Minor nit: the quota changes downwards during the voting, largely because people don't rank all 40 odd (in Dunedin's case) candidates
I did include an acknowledgement of that in an earlier question, but I accept if you were only reading that, then it could be a bit misleading:
If anyone now has a majority of the remaining votes, they’re elected.
Graeme, does the supercity enabling legislation still block Auckland from adopting an STV electoral system if it so desired?
Not as far as I can see. That was only for the 2010 election.
PS I am happy for people to swipe this and post it elsewhere. If you'd like a shorter or edited version, please get in contact. I'm happy to proofread something like this for anyone (even professional publications) without charge.
Are you suggesting that Trump does his own writing, or that someone other than Meredith McIver is his ghost writer?
If Parliament passes a law with 75% super-majority that conflicts with something in the constitution, what actually happens to the constitutional provision?
Does it just not apply where it conflicts with that specific law, or is there a general interpretation principle that it won’t apply in similar conflicts with other laws, or does it have to be changed to remove the conflict?
I would guess that Sir Geoffrey will propose that the Constitution is over-ridden only in the particular circumstances, although it may be that, depending on the particular case, that the Courts may be more like to defer in related circumstances in the future.
Which reminds me, is the proposed constitution subservient the the treaty (which is after all our founding document), or superior to it? I’m kinda curious, because the legal status of the treaty is something I haven’t really researched.
The Treaty is part of Palmer's constitution.
(at least as it is currently drafted)
We may then be inspired. I’d see the key points as:
- entrenched and enforceable social and economic rights
Sir Geoffrey was asked about social and economic rights. He noted he was a conservative on such issues, asking eg, what we think a court could do in current circumstances if there was a right to housing.
Contrawise, if 60% of the population want a change and 26% of parliament don’t, the parliamentary vote will fail but a referendum vote will pass and the referendum will almost certainly pass.
That's still up for resolution, but under the process in the Electoral Act, it's either 75% of Parliament, without the public, or 50% of Parliament + 50% of the public. The only way the public get asked is if Parliament actually passes a law setting up the referendum.
I will note however, that the alternative, not have an entrenched bill of rights, isn't much of an improvement from your perspective.
I find the idea of needing supermajorities to change things particularly problematic, because that literally entrenches that a constitutional feature could remain very unpopular in near perpetuity, so long as it advantages 25% of the people.
The process in the Electoral Act (which Palmer proposes carrying over) is a 75% majority in Parliament, or a 50% majority at a referendum.