Posts by Michael Homer

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to BenWilson,

    Except that they have been extremely accurate? I don’t see how it’s possible to be sure there has or hasn’t been insider trading, that’s an incredibly difficult thing to prosecute.

    They haven't been extremely accurate (yet), because the events these contracts cover are still far from being determined. Some of the contracts (I mean PM.2014.X and the like) are averaging ten shares traded a day and jump around markedly on single trades, because seemingly nobody is really interested in them. Because of all that market manipulation would be both cheap and easy, so to the extent that there are "insiders" on them it's probably to do that. It's working, too; somehow "X drops on ipredict" is now a legitimate story, and you can spend a few dollars to make it happen for your camp.

    More to the point though, I don't trust them as predictions here because the various contracts don't match up or trade in line with each other. When a Labour PM is less likely than Shearer or Cunliffe personally the market simply isn't working. The shorter-term predictions have been pretty good.

    On insider trading, they explicitly encourage you to do that. There's nothing to prosecute.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus,

    The other thing to note on ipredict is that the trading volume of most of the stocks in question is pretty low (very very low for some of them), and they've all been priced out of whack with each other for a long while. I think the real secret is that there hasn't been any insider trading on most of them at all, and I wouldn't take them as having much predictive value because of that on top of all the other reasons.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Election '11 -…, in reply to Geoff Pritchard,

    Open lists sound great in principle, but I’ve yet to come across a concrete proposal that seems workable.

    I am a fan of the Dutch system - print the whole list, one vote for an individual who can be elected in their own right, and distribute the excess votes down the list for proportionality. If people want to take the list the party chose they can just tick the name at the top and be done, or they can pick someone particular who represents them best. They've used that system for quite a while now and seem to find it workable.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: Referendum '11: counting…, in reply to Steve Curtis,

    Yes (almost). They're included in the total counts, but get listed as zero on the booth-by-booth breakdown. It's "fewer than 6" though, so places with exactly six votes do appear.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Democracy Night,

    More visualisations for Auckland Central, Christchurch Central, Epsom, Mana, Mangere, Manukau East, Mt Albert, Ōhariu, Rongotai, and Wellington Central again, with the top five parties at each booth.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Democracy Night,

    Here is a hacked-up visualisation of party votes in Wellington Central by polling place. Visible area of each circle is proportionate to votes received, and the circles proceed inwards from the most to least votes (for the top three parties at each booth). It's less interesting than I'd expected, but it would work just as well for another electorate if anybody knows somewhere that might be more edifying.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to bmk,

    I meant a vote – typing too fast.

    No, you don't. Speakers have voted for a decade and a half.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to bmk,

    You do lose a seat for speaker

    No you don't. Not for fifteen years.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • Legal Beagle: The New Zealand Election Tax, in reply to Keir Leslie,

    Why 5% then? If it's to discourage candidates who aren't seriously contesting the electorate, why not 30%? 40%? You can't tell me that Jeremy Greenbrook-Held seriously intends to win Helensville; he's running solely as a stunt to drive publicity for his party. Why not discourage Labour candidacies that aren't going anywhere? Or similarly in a safe Labour seat.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

  • Field Theory: All Blacks v Wallabies Tensionfest,

    They can go to the TMO when the ball is or may be in the in-goal area to check groundings, foul play in the in-goal, and whether a player was in touch when they grounded the ball. They can also do it for goal kicks. You can't check anything that happens entirely in the field of play (between the trylines).

    If Dagg had grounded the ball and potentially been in touch it would have been reviewable, but since he didn't have the ball over the try-line the referee can only talk to the touch judges about it. It's law 6.A.6 (PDF).

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 58 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Older→ First