Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: It's worse than you think, in reply to Kyhwana,
While the government/police could use the terrorism act to force you to give up the passwords to encrypted texts/emails, you'd at least then know they were looking and it would be a PR field day if they did that to any journalists. (Especially if that had happened in this case).
Please explain which terrorism power this is, and how it works in this way.
-
And for those that can't make it to the film, an edited version is available at Maori TV.
Can anyone explain how much is added, and how different the theatrical release is from the television broadcast?
-
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steven Peters,
Yet this would be ‘unreasonably’ low for the Electoral Commission, who would not go below 4%.
The Electoral Commission thought that anything lower than 3% would be unreasonably low.
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%.
You are wrong. There could be 90 parties at 5%. 70 parties with electorate MPs, one party for each electorate, and 20 parties with list seats :-)
-
Hard News: The Real Threat, in reply to Russell Brown,
Answers to questions from Russel Norman indicate that Parliamentary Services DID hand over Andrea Vance’s phone records to David Henry.
How and why were we told otherwise in the first place?
The information I saw in the media suggested it was a contractor. However, there are a great many reasons why someone would make a mistake like that, and it doesn't necessarily suggest mal-intent.
-
Hard News: U: It's about the combos, in reply to izogi,
At least in Australian Freeview, the infomercials have dedicated channels, like TVSN, and electronic guides that include specified quality programming like “The Roomba Hour”.
We have that on NZ Freeview too.
-
Hard News: U: It's about the combos, in reply to Damian Christie,
I know a certain youth-oriented website that could do with 60,000 automatic likes… and that never backfires…
And it even starts with a 'U'. It's practically the same thing.
-
Finally, this is a disaster for Freeview. TVNZ has now shuttered three digital channels and TV3 hasn’t even got a new channel to the start line.
Surely one of either Four or C4 counts. C4 2, as originally named, was only Freeview based, and it still exists as C4.
-
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steven Peters,
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?).
It’s not really rounded at all – they just haven’t gotten enough votes to get more – but if you want to look at it that way, yes, rounded down.
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…
The numbers I use apply Sainte-Laguë, which tends to favour smaller parties. There's no particular magic to that choice, and if you applied a different system, the numbers would be slightly higher. A party ‘earns’ 4 complete seats in a 120 seat House at 3.333% of the vote. It’s just that, with 'rounding', a party will get them with a little less than that.
-
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steven Peters,
Prior to the 2011 election, I did historical numbers for a new party crossing the one-seat threshold, for each of previous elections, in order to, for example, show how many votes an ACT, United Future, or Mana Party might need to get a list seat. Numbers below:
1996: 0.39% (1 seat); 1.17% (2); 1.99% (3); 2.79% (4); 3.64% (5); 4.45% (6)
1999: 0.40% (1 seat); 1.19% (2); 2.00% (3); 2.85% (4); 3.67% (5); 4.49% (6)
2002: 0.40% (1 seat); 1.20% (2); 2.04% (3); 2.87% (4); 3.71% (5); 4.57% (6)
2005: 0.41% (1 seat); 1.25% (2); 2.10% (3); 2.97% (4); 3.82% (5); 4.73% (6)
2008: 0.39% (1 seat); 1.19% (2); 1.99% (3); 2.80% (4); 3.64% (5); 4.46% (6)
edit: assumptions were the current system including the 5% threshold. The '1 seat" level is the vote needed for a one-electorate party to not cause overhang. Numbers would be higher if you used modified Sainte-Laguë, or had no threshold.
-
Legal Beagle: Council Elections: STV Q&A, in reply to Steven Peters,
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.
If the electorates were large enough, yes. If they were 3-5 MPs each? No.