Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Election '11 -…, in reply to tussock,
Various countries use a 1.4 first divisor to chase away micro-parties without distorting proportionality, which would make it ~12600 for the first seat here, but still just 0.58%.
The Royal Commission recommended a modified Sainte-Laguë method with 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 ... etc. as the divisors.
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Rich Lock,
You might have to expand on that one a bit, Graeme. In this case I’m not willing to assume I know what you’re driving at.
I mostly meant the US. But there are many other instances of governments around the world using taxes to the detriment of civilisation.
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Christopher Dempsey,
My antidote: TAXES PAY FOR CIVILISATION. Repeat everywhere.
They also pay for the destruction of civilisation.
-
Legal Beagle: Election '11 -…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
If we abolish the threshold and I set up the Vote For Me (VFM) party and somehow get .085% of the vote and end up in Parliament, will I be fully funded as a party leader or just get the dosh of a single MP?
Fully funded, unless they change the law.
-
Legal Beagle: Election '11: the special votes, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
That would seem likely to prevent a list MP from ever running for a mid-term electorate position, I can’t imagine why we’d want to do that.
Some people actually want to ban that completely. I'm positing a slightly less drastic alternative.
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Sacha,
I’m not clear what you are talking about – examples?
Marijuana decriminalisation springs to mind.
-
Legal Beagle: Election '11: the special votes, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Key thing to remember is that the list numbers never get adjusted in the course of a parliament.
Well, not yet. Maybe the Electoral Commission will recommend a change!
I'm thinking about whether there should be one in respect of list MPs who contest by-elections. I'm still forming my view, but my initial thinking is not to ban the practice, but to prohibit the replacement of the successful list MP as a list MP (i.e. Parliament would reduce in size by one list MP for the remainder of the term). Very interested in alternate views.
-
Legal Beagle: Election Fact Check #9:…, in reply to Justin Maloney,
Although specials will no doubt decide it, Christchurch still it goes to prove even one vote could make a difference.
The preliminary count isn't accurate anyway :-)
My dad was an issuing officer/vote counter in Taupo this election. They counted the results at the end, and it one of the four races (two votes in the local general and Maori electorate) they were out by one (i.e. after the votes were split into piles, and the piles counted, this didn't tally with the overall number of votes cast). But it was close enough for the preliminary count (there's an allowable tolerance), so they just sent them in like that.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum '11: counting…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
I noticed this when I was voting, and it freake dme out. Why did they dispense with such a basic protection?
Money. They considered the expense was not worth the benefit. Dual votes will still be caught, so most of the disincentives (e.g. prison) remain, and the likelihood of a vote decided by a few hundred dual votes at most is low. It's also non-binding, so if there are major concerns, Parliament can inquire before deciding what to do about it.
I did submit in favour of additional protections, and would have made stronger representations in respect of a second binding referendums, but I found the decision in respect of scrutineers to be the more confounding. They're free!
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum '11: counting…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
(Although I guess it would be hard to distinguish between someone voting twice in their own name or someone using a false name).
That's what police detectives are for!