Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
A genuine increase in the diversity of representation in parliament of the nz electorate , one would have thought, would mean a decreasing dominance of the two main parties in parliament , but that doesn’t appear to be happening, the number of seats they hold is increasing over time. Reading the Royal Commission concerning the goals of the MMP system, I don’t think that was their intention, or desire. But maybe I am misreading it. Am I Graeme?.
I don't think I agree with the former. I think it was clearly the expectation of the Royal Commission that either National or Labour would form the linchpin of future governments.
The Royal Commission wanted diversity (male/female, Maori representation, minority ethnic representation etc.), and they wanted to ensure substantial other voices were heard if they existed, but I don't think their intention or hope was that new voices would come into existence. Just that if they did, they would be heard.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
I cannot think of a single new party that has entered the house from outside, since MMP started in 1996, with the possible exception of the Greens.
When the Greens were first elected as in 1999, they had current Alliance MPs in their number (the Greens were a constituent party of the Alliance).
ACT had former MPs in their party in 1996, but none who'd served in the 1993-96 Parliament.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
I’ll give that it’s a stupid hack, always was. A hangover from FPP, when local representatives actually mattered.
I'm not sure it's an FPP hangover - it was something Germany did, so we did it too (scaled for the size of our House).
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
to my knowledge, no political party has come out and rejected the idea (except ACT perhaps, for obvious reasons)
National has come out opposed to dropping the one seat threshold. I think Mana, too. Maybe UF.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
What implications for the Maori Party? They’ve never actively contested the list.
I dispute this. The Maori Party has actively contested the Party Vote at every general election since it formed.
And they get greatly annoyed at pundits repeatedly telling people that voting for the Maori Party is a wasted vote.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
What is interesting is that the Electoral Commission cites Germany as a model to emulate. However, Germany has a three seat electorate threshold (which is proportionately lower than our one seat threshold) yet the electoral commission propose to abolish ours, but not make any meaningful reduction to the party vote threshold. This to me seems inconsistent. Do you agree?
I'm not sure the Electoral Commission has sited Germany as a model to emulate, so much has just advised that they have MMP too.
I am not a fan of the Commission's threshold proposal, although a consistent argument can be made (and has been made by me, on occasion) that the two thresholds should be considered separately.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
Can you clarify for me how the party threshold waiver works for ‘ethnic’ or regional parties in Germany?
Not really. The German electoral system is still in a state of flux, after the German Constitutional Court ruled parts of it unlawful.
In short, my understanding was that a party needed 5% of the overall party vote, or 3 electorate seats, to get qualify for list seats. I understand that there is overall proportionality, but that list seats come from the states, in a mechanism which can increase overhang (which is one of the problems the Court had problems with).
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
Could you clarify a couple of points please.
Yes =)
Someone raised the matter of having a seat number threshold ( say three seats minimum), rather than focus on the party vote %. What is your view of the workability of this?
Emminently workable. Do the calculation once with all parties in it. All parties with at least 4 MPs in the result go back for a second go 'round, keeping the MPs that gives them. I have considered suggesting it myself, it just seems unlikely. We've gotten used to percentages. You could also just have a set number of votes (e.g. 50,000). There are number of alternatives other that a straight percentage.
Further, I don’t understand the EC’s logic concerning the minimum of 5 MP’s required for ‘effectiveness’.
They don't have a logic. It feels about right. I don't know why they didn't look at our actual history and consider whether our past 1 MP, 2 MP, 3 MP and 4MP parties were actually effective, because I think history shows that most of them were most of the time. And were certainly more effective than a zero MP party!
Further, in proposing to abolish the ‘coat tails’ provision of the one electorate seat threshold, they add to the likelihood of solitary party MP’s entering the house, exacerbating ‘ineffective MP syndrome’.
I've argued that in the past, but I'm not actually sure it's true. Certainly, if the votes stay they same, then it will happen, but votes will change. Would John Banks have won Epsom if there was no coat tail rule? Would Rodney Hide? If not, then the number of 1 MP parties would reduce.
-
Bumping this post, because it came up again:
Kahui is all but protected from facing another homicide charge because of double jeopardy provisions in the Bill of Rights Act that say a person, once acquitted, can be prosecuted for the same charges again only if there is compelling new evidence.
Kahui is not all but protected from a new homicide charge. He is totally protected.
-
OnPoint: H4x0rs and You, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
And do, more often than not. My father was a pilot, and he regularly pointed out the glaring errors in any aviation/aerospace stories that made the media. Economics stories are rubbish, science stories are rubbish. Possibly the sport stories are accurate and informed, I wouldn't know.
Law stories are frequently poor. People still aren't reporting the three strikes law correctly!