Legal Beagle: Now it's up to you
54 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
(although feel free to ask any questions in the comments)
You’d think, having said that, that I’d enable the ability to leave comments.
-
Thanks, Graeme (and David). Wonder if the results could be across the top or on the left? - more prominent than they are on my screen, anyway. Could marry them up directly with the links for more info about each voting system.
-
David Hood, in reply to
Sacha, my thinking around the results location was, textflow-wise, it is much easier for people using assistive technology like text-to-speech if the results section followed (in some fashion) the voting sections.
-
If you end up with FPP does that make you a bad person?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
If you end up with FPP does that make you a bad person?
No. FPP is a perfectly defensible system if you take certain starting points of this and this are important and this and that are not.
I'd like to think that people who like FPP would realise that everything they like about FPP is also present in PV, but with the added bonus that the person representing their electorate is supported by a majority, but other than that...
-
That's brilliant! Thanks, will be sharing this....
-
Sacha, in reply to
Perfectly correct for static text, yes - and thank you for thinking of that aspect.
It's tricky when you have information that updates in response to input throughout and is meant to drive interest in clicking for further info about particular voting systems based on results.
Maybe move the results panel so it's together with the further info links at the bottom? Putting info on the right may work OK for screen-readers but not so much with enlargers, for example.
-
Oh, and MMP for me, apparently.
-
I have never been confused about this one,. I have always loved MMP. I love the diversity it brings to parliament, and I also love being able to vote electorate AND party. But I love the way you've done that, Graeme. Good man!
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
I have never been confused about this one,. I have always loved MMP.
You can vote in the second question too! Don't forget your second choice.
If it's diversity you want, probably STV; if it's a dual vote, then SM, but don't take my word for it, take my word for it :-)
-
Brilliant. Does it get seen wider than here?
-
Question 1 seems to assume that votes are intended to determine the proportionality of Parliament, or the selection of the government, rather than to determine who represents the voters in Parliament. If voters care more about who represents their electorate than about the proportionality of Parliament, they might not consider that PV, SM, or FPP results in different people's votes being valued differently.
Perhaps it would be better to say
Everyone's vote should be worth the same in determining the proportionality of Parliament ...
and
... even if that means some votes count more than others in determining the proportionality of Parliament.
-
Hayden East, in reply to
No. FPP is a perfectly defensible system if you take certain starting points of this and this are important and this and that are not.
Just jokes. For the record I'm going with
Q1: Retain MMP
Q2: STVWhat I'm concerned about is the potential for people who vote for retention of MMP in Q1 to skip Q2 all together, which could skew the results of that part of the referendum away from a proportional system.
-
Useful to determine the second choice if required, thanks.
Agree with Hayden's point though that a large number of people supporting MMP may avoid the second question all together - even with your tireless efforts :) -
Why didn't you post this up last year when I did my one and only political essay for university? Why?
Great work!
-
Just wondering: some of the questions (such as Q7) would have a bearing on any decision between MMP with a theshold and without. Did you consider them as options for this tool?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
some of the questions (such as Q7) would have a bearing on any decision between MMP with a threshold and without. Did you consider them as options for this tool?
Yes. I go into that in the FAQ a little, but basically, something like this can only be very broad brush. And not just MMP. If STV is 12 electorates each with 10 MPs, it will have very different results from STV with 40 electorates each with 3 MPs.
If we do get a second referendum in 2014, it will be between two fully-fleshed-out alternatives. I’ll look at what might be helpful closer to the time!
-
the potential for people who vote for retention of MMP in Q1 to skip Q2 all together, which could skew the results of that part of the referendum away from a proportional system
*None* of the options given in Q2 are proportional, except by chance (all of them *may* produce a proportional result, but they aren't guaranteed or even expected to).
I'd recommend voting tactically for the least attractive and popular of the Q2 options (on present polling, SM), so that in any run-off referendum, MMP would have the best chance of prevailing.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
*None* of the options given in Q2 are proportional
STV is generally considered a proportional voting system.
I'd recommend voting for whichever of the systems in the second question you'd actually be okay with.
-
What system do you favour, Graeme?
-
One mistake.
To be absolutely fair there should have been an option for LESS or NO MAORI seats.
Otherwise a good tool. -
Great tool.
My answers resulted in equal totals for STV & MMP.
I would hate, in reality, to see the bulk of voters with a social conscience get split between STV & MMP and the social conservative voters who prefer a one party state prevail with FPP.
-
Sacha, in reply to
though that outcome might be perfectly fitting :)
-
One mistake.
To be absolutely fair there should have been an option for LESS or NO MAORI seats.I explain somewhere (either the extra info, or the FAQ), that I haven't included an option about getting rid of the Māori seats, or having fewer Māori seats because it's not an option in the referendum.
Five voting systems are on offer in the referendum. One is the one we've got now: mixed member proportional (MMP), with 7 Māori seats (probably 8 next time).
One is supplementary member (SM), this would see at least nine and probably 10 Māori seats.
The others: First past the post (FPP), preferential voting (PV), and single transferable vote (STV), would all see an increase to at least 12 and probably 13 Maori seats.
For this referendum, those are the only options: the same number we have now, or more. This referendum process cannot lead to there being fewer (or no) Māori seats.
The Government has announced a Constitutional Review separate from the referendum process. One of the Review's terms of reference is to consider “Māori representation, including the Māori Electoral Option, Māori electoral participation and Māori seats in Parliament and local government.” Its recommendations will be made after the voting system referendum has been held. You can find information about this review here.
-
STV is generally considered a proportional voting system.
Incorrectly.
It’s a preferential system, and its strength is that is delivers the most-preferred/least-unpreferred candidate in an electorate a victory. In a multi-member electorate, you get the most preferred candidates. (However, given NZ’s political environment, and those driving for change, I think we’d almost certainly get single member electorates).
It is not however a proportional system. A party can recieve a great proportion of votes, but because of preferences; both first, and second and third etc, and directed preference flows (political horse-trading), not recieve a single seat in the house. Between 1949 and 2010, not a single member of a third party sat in the lower house, despite third parties regularly attaining 5-12% of the vote in that time.
It’s closest to First Past the Post in its effects.
ETA: between 1949 and 2010 in Australia.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.