Posts by Tim McKenzie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to BenWilson,
One of the best things about MMP (and other proportional representation systems) is that it takes account of the horrid influence of parties in the process, enabling more than a duality of them to exist.
But it gives the parties much more power to choose who will be MPs, regardless of voters' preferences.
Consider how difficult it would be for determined voters to get John Key out of Parliament under MMP. Now consider that Australian voters got John Howard out of Parliament (under PV, I believe) immediately after he'd been Prime Minister for eleven years.
-
That’s how it seems to work. A lot of conscience issues are really only issues of conscience for those who hold a firm opinion in one particular direction.
It's worse than that in the case of the Green Party. Holly told us that all Green candidates are required to sign a document agreeing that they will always vote according to Green Party policy, on every issue on which the Green Party has a policy. So the party gets to decide what issues its MPs are allowed to have consciences about, and by developing a policy on euthanasia, it decided that its MPs can't have consciences on an issue of life and death.
-
During the most recent election campaign, I went to a meet-the-candidates event for Hutt South. One of the questions was about whether the candidates would support a bill about euthanasia at its first reading. Holly Walker said she would vote according to her party's position on the issue. She didn't know what her party's position would be, because it was still in development, and wouldn't be finalized until after the election.
-
This significantly strengthens the imperative to ensure that the voices of as many voters as possible are represented in the House of Representatives.
Members of Parliament represent all New Zealanders, not just those of voting age
Which is it? Do MPs represent all New Zealanders, or only the ones who voted for them?
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
When you use PV, we can be sure they’re acceptable to a majority.
a) You need a "no confidence" option on the ballot to be sure of this.
b) PV doesn't guarantee electing a Condorcet winner, even if a Condorcet winner exists.But I agree that PV is a vast improvement over FPP, which can, in theory, elect a Condorcet loser. (In practice, I suspect most voters assess who they think the two most likely winners are, and vote for their preference between those two, so it's really hard to tell what their true preferences are.)
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Maori Party voters are people who vote for the Maori Party.
In that case, I don't quite see the point of your response to Angus. He was talking about vote splitting by anyone other than "Maori Party voters" --- people who gave their electorate vote to a Māori Party candidate, and gave their party vote to another party. Or were you agreeing with him?
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Not before we adopt STV, which is the only system where independents seriously have a chance of being elected in New Zealand.
What if there was a party of independents? Such a party would have no policy, but would exist solely for the purpose of allowing independents to stand for all 120 seats in Parliament, not just the 70 geographical ones. The party list could be sorted according to each candidate's performance in an electorate in the previous election, with candidates who've never stood in an electorate before being randomly ordered at the bottom.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Maori Party voters split their vote considerably less than Green Party and ACT voters.
When you say "Maori Party voters", do you mean people who cast their party vote for that party, or people who cast their electorate vote for a candidate from that party?
I think Angus's point is that voters who split their vote and cause an overhang (by giving their electorate vote to the Māori Party candidate and their party vote to another party of their choice) are disproportionately represented in Parliament.
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
While it may be in the Māori Party's interests to campaign for party votes, their voters might do better to give them elsewhere. Electorate vote Māori gets more Māori Party MPs, and party vote Mana gets more Mana Party MPs, without incurring any opportunity cost relating to getting more Māori Party MPs.
In this way, a Supplementary-Member-like Parliament could gradually emerge without any of the parties deliberately gaming the system. I don't think the voters even need to be aware that that's what they're doing.
-
And another infrequently asked question: When are you going to stand as an independent candidate, Graeme?