bet with you, Russell, that the 2011 Labour Party list will include list-ranking demotions for multiple (two or more?) male Labour MPs.