Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review: Trusting Voters, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
There’s an argument that if we got rid of the threshold, we should also adopt a counting system that requires more votes for the first MP.
That was essentially my proposal, and also the one offered by the Royal Commission, who recommended a modified form of Sainte-Laguë in the event we had no artificial threshold.
-
If someone want to spell out exactly what scenario you want judged: party votes for all (relevant) parties, number of electorate seats for all parties, I can adjudicate :-)
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review: Trusting Voters, in reply to FletcherB,
On TV1's Q+A this past weekend, Matthew Hooten points out that the law already requires a "democratic" list selection process, then proceeds to sum-up the National Party list selection process..
Indeed. David Farrar has made similar observations in the past.
The solution for National Party members concerned about this is to require the party to amend its rules. They have the power!
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review: Trusting Voters, in reply to Idiot Savant,
we could require parties to disclose the exact method used to order their list, so that voters can decide for themselves whether it is democratic enough for them.
We could. And as Andrew points out, we do.
But I'm not sure the market needs that help. "Party Z is so secretive they won't even tell you how their list is selected, why would you vote for them?" seems a reasonable line of attack. And given this is politics, someone could easily go all Harry Reid on them: "I've been told by a highly placed source that List Candidate W only got a high list placing because of Q."
-
I was about to comment that I realised this was a change from the position I took in my submission, but actually, it doesn't differ as much as I thought:
67. Again, it can be argued that this power is already in the hands of party members. If party members wish to exercise greater control over list ranking, internal amendments can be proposed to party constitutions and list ranking procedures; if enough party members agree, the question can be forced and if necessary, internal party elections can be fought over the issue: increased power over list ranking is party members’ to take. However, this is one instance where I am not sure that the political marketplace is sufficient. The benefits in terms of increased party accountability, and a decreased reliance on the patronage of party leadership, that should flow from moving list ranking powers away from party structures to broader party membership accrue to all, including those who vote for other parties. It was partly for this reason that the Royal Commission recommended the rule that became s 71 of the Electoral Act in the first place: we all have an interest in all the political parties contesting our elections operating in a democratic manner, and additional party democracy is something that we may legitimately require.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review - The Proposals, in reply to linger,
But it still reduces proportionality. It would have been better to have the threshold for extra seats set lower, e.g. 1.5% – if there must be a threshold at all.
The Electoral Commission's proposals would have made the results of the 2011 election more proportional, not less.
Same with 2008.
-
Speaker: Selling the Dream: The Art of…, in reply to Chris Waugh,
(still legal tender or not, I don’t know)
coins and notes never lose their value. Got an old one pound note? The reserve bank will give you two dollars for it.
every year the Crown accounts list a liability in respect of the unreturned (and almost certainly never to be returned) old currency.
-
Do we know if people were ever disappointed when they got here?
-
Legal Beagle: Before the fall, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
Hence the possibility of a report that says something like “there are very good reasons for having a threshold at 3%, but this would be such a significant change to MMP (and one that was not broadly supported in public submissions received) that it should only be adopted if the voters agree to it. However, the strength of the arguments for lowering the threshold from 5% combined with the support from submissions would justify Parliament moving to a 4% threshold without the need for further voter approval."
That’s another of the benefits of the proposal paper/final recommendations model: the proposal paper could come up with a suggestion and then see how people react to it, given the arguments put forward.
I’m still not sure what “problem” the Commission would be addressing by recommending “more party democracy” … aside from the public’s view that they don’t really like or trust political party “bosses”.
The perceived problem is: “list MPs are just there to do what they’re told by party bosses, and aren’t there to stand up for ordinary people. When push comes to shove, they’ll just do what they’re told and not make waves for fear of losing their list position.”. The better 'solution' to high party discipline may however be a vast increase in the size of the House.
-
Legal Beagle: Before the fall, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
But I also think it may recommend that the best idea would be to abolish the electorate lifeboat and go down to 3% if voters agree to do so at a referendum – with a fall back of abolish the electorate lifeboat and go down to 4% if the government doesn’t want to have a referendum.
I suspect they’ll leave the fallbacks to the Government. I reckon if they think it should be 3% they’ll just say so, referendum or not.
And now I’m just trying to work out how this differs my from view that there may be contingent recommendations (e.g. remove the one-seat rule, but only if you lower the threshold), and I’m not sure there is :-)
Oh God, I hope not.
I am more confident of the former part (more party democracy) than the latter (the specific mechanism I mention).
And, of course, the Government and Parliament have to agree before any changes are made!