Cannabis is different though in that the US attempts to prohibit it at federal level (on fairly dubious legal grounds). To get to the situation with alcohol pre-1920, or gay marriage before this week, the US would need to remove these prohibitions, or limit them to real areas of federal concern, such as traffic between states.
How about a box on each ballot where you could write in your ideas for the governance of New Zealand in 400 words or less?
I'd also add that such a system would reduce the perceived need for a threshold, because in order to successfully contest an election, a party would need to field a fairly complete set of electorate candidates, which would (absent the Kim Dotcom option of paying candidates a six figure stipend) require a reasonable level of grass-roots support.
I don't think people would be interested in the level of complication of a multiple voting system in electorates.
With a fair voting system for list MPs, it isn't necessary. Reducing the threshold and removing coat-tailing reduces the ability to game the system.
I still favour a single vote MMP system, where the party vote goes to the list of ones chosen electorate candidate, which is:
- even simpler for the voter
- provides an incentive for parties to run effective electorate candidates and campaigns
- removes pretty much all avenues to game the system, in particular the "pseudo-independent party" scam of Dunne and Seymour
Yes, it removes the ability to hedge ones bets by split voting, but why is this an essential feature of democracy? That option is only available to a small minority of voters, anyway. For most of us living in safe seats, the candidate is entrenched and how we vote at electorate level makes little difference.
Parliament isn't (mostly) a committee. Parliaments with five times as many members work fine (and there is a good argument that the less "efficent" parliament is, the better the laws that come out).
Also, if you have more MPs, you'll have more competent ones. If a party doesn't want to select competent people, or can't find any, then that's their problem.
I don't see how a threshold change would necessarily reduce the proportionality of parliament.
It would depend (assuming no change to votes) on:
- number of votes for parties with no electorate MPs and 4-5% of votes
- # of votes for parties with no electorate MPs and 1MP quota (0.6%?) -4% of votes
- # of votes for parties with electorate MPs and 2MP quota (1.3%?)-4% of votes
- # of votes for parties with electorate MPs and 4-5% of votes
Then you've got possible changes to voting habits if people think a vote will or won't be wasted.
In general a 4% threshold/no coat-tailing system would certainly be less arbitrary and wouldn't favour concentrated over broad-based support as the current system does?
The worst thing is the way that corporate dreck spreads, like a fungal growth.
There is a community arts organisation I know that started out as a bunch of crazies burning an effigy on a beach. Now they're all "leadership summits" and "360 degree performance reviews". Combined with whining that not enough people are volunteering to join the managerial hierarchy they just made.
But do magazines have any future besides a trans-media one?
Quite possibly. It's a rational strategy to ensure that a magazine is only readable in print. Not sure if there are many such publications. If the revenues from the website are less than the costs of maintenance plus lost print sales, then it would make sense commercially.
there is a gap in the New Zealand market in this area
Well, Slater allegedly makes enough money from clickbait and clickfraud to keep himself in pies, with a bit of help from his dad and Winz.
I'm not sure how they plan to extend this to support several hundred people at TV3, plus shareholders and the cost of a broadcasting license (or has a grateful government gifted this to them in perpetuity?). Also, I don't think the clickfraud model would work as well for a large company that could be usefully sued.
(Joe, you beat me to the link :-)