Posts by Steven Peters
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Rich, my thinking regarding the Maori party is more medium term. The changes proposed by the RC could be dire for them, but I will keep my reasons under my hat for the time being.Overhangs are of no real consequence in the scheme of things. I think the issue here is the OST and the PVT threshold changes.
Leslie, your statement "I’d prefer a fair but slightly less representative system to an unfair but slightly more representative system" is a contradiction in terms, IMHO. Fairness can only correspond with increasing proportionality, not decreasing, don't you think? Can you clarify what you mean about Winston P and J Banks. Banks won an electorate, (with a lot of help) - he gets in. Peters got over the threshold - he (and co) get in.
Are you for keeping the OST Ben, or dropping it? The issue is, the EC has proposed dropping it, with an inconsequential drop in the PVT. Who are the people who lose out by dropping it the OST? Act and NZ first- how sad is that. Haven't we got more important issues, like trying to get the 4% PVT to a fairer level for ALL 'minor' and new parties, and special interest groups, (yes, including ACT and NZF) as was the RC's desire in the first place. After twenty five years since the RC report, and 16 years of MMP we should know whether a 5%, or even 4%, PVT is realistic, such that enables these groups to cross it, and represent thier constituents in parliament. I think history, and the figures, show that we do have some answers, and that it would require a lower threshold than 4%. -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to BenWilson,
If you believe in democracy, above all else (as I do), then I don't see how you can support keeping the one seat threshold (OST). It simply creates unfairness between equals, and I am sure that the big parties will find a way to exploit that unfairness for their gain, as in the case of strategic voting in Epsom, and elsewhere.
Keeping the OST only puts a gloss on what is an unjust electoral set up, the 'severe' party vote threshold - it is unjust to 'minor, new parties and special interest groups. If the OST is dropped, and the PVT is 'reduced' to 4% (LOL), the unfairness to minorities etc will become more glaring. It is better, in my view, that this be seen for what it is, not glossed over in half measures like the one seat threshold. the disparities and inequalities in our society will continue to grow, mirroring the electoral inequality. What the EC proposes is a worsening of the status quo, IMHO. I think the EC proposals re the OST and the PVT are highly vulnerable to critique because of that, and I am not sure that the smaller parties in the house are fully aware of the implications for them, particularly the Maori party. -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I should have said the Royal Commission (RC) held up Germany as a model to emulate - and the Electoral Commission is using the RCs 'criteria for judging voting systems' as the basis for its proposals. I argue that the Royal Commission introduced the one seat threshold to assist minor and new parties, given the hurdle of the 4% electorate threshold (only one step below what they called a 'too severe' 5% threshold).
I agree the one seat electorate threshold should go. However, its removal should be concomitant with a meaningful reduction in the party vote threshold. 4% is not meaningful, as its the same as the RC recommendation, and will not result in any real change in proportionality, nor effective representation for minor or new parties, the RC's first two criteria for judging electoral systems. -
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Yes that was my understanding too. Technically, Germany is without an electoral law at the moment, because the court has found that the current situation violates the constitution which says 'each vote must be equal'. This is my simplistic take on the situation, so I may be wrong. Whenever there are 'overhang' seats, alarm bells should ring, because it means that there is sufficient dis-proportionality to warrant votes being shifted from 'poor parties to rich parties', as it were. Do you agree?.
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? -
Gr8 to get a response.
Yes, percentages seems to be 'their' chosen 'language'. Perhaps best to stay with that, and not muddy the waters? What is your view? That way we can concentrate on other weak points in their case re the 4% threshold the EC propose.I agree that their argument concerning 5MPs for 'effectiveness' does not stack up against the facts. There have been loads of examples of fewer than five MP's. Jim Anderton, Turiana Turia, Bruce Beetham, Hone Harawira come to mind, and they have been/are important in our politics. I think they are using as an argument to exclude 'very small' parties from the house, to avoid 'instability and fragmentation'. A party, or parties, gaining the votes of 80 - 90,000 each and therefore under the 4% threshold, should have their votes counted, not given to larger parties.
If three parties get 80k votes each, that's 10% of the party vote ignored.I agree that the one seat threshold should go. Yes on further thought, electorate MP's have an electorate function primarily, whereas the commission say they are worried about 'ineffective' parties in the house, from the party vote.
Can you clarify for me how the party threshold waiver works for 'ethnic' or regional parties in Germany?
.
Thanks -
Hi Graeme
First time poster. You have done some great work. Could you clarify a couple of points please. 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? I wonder if it could have some strategic value, in seeking to address the EC's issue concerning the minimum number of seats required for 'effectiveness' in Parliament. If a public referendum (should one occur) decided this was an adequate number, as they might, this would reduce the party vote threshold to 2.5% thereabouts. That is a much better outcome than even a hoped for 3%. Could I have your views.Further, I don't understand the EC's logic concerning the minimum of 5 MP's required for 'effectiveness'. Currently, if a party wins one electorate but less than 5% of the PV, they enter parliament alone - they are by the EC's definition ineffective. I am sure they would beg to differ, as would their constituents- (but who are they to say?) 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'..
Some of the most significant political changes have occurred through the efforts of lone MP's leaving their parties on principle, such as Jim Anderton, Turiana Turia, and who have for a time been alone in the House How could their role be deemed to be ineffective?
I would value your thoughts.