Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Election #11: Notings, in reply to
No worries. She’s still up for a promotion.
Don't be a party pooper, let me have my 'fun'.
-
Legal Beagle: Election #11: Notings, in reply to
What is your predictions on the Judicial recounts ? In your experience do they change the result?
I don't have experience of this, but I very much doubt there will be a difference. The local returning officer will have been damn careful. Unless the standard for divining voter intent is changed, if there's more than like three votes different, I'll be quite surprised.
-
Legal Beagle: Election #11: Notings, in reply to
Lefties really need to learn how to vote strategically.
I think you mean tactically. Who's to say they weren't voting strategically?
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to
I find it hard to understand how the support of Goff, King and Mallard doesn’t represent “entrenched interests and patronage.”
Because they don't expect much in return, and are just going to be serving the rest of the term before retiring, without hoping for front bench placement or great portfolios?
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to
I wasn’t having a laugh
I assumed not, I've just complained here before about how the 2008 election is mis-remembered. A lot :-)
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to
Graeme, can you also ask them to review the anamoly we saw in the 2008 election where:
- ACT got a measly 2% of the vote, yet thanks to Hide winning Epsom, they got five MPs, while in contrast...
- NZ First got twice as many votes, 4.07%, yet because Peters failed to hold Tauranga, they got no MPs.
Please tell me that you're having a laugh.
The Electoral Commission will certainly be looking at both thresholds. I expect they will recommend removing the "one seat rule" and may well also recommend lowering the 5% threshold. The best way to be rid of the anomaly may be to get rid of both thresholds altogether.
But onto the bit where I hope you're having a laugh (this is a pretty good way to get a reaction from me, I have to admit!).
1. At the 2008 election, ACT got 85,496 votes, and New Zealand First got 95,356 votes. This is not "twice as many votes". 85,496 votes was also not "a measly 2%", but 3.65%.
2. Peters couldn't hold Tauranga, as he'd lost it in 2005, he needed to take it :-)
-
p.s. I should add, that in the unlikely event that this happened, I don't believe Paula would be able to return to Parliament as a list MP at all this term (if, for example, a National list MP resigned, or died). That could probably be fudged, however, as the alternative is at least somewhat arguable.
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to
The first one kicks in at about 0.6% of the vote, the second at about 1.4%?
The first one kicks in at about 0.41%, second at about 1.21% (depending on the size of the wasted vote).
-
Legal Beagle: Election #11: Notings, in reply to
which could lead to disproportionality if there was a change at recount
Disproportionality does occur if the change happens because of an election petition, however. But thanks for the thought, you’ve given me an idea for another short post :-)
-
Legal Beagle: Election #11: Notings, in reply to
Do you happen to know, is the decision about the number of list seats for each party set already? Or does it wait until after recounts?
It waits until after the recounts. The overall number of MPs for each party is set, unless someone requests a party vote recount (they won't, I checked to see how close parties were to getting or losing one MP via the party vote and it wasn't particularly close). But exactly how many list MPs a party gets depends on how many electorates they get (e.g. if a recount showed Paula Bennett won Waitakere, National would gain one electorate MP and lose one list MP, and Labour would gain one list MP to make up for their lost electorate MP - to ensure they both had the right number of seats overall).