Posts by Steven Peters
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
Yes I do understand that if conditions are changed behavior will change. However, the analogy you use tends to prove the point I am trying to make. If you remove the road block, more people will use the road. However, 4% is not taking away the roadblock, its just painting it in a softer colour - it is still a roadblock to minor parties, new parties and special interest groups.
As far as representation rights go, specifically, middle NZ'rs have a surfeit of rights compared to those outside this general group, because of the 4% threshold. It is easy for them to vote for a party that represents their world view, more or less, that will gain most probably representation. You cannot say that for others who want to vote outside the Nat, Labour, Green, NZ First 'block' (ha, there's that word again!) Votes should be equal, and carry equal weight. That is the stated principle of the Royal Commission.
I don't get the point you are making after you say' But the minor parties are voted for by all sorts of people' in para 2.The proposal by the Electoral commission to 'reduce' the threshold to 4% (the figure originally recommended by the RC) is not a political system 'designed for the future', as you suggest. The 4% threshold was 'designed' in 1988 by the royal commission. That's the past. And the history since has shown that they were correct that 5% would be 'too severe'. However, making it 4% is still severe, and doesn't change much for the goals that they set for the electoral system they designed back in 1988. They let us down I think in not opting for a middle figure, as for them a zero threshold was 'too low'. They should have opted for the range of 2 to-3%, if they were serious about real change, and I think they were hopeful for it. It still needs to happen, and 4% is no change at all.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
'I’m just prepared to say a small improvement is worth having whereas you think it’s stalling something bigger'.
It is indeed a small improvement, Ben, but only for middle-NZ voters (Kyle, when I say middle NZ, I don't mean it literally, like those living around the Wellington region - hope that helps).
As I pointed out, Ben, only NZ First and the Christian party have been in that range, and only ACT has been 2-3%. When I say middle NZ, I guess I am saying white, middle/upper middle class/the rich, and older voters).
You argue that a drop to 4 is an 'effective improvement for of tens of thousands of people' - but iI suggest only for middle NZers. I am more concerned about those outside this group who are disenfranchised, not those who emigrate from National and Labour, because of a desire to have their prejudices more brazenly articulated.It is an improvement in numeric terms, but in substance, it doesn't make an improvement to what the Royal Commission, and arguably the Electoral Commission, say is desirable for a fair and effective electoral system. I do not see such a paltry drop delivering much to those who don't belong to middle NZ, but it delivers a lot to those who do, because it legitimizes the continuation of the status quo. That's why the Electoral Commissions proposal should be seen for what it is, a sop, particularly in view of their additional proposal to drop the one seat threshold. Shame on them.
You argue that 'The impact on voter behavior could be more than past data would indicate. Things that poll around 4% might have got far less due to voters seeing no point whatsoever when their choice would get no power at all'.I think you are relying on guess work, perhaps wishful thinking, about what 'might' happen, whereas looking at what has happened is more helpful, IMHO. Could you clarify your last sentence, for me, I don't get you point. Thanks.
-
I don't see going to 4% from 5% is a drop Ben. For two reasons. 4% is the level; the Royal Commission recommended and the Electoral commission proposes as the minimum required for our MMP system to be fair and effective. 4% to me is the status quo.
Second, the Royal Commissions 4% recommendation was based on having a one seat electorate threshold to reduce discounted (disenfranchised) voters whose parties were under the 4% threshold. The Electoral commission recommends the one seat thresholds abolition, but without reducing the party vote threshold to under 4%, as logically it should to be in keeping with the royal commission, to whom they looked for guidance. .
Furthermore, the only parties to have received between 4 and 5% of the party vote are the Christian Coalition in 1996, (4.33%) NZ First Party in 1999, (4.26%) and 2008(4.07%). Other than it assisting these two parties , particularly NZ First occasionally, why do you say a drop from 5% to 4% 'means a lot'. In the wider scheme of things , it means very little, and is of little consequence compared to at a more meaningful drop in the party vote.
The fact is, even 3% is a high hurdle to reach for small, new and special interest group parties. To reach 3% would require a lot more than 3% support in the electorate, as many who do support it don't vote for it for historic loyalties, or they do not want to risk 'wasting' their vote on a party who may not make the threshold.You are being unrealistic about the Mana Party getting anywhere near the party vote threshold (either 4% or 5%) as they gained only 1.08% of the party vote (20,000 votes) in 2011.
-
When you say, Ben, you would trade the one seat electorate for a 20% drop in the party vote threshold, what level are you assuming is the level it should drop 20% from?
-
What is the difference between most seats, and key seats, Ben?
Is it the possibility of coat tailing that weakens the major parties, or simply of defection, which points to the divisions within the party itself. In a sense, party defections are an indicator that we do not have a sufficient diversity of parties in the house, that can accommodate the diversity of views not only in the nation, but in political parties themselves.
Are you saying that dropping the party vote threshold from 5% to 4% is worth a lot. It better than nothing I suppose, but not much, so I beg to differ.
I cannot think of a single party that is empowered by the one seat threshold. If there is one, who is it? -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
My understanding Ben is that you are equivocal about the one seat threshold, and not taking an unequivocal right or wrong stand. As I understand it, for you, it depends on the party vote threshold level. I am unequivocally opposed to it, for the reasons the Electoral Commission outlined - it creates unfairness and anomalies. Yes it shows National is not wanting to keep the one seat threshold on principle, but that it is in their interest at the moment. Outside of Te Tai Tokerau, a party vote for Mana is indeed a wasted vote, I would have thought.
I see what you mean Rob. -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Thanks for clarifying. Oh well. Looks like the one seat threshold will stay, and the party vote threshold will stay at five. However, if the National Party cannot get the votes to keep the one seat threshold, they may agree to drop the party vote threshold to 4% (lol), to do it.
I will have a closer look at the various parties reactions to dropping the one seat threshold as proposed by the Commission.
National is going against public opinion , and the electoral commission, wishing to keep it. They might change their tune, especially if the if it comes at a cost in order to get the numbers. -
A vote for the Maori party a wasted vote. In what way?
Regarding the notion of retaining the one seat threshold. Isn't this trying to reinvent a process and agenda that has already happened, and been set? ie tilting at windmills. The Electoral Commission, after hearing public submissions, has proposed to the government that the one seat threshold be abolished, and the reasons it gives are sensible ones. There is public dissatisfaction about this threshold, and to my knowledge, no political party has come out and rejected the idea (except ACT perhaps, for obvious reasons). What is the point of ignoring the fact of the Electoral Commission proposal and the public dislike of the one seat threshold. It seems all over for it bar the cheering, and the odd boo.
Energy would be better spent in my view seeking to address the high party vote threshold the Electoral Commission has also proposed, as the grounds it gives for this figure are not nearly sensible as the reasons for abolishing the one seat threshold, and upon which there is broad agreement. Indeed, their argument for 4% is questionable given their proposal to abolish the one seat threshold, recommended by the Royal Commission to reduce wasted votes because they recognized the party vote threshold would be difficult to achieve for small parties. They wanted to see small, new parties and special interest groups in the Parliament. -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
If someone has more rights than others in the electoral situation that should be based on the principle of equality of votes, then they don't have more 'rights', but are in a privileged situation relative to other voters, and that should be either be removed, or the rights of other raised to match them.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
two wrongs don't make right. Yes everyone under the PVT, if the OST is dropped, is treated equally, not unequally. If it remains, the unfairness and anomalies it creates will be, and is, exploited by the main parties anyway, which exacerbates an already iniquitous threshold. Either we follow the principle of equal votes for all, or we trade it away for a few pieces of silver and lots of blankets (for the large numbers who don't get a seat, and don't reach the threshold, and who are out in the political cold). The only party likely to win a seat and not reach the PVT in the near future are ACT and NZ First. Are they worth trading away an important principle for? Not IMHO.Keeping the OST provides a reason to keep the threshold high, which will disenfranchise many more voters, and small parties.