Posts by Phil Lyth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I'd be doing a very careful risk analysis
Before that I'd suggest that you do a very careful analysis of the law.
Special declaration votes where the person is not enrolled anywhere do not even have the ballot paper taken out of the sealed compartment. See
s41 of the Electoral Regulations. Also ss35-40. They have never seen the light of day, let alone been counted.Yes the Herald story could be read as saying those 393 had been included at some point.
For the record, special votes disallowed 'not enrolled anywhere' average about 250 per electorate. In the last two elections Waitakere numbers were 374 (2008) and 329 (2005)
-
Nice of the Herald to write a story about the Waitakere decision, but have they, or anyone, put it online?
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I agree that such a change would be abhorrent. But equally I have no doubt that Key could and would justify to himself that such a change would be appropriate.
-
And in Christchurch Central comparing the returning officer's 'final' count to the judicial recount, Nicky Wagner's vote was unchanged, Brendan Burns vote went down 2, the Green candidate went down 2, the ACT candidate went down 4 (out of only 114 or 110). Candidate informals went up 6 and 2 fewer votes allowed.
Surprising for a candidate to lose nearly 4% on recount.
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to Phil Lyth,
As you were: Google Cache (now saved) is your friend.
Compared to the returning officer's 'final' count, the judge gave Paula 8 more votes, and Carmel 12 fewer. 9 more for the Green candidate and negligible changes for other candidates and for party votes. 8 fewer informal candidate votes. 2 more votes allowed (presumably specials.)
Importantly, all changes are net.
-
Finally, can anyone (hello scrutineers) provide a copy from the website of the pre-recount Waitakere & Chch Central totals? I.e. as released by the Electoral Commission as 'final' including special votes, which could be compared to the judicial recount.
-
For the anoraks among us, the changes between the election night result and the recount in Waitakere, with 3,000+ specials included:
BENNETT, Paula NAT 1,155
BRADFORD, Sue MANA 56
LYE, Jeff ALCP 59
MOUNTAIN, Danny CNSP 59
OSBORNE, Peter LIB 7
SEPULONI, Carmel LAB 1,495
TOLLESTRUP, Steve GP 273
Candidate Informals 28
TOTAL 3,132And the party vote changes:
National Party 1,233
Mana 56
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party 34
Conservative Party 60
Libertarianz 6
Labour Party 1,613
Green Party 512
ACT New Zealand 24
Alliance 2
Democrats for Social Credit 1
Māori Party 31
New Zealand First Party 200
United Future 20
Party Informals 15
TOTAL 3,807 -
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to Phil Lyth,
apparently now official
Announced sometime yesterday. Sadly Judicial Decisions Online seems to no longer provide what it should. The judge has released a decision which I would be interested to see.
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
She would be, after all, the highest-ranked candidate on the list that was published who is not elected. Or does being elected as an electorate MP drop her from the list permanently? I can’t quite figure out the law on this one.
Exactly the point I remember Graeme alluding to, and the point that would be argued. This one could end up at the Supreme Court but for one thing. S137(2) says:
The Electoral Commission must determine which of the unelected candidates whose name was included in the same party list as the member whose seat has been declared vacant stood highest in the order of preference. ( my emphasis )
The possibility has never been considered by Parliament before. After all, when Simon Upton toddled off to Paris in 2001, there was no question as to whether Don McKinnon (by then Commonwealth Secretary-General) should be asked. He had been elected as a list MP in 1999 and later resigned. S137(2) didn't apply to him.
But before it got to that point, I have no doubt that John Key would use urgency to change s137(2) to refer to the highest person on the list not currently in Parliament. Then if the decision on a petition goes the wrong way, he opens up a vacancy by finding a nice job for Cam Calder.
Anyone for Niue?
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to Phil Lyth,
the number of votes where the intent is doubtful
Before I am Edglered, I should make it clear that changes can happen for other reasons: eg in the recount, a decision can be made whether a special vote is allowed or not due to the signature of a witness on the declaration. And Graeme will no doubt add to the possibilities...