Posts by Steven Peters
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Greg Dawson,
I think it is the 'washed' among the electorate that have the most to fear from no threshold, not the 'great unwashed', Keir.
'No threshold' is a red herring. The issue is - What happens now that a statutory body has suggested changes be made to our MMP system before the next election, yet these suggested changes do not accord with party political interests?
Was the whole thing political theater, and all those who made public submissions on the changes, and the electoral Commission, mere bit players in a farce? -
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
A kindred spirit! However, even if desirable, it is highly improbable a public body would endorse 'no threshold' , let alone the electorate (but you never know, if the issues are aired sufficiently well).
How might a re-consideration of the (current and recommended) MMP system come about, notably the level of the party vote threshold, because this is the variable that is the most significant, and malleable. The Party vote threshold needs to be lower, and I think a Royal Commission would see this too - I mean, what other hope is there? That is why the impasse has a kernel of possibility within it. The Green Labour 'coalition' might promise to adopt the EC's recommendations if they are the gov. in 2014. This policy certainly wont help, as it has no real substance. My hope is that Labour/Green might put some substance to any proposed review of MMP, particularly if they lose the next election (which is highly probable IMHO). They might adopt a policy of having a Royal Commission re-examine the issues, in particular the sticking point of the PVT - followed by, you guessed it, a referendum. -
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I more faith in the possibility that a Royal Commission would have the substance and authority to produce a much less timid document than the EC has produced, as I am sure it would wish to investigate how a revised MMP system might address the chronic political and growing economic inequality in NZ. After all, the 1986 Wallace Commission produced a ‘radical document’ – there is every reason to expect another might do the same, which the EC could hardly be expected to do. Its not in its nature, which is to serve, not to lead.
Maybe our disagreement is more fundamental. You are happy with what the EC has produced, whereas I feel it is mere tinkering, and does not alter the status quo. In fact, it worsens it. -
I am pleased to note that you now seem more comfortable with the abolition of the OST - even 'in isolation', although I am unsure how this is practical?
You labour (excuse pun) the 'consensus' issue somewhat, in my view. National is perfectly entitled to ignore the Electoral Commissions report. The basic fact is that it was their initiative (made to further their own interests), and thus their prerogative to ignore. How the Minister spins this basic truth is up to her, and 'consensus' should do the requisite work. That's politics.
Personally, i am delighted at this impasse, even though meaningful changes to MMP are desperately needed for a more equitable democracy, without which we could not hope for a more equitable society. The EC's proposal to reduce the Party vote by such a small margin, impoverished their entire report, in my view. Had this recommendation been focused on the interests of voters, rather than parties, we would not have seen Labour et al agreeing to the recommendation in such unseemly haste.When you suggest that 'The best we can hope for is for them to set up a process by which we get to make the decisions' - how do you think this may come about? It is unlikely the main parties would allow an electoral 'accident' (like MMP) to get past them again, which would further undermine their hegemony.
There is only one way it would happen, if one party sees it in their short term electoral interests to have the process taken out of MP's hands more substantively, such as another Royal Commission, to settle the issue of changes to MMP. -
Okay that answers my question. Nothing of substance has been done to further Bostons suggestions regarding the desirability of constitutional changes in the 'new' MMP environment. I am surprised the EC did not include some of Bostons suggestions in their final report, given their concerns about 'stability'. If they had proposed such moves, they could have attached these to a proposed 3% threshold, instead of 4%.
Could you tell me what would be required, in terms of a parliamentary vote, to abolish the Maori seats (75%?)
Thanks -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Hi Graeme
This thread seems to have expired. Pity. In 1998 Jonathan Boston wrote 'Governing Under PR, Lessons from Europe'. On Page XIV of his executive summary he wrote (abridged);
"A Possible MMP stability package.
In the interests of ensuring a more orderly process of government formation, reducing political uncertainty and enhancing government durability, the following reform package warrants serious reconsideration:
Requiring the Parliament to meet within thirty days of a general election
Giving the Speaker of the House the responsibility of managing the process of govt. formation, including appointing a formateur (or an informateur) if the circumstances dictate) and nominating a candidate for PM; Introducing an investiture vote under which the Speakers nomination for PM would be endorsed by the House unless rejected by an absolute majority of all MP’s; Introducing a positive resignation rule under which an absolute majority of all MP's would need to vote against a govt. on a motion of censure in order to force the governments resignation; requiring governments to resign (and the process of govt formation to be activated) whenever there is a change in party composition, Introducing a fixed or semi fixed parliamentary term".From your knowledge, has any attempt(s) been by government/parliament to consider any of Bostons recommendations, or even more generally look at constitutional issues " In the interests of ensuring a more orderly process of government formation, reducing political uncertainty and enhancing government durability", under MMP
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
stability is very hard to define. it is part of hegemonic discourse – of course a lot of minorities would like a certain kind of instability. They would like their problems addressed, which means change, which is less stable. The very introduction of instability that came from MMP was a big part of the point of it, that it broke up existing power structures.
Very good point Ben, well put. When they talk about 'instability' and 'effectiveness' - from whose view point are they making that judgement? The 25% of NZ children who live in poverty, for example ? (don't think so) How have they measured it?. Where is the data? It is just rhetoric (or ideology), to keep the existing power and economic structures stable, and effective, for those who benefit from them.
I am disappointed that the Greens are happy with 4%. I thought they were more committed to democratic principles. They are not. -
I found reading the final EC report infuriating, and a little nauseating. Its not in keeping with the Royal Commission, whom they look to for guidance, because that was a radical document.What this document offers to those who need it most, the non and under represented in our society, is a sugar pill.
Winston will support National in keeping the 5% threshold, although National's stated position is not final yet. But who else will support no change?.
There will be wheeling and dealing around the OST, and the PVT, between parties allied with National.
In some ways, I think it would not be a bad thing that the 5% stays, and the OST goes (the latter a good thing which ever way you look at it)). It will make the inequities in a high PVT more obvious in coming years, as our parliament becomes an elective dictatorship of four main parties, instead of two.Opting for a 4% threshold will make little difference to this happening, IMHO.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Hi Graeme.
Winston Peters is arguing that the 5% threshold should remain as 'this what was decided in the referendum in 1993, and nothing has happened which changes that decision'.
Do you know what he is referring to exactly, and whether it has any relevance in the current debate? -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
Ben, you argue that the end justifies the means in that a system that creates inequality between voters, which the OST does, is justifiable because it (might) bring about a small increase in proportionality, and reduce the dominance of the two old oligarchs.
Without the one seat threshold each vote is equal in all electorates.
However, the 4 or 5% threshold (and you seem to assume that there will be a drop to 4%, there is no guarantee of that) means that all votes for parties who get under that are 'wasted'. Without the one seat threshold, all parties who did not reach the threshold share an 'equality of non-representation'.With it, there is an inequality of representation created. Haven't we enough inequality built in to the system of voting, with the PVT, without another one, muddying the waters, and the impetus for change among all those equally disenfranchised by the PVT?
AS far as their 'survey' goes. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.