I don't believe there's yet any formal grouping behind any of the options, or against MMP.

I do like the thought that anybody can join in the advertising war but we (the voters) will know who is trying to screw the scrum

That certainly?

referendum advertisement means an advertisement in any medium that? ?

That's a whole lot better than the EFA text, to be sure, but what exactly is "an advertisement"? Presumably it's defined elsewhere, but I didn't see it in e.g. this bill or the 1993 Act.

I was trying to see?

That's a whole lot better than the EFA text, to be sure, but what exactly is "an advertisement"? Presumably it's defined elsewhere, but I didn't see it in e.g. this bill or the 1993 Act.

It's not. It carries its ordinary meaning.

it also instructs the Chief Electoral Officer to determine the actual order of the options in Part B by lot

Shouldn't they be randomised?

I don't believe there's yet any formal grouping behind any of the options, or against MMP.

I suppose these usual suspects don't really count (yet), but?

Shouldn't they be randomised?

Wouldn't a lot put them in random order? Or do you mean a different random order on each ballot?

I suppose these usual suspects don't really count

From that link:

Peter Shirtcliffe said it made sense to allow voters to rank possible replacements for MMP preferentially.

?

There are real biases, I don't know how big they'd be with four options.

Shouldn't they be randomised?

No. They're counted by hand. That would just be mean.

Yeah, randomised ballots rather than all in one, random, order.

The last local government election in Wellington saw three different methods used our Regional Council votes (FPP) were in alphabetical order by surname, our DHB votes?

So voting to just reform MMP with tweaks doesn't come under any of this? Or does that arise from the required review, in the case the country chooses to retain MMP?

It arises from the required review.

It would be really interesting to note the correlation afterward in terms of?

Random random ballots are probably better (except for the poeple counting them), and they've been done in New Zealand before, so feel free to add that to your select committee submission!

The fact that the first option is FPP has me motivated.

The fact that the first option is FPP has me motivated.

The first option is FPP because they're currently listed in alphabetical order, they won't necessarily be on the actual ballots.

7 Referendum on day of general election

(1) On the day appointed for the polling to take place for?

They're counted by hand. That would just be mean.

How 24 batches each with a different order, but each ballot office only gets papers from one batch? The grouping may have to be at a higher level than the individual office to make logistics easier, eg supplying extras to an?

Wait. Peter Shirtcliffe is arguing for a preferential system? Did he get confused some time in the last 17 years?

No, he's just trying to strap the chicken. A preferential vote means a lower chance of MMP winning outright on the first ballot, which means another bite at the cherry?

A preferential vote means a lower chance of MMP winning outright on the first ballot, which means another bite at the cherry of change.

A preferential vote on which system we should use would be better from a democratic perspective, however the idea that it could be completed quickly (which?

Except Shirtcliffe was arguing one referendum: dumping MMP if that's what the first vote said and replacing it with what?

A preferential vote – apart from being slightly more intimidating – would be fine, if you could put fully developed options up for each. It certainly wouldn't be the problem.

You only need fully-developed options for each if the first referendum is binding. It would still be better (democratically ...?

I've heard various Labour MPs voice their support for MMP, but does the party have an official position?

__The Labour Party supports holding a referendum on MMP at the 2011 election, Labour?s electoral reform spokesperson David Parker says.

?MMP has now been in place for nearly 15 years and it?

I don't see why we need a referendum. It hasn't come from public pressure, but from a wish in the National Party (and, I suspect,?

That would be my idea of a constitutional reform, not dropping the threshold to 3% so Winston can sneak back.

The argument for dropping the threshold isn't about ensuring particular people are in Parliament, but about ensuring that people are represented in Parliament: including the 95,000 people who voted for?

Parliament could ultimately tell them to stuff off, but the sight of self-interested politicians messing with the independent recommendations of an expert body ... might get people riled in a way that might not happen if the jack-up occurred inside the machinery of Government.

I'd like to think so, but?

("an advertisement in any medium" vs "means any form of words or graphics, or both") so I can understand it. Is one broader than the other? Easier to interpret than the other?

Both have the advantage over the old (and, technically, the current) law in being adaptive and medium neutral,?

I'd like to think so, but I live in an evolving super city. I'm not convinced that riled undoes fiddling with independent recommendations of an expert body. ;-)

Let's not forget that the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance had some really really stupid suggestions: like telling people who live in?

Let's not forget that the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance had some really really stupid suggestions: like telling people who live in the CBD that they shouldn't get to vote in super city elections at all.

Or at-large elections. These people really had no idea about democracy.

I don't see why we need a referendum. It hasn't come from public pressure, but from a wish in the National Party (and, I suspect, from some in Labour) to rule absolutely.

If the current system were in the 'middle' of a spectrum of choices, rather than at the extreme?

But more broadly, I understand that Shirtcliffe is now arguing in public meetings for PV or SM, because he thinks they can be sold to the public as "not as bad as FPP" while still being undemocratic enough for his tastes.

That's correct. I heard him talk last week with?

I agree, the referendum will at least put some final legitimacy to MMP if it wins the first round. And I am actually pretty sure that it will, the arguments by Peter Shirtcliffe are pretty weak so far and not taking hold that easily.

Valid criticism of the?

small parties should have an interest in MMP

Except the M?ori Party. First-past-the-post could be really good for them.

Except the M?ori Party. First-past-the-post could be really good for them.

As long as there are Maori seats they shouldn't care much, as these are elected under FPP (the electorate seats under MMP that is)

In fact, they could profit under MMP slightly due to overhang as long as overhang?

In fact, they could profit under MMP slightly due to overhang as long as overhang seats are not corrected by some addition seats.

M?ori seats currently make up 10% of the constituency seats, but less than 6% of Parliament as a whole. With a 120 seat first-past-the-post Parliament, M?ori seats?

So yes, small parties should have an interest in MMP, but ACt (or at least some parts it ) don't seem to see it that way. Oddly enough.

You're onto something there. I wonder if ACT's love of FPP stems entirely from the fact that it was the system by?

M?ori seats currently make up 10% of the constituency seats, but less than 6% of Parliament as a whole. With a 120 seat first-past-the-post Parliament, M?ori seats would make up 10% of Parliament as a whole – that's at least 12 M?ori seats, and we'd be close to getting a?

Would it make any sense to change this to PV?

Other than the fact that it would make voting even more complicated, it would make the results in the electorates more clearer.

It would also encourage independents and smaller parties?

Interesting. I presume that would be the case with PV as well.

Yes. And STV too. If the number of electorates rises, the number of M?ori electorates will rise. First-past-the-post, STV, and Preferential Vote are all 100% electorate-based.

Even Supplementary Member (the other system we'll get to choose from that?

Other than the fact that it would make voting even more complicated, it would make the results in the electorates more clearer.

Well, the results are pretty clear now. They just may not fully reflect the whole electorate's preference. And I do suspect that the complexity it adds probably isn't?

random randomizing? Is it to make some kind of a statement as to what a lottery it is, holding a vote for change at a general election Ted?

Ted: Yes Dougal, we don't want the poor people getting confused by the order of all those acronyms.?

A vote for anything but MMP seems too much of a risk given the uncertainty you've outlined regarding possible outcomes, if change is voted for.

That's why it's cool that you can both vote for MMP in the first question, and say what you'd prefer MMP went up against if?

if it's the Electoral Commission, the system should be a fair and reasonable form of whatever system it is.

But parliament will screw it up afterwards right?

But parliament will screw it up afterwards right?

I'm confident that won't be the case. First past the post and preferential vote largely write themselves. They'd have to try really hard to stuff up supplementary member more than it is already, and while they could muck around with STV, they'd?

I'm confident that won't be the case.

But does the law prevent them from screwing around with other things, like number of MPs between the two systems? That's where they mangled things in 1993.

But does the law prevent them from screwing around with other things, like number of MPs between the two systems? That's where they mangled things in 1993.

That was hardly Parliament's fault in 1992/3 – the Royal Commission recommended the increase to 120.

The current statutory review of MMP (if?

But didn't the Royal Commission recommend 120 whatever the system, and the government then screwed with it putting 120 MPs in the MMP option, and 99 in the FPP option?

Yes, but I think that's a little unfair. Parliament gave us the option between the status quo and an alternative.?

That's the only proper way to do something like this.

But the playing field could be leveled. There could be two questions: 1. What voting system would you like?, and 2. how many MPs do you want? The increased MPs wasn't particularly tied to the voting system by the Royal?

So if you win an electorate seat on the night and your Party is?

So if you win an electorate seat on the night and your Party is below the threshold, then that?s all you get. If that Party?s vote goes above the threshold then proportionality would be applied. Thoughts?

Agree. Given that the usual Nat/Lab split is very roughly equal, those "third" parties?

To allow them 5% of the house with only one electorate win compounds that further.

Parties don't get 5% of the House with one electorate win, they get 5% of the House with 5% of the party vote. For example, Jim Anderton's Progressive got one constituency and have one seat?

It's unfair, IMO, against those parties (and supposters thereof) that have broad, rather than concentrated, support and it?

But the playing field could be leveled. There could be two questions: 1. What voting system would you like?, and 2. how many MPs do you want?

Of course, you might want to proffer a different answer to the second question, depending on the result of the first.

The increased?

I still don't think it's right that a party that scores 4% nationally should win that share of the house due to a single constituency win.

I concur. A party that gets 4% of the party vote nationally should get 4% of the House irrespective of whether they win a?

Well, I don't think that's quite concurring.

I favour abolishing the constituency seat exception.
I favour lowering the threshold (or abolishing it).
I particularly favour doing both.

Lowering the threshold is more important to me than abolishing the constituency seat exception, but I would favour doing that even even if?

Your ideal level of threshold?

Probably zero, but moving from Sainte-Laguë to modified Sainte-Laguë.

If we're to have one (which I concede is likely), no higher than 3%, probably 2.5% (which is three MPs in a 120-seat Parliament – a level I consider high enough that your party isn't a?

so help me with this! ... (the implication is)
1) proportionality would not applied to the electorate seats and
2) a lower threshold ...2.5% or 3% ... to the Party vote
within 120 seat parliament ...ish ... given that this discussion?

so help me with this!

Not a whole lot of change from the current system:

1. Keep MMP.
2. Parties with 2.5% or more of the party vote receive seats in Parliament proportional to their Party vote.
This includes electorate MPs: e.g. a party with 10% of the party vote?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSUKMa1cYHk&feature=related

Shirtcliffe et al declare for SM

No great surprise there. It will be interesting to see who slots in behind. ACT? John Key? The Herald? etc.

Shirtcliffe's press release praised the Scottish system, which I had always understood to be of the same general class as MMP

Yes, Scotland uses the additional member system, which is how MMP is known in Britain. A party's overall strength is proportional to its party vote.

I presume the bad guys have a web site as well if you tend that way.

I presume the bad guys have a web site as well if you tend that way.

http://www.petershirtcliffe.co.nz/

I kid you not.