It's interesting isn't it. Talking about a 3 or 4 seat threshold seems eminently reasonable. It's only when you convert to percentages that you think whoa, that might be a bit small. But I think that's because you automatically compare it to the current, and EC recommended percentages, which, IMhO are way too high. No party is effective unless it has 6 MPs ? Really ?
Talking about number of seats is much preferable in my opinion.
Given that the voting percentages are variable to seats proportioned, I would have thought the EC would have proposed a minimum ‘seat threshold’ to enter parliament, instead of a ‘vote threshold’. Why not a a ‘5 seat’ threshold, which is a little under their favored 4% party vote threshold. Why, in your view, did they not take, or at least mention, this option?
I favour a minimum seat threshold of 3. I'm not sure why people always talk of thresholds as percentages. Perhaps it is to make it independent of the number of seats ? But if the threshold is suppose to solve the "problems" of too many small parties in parliament, and small parties being ineffectual, then choosing a number that makes a party effectual makes more sense than a percentage.
But maybe that is its real purpose.
Its real purpose is to provide a good voting system, where "good" is defined as meeting the fairness criteria of voting systems.
Note that Arrow's_impossibility_theorem proves that no voting system can meet all the criteria, so every voting system will have advantages and disadvantages depending on which voting criteria are deemed more important.
Interestingly, the criteria used by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System were quite far removed from the theoretical "fairness" criteria. Also, none of the 5 recommendations of the Commission were actually implemented.
Not to mention that voting for Judith Aitken is just about the worst possible use of your vote even if you really like her – so many other people vote her #1 that by voting for her you are really just giving up 45% of your voting power (on 2010 results) so that other people can give up a tiny fraction more of theirs!
Good point - though I had to read it a few times to work out what you meant. Hence, to maximise the effect of your own vote, you shouldn't rank anyone who is easily going to get in, above anyone else who you would like to see elected. Because, as you pointed out, that just means part of your vote goes towards electing them, and only the rest carries over to your next candidate.
It is interesting how the entire vote of failed candidates get carried over to your next choice, but only a fraction of overly successful candidates gets transferred. Also, after each step the calculation has to be re-done both because drop-outs (who didn't rank enough candidates) means the quotas get lower, and because re-allocations to people already elected, require that the proportions carried forward be re-calculated.
I do like STV. Although complicated, it does seem so much fairer than any other system.
That's a great line up songs. Must look up the two I don't know.
I was in London for the summer of '88, and it truly was a glorious time.
Emma Hart wrote :
Our kids have my partner’s surname, and my surname as a middle name. Pretty sure that’s not uncommon.
That's what we did. However they got an extra middle name as well, making their official full names rather hard to fit on certain countries' immigration cards. But we did choose the names to make good initials, CAM and JEM, should they ever tire of their first names, and/or want a nickname.
... and each week someone gets kicked out, but you can never find out why.
Thank you so much for sharing your escapades in such a humourous manner. Makes me feel somewhat guilty of the long haul flights we have done with our children, without mishap. Although boy did lapse into unconsciousness as we queued for passport control in Libya after 48 hours of travel from NZ. Then things got a bit weird as there was an irregularity with one of our passports. After I had lugged comatose boy through immigration, our 7 yr old girl was stopped because she didn't have a visa. We had been informed that she didn't need one, but unbeknownst to us this is because Libyans can travel on their mother's passport until they are 8. My wife stood firm, and after a very tense 30 minutes, they were finally allowed to join us in Libya.
One thing we did realise after our first long haul segment, is the children's meals are totally inappropriate for our kids : Chicken nuggets (deemed inedible by the kids), "fries" (barely edible), chocolate bars, biscuits, sweetened dairy food and sugary drinks - no fruit or vegetables at all. We got in touch with the travel agent and got their meals changed to 1 adult meal, and 1 fruit platter, which they shared on all our other legs. I'm sure it helped. Because special meals arrive before the main meals they got to demolish that first, which is good because children are not reknowned for their understanding of the logistics of delivering meals to a planeload of passengers when they are seated such that they receive their meal later than almost everyone else.
LAX being bad is definitely not a recent thing. It is the worst airport I have ever been to - a 2 hour transit in 1997, that was inexplicably lengthened to 4 hours, in a grimy room with no windows, and insufficient seating, ventilation, and lavatories, and a complete lack of food and drink. Staff unfriendly and unhelpful, who enjoy shouting at you. Eventually an AirNZ flight attendent brought a trolley load of sandwiches and water pottles off the plane. I though the poor guy was going to be killed in the crush.
Hope your travails can become mere travels.
Must get a better BBQ, but the old dunger I inherited when my grandmother had her stroke has never missed a beat in 10 years. No hood, though
My hack for that one is an old zip electric frypan lid. If something on the BBQ needs steaming or all round heat, then just cover it with the lid.
The median income should include people who earn nothing, so that they are further incentivized to reduce unemployment, as well, or perhaps to raise benefits.
This won't work. The median income (by definition) is the middle value. Any movement in the bottom values (eg minimum wage earners and unemployed) will make no difference unless they go past the middle value. For example, if all the unemployed got jobs that earned less than the median income, there would be no change in the median income.
You could use average income (ie mean), but then they'd be rewarded for making rich people richer, which pretty much happens automatically anyway.
Perhaps a combination would work best, such as the average of incomes excluding the upper quartile (ie the average of the incomes of the bottom 3/4 of the population).