Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Other than the fact that it would make voting even more complicated, it would make the results in the electorates more clearer.
Well, the results are pretty clear now. They just may not fully reflect the whole electorate's preference. And I do suspect that the complexity it adds probably isn't worth it under MMP (especially if we get rid of the electorate seat threshold). It's the party vote that determines the make-up of Parliament - preferential voting in electorates wouldn't change the overall result.
-
Interesting. I presume that would be the case with PV as well.
Yes. And STV too. If the number of electorates rises, the number of Māori electorates will rise. First-past-the-post, STV, and Preferential Vote are all 100% electorate-based.
Even Supplementary Member (the other system we'll get to choose from that has list seats) could benefit the Māori Party:
1. The ratio of electorate seats to list seats would probably change.
2. Māori Party party votes wouldn't be "wasted" and they could well earn a list seat.Of course, this is all hypothetical. The Māori Party probably benefits from the ability of voters to split their vote. If voters in Māori electorates are denied the option of voting for both the Labour Party (list) and the Māori Party (electorate), who's to say that it will be their electorate vote that stays the same?
-
In fact, they could profit under MMP slightly due to overhang as long as overhang seats are not corrected by some addition seats.
Māori seats currently make up 10% of the constituency seats, but less than 6% of Parliament as a whole. With a 120 seat first-past-the-post Parliament, Māori seats would make up 10% of Parliament as a whole - that's at least 12 Māori seats, and we'd be close to getting a 13th. Overhang isn't anywhere near this useful to the Māori Party.
-
small parties should have an interest in MMP
Except the Māori Party. First-past-the-post could be really good for them.
-
I'd like to think so, but I live in an evolving super city. I'm not convinced that riled undoes fiddling with independent recommendations of an expert body. ;-)
Let's not forget that the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance had some really really stupid suggestions: like telling people who live in the CBD that they shouldn't get to vote in super city elections at all.
-
("an advertisement in any medium" vs "means any form of words or graphics, or both") so I can understand it. Is one broader than the other? Easier to interpret than the other?
Both have the advantage over the old (and, technically, the current) law in being adaptive and medium neutral, but while...
Any form of words or graphics is very easy to understand (unless you're the leader of the Progressive Party), it is far too broad.
An advertisement in any medium should capture everything you want it to (we're talking about advertising) while avoiding capturing things like email newsletters and press releases.
-
That would be my idea of a constitutional reform, not dropping the threshold to 3% so Winston can sneak back.
The argument for dropping the threshold isn't about ensuring particular people are in Parliament, but about ensuring that people are represented in Parliament: including the 95,000 people who voted for New Zealand First.
-
I've heard various Labour MPs voice their support for MMP, but does the party have an official position?
The Labour Party supports holding a referendum on MMP at the 2011 election, Labour’s electoral reform spokesperson David Parker says.
“MMP has now been in place for nearly 15 years and it is appropriate that the people of New Zealand be given a chance to decide whether or not it has been successful,” David Parker said.
“However, it is important that the questions asked are easy to understand and the education campaign prior to the referendum is thorough and easily accessible.
ref: scoop
-
A preferential vote - apart from being slightly more intimidating - would be fine, if you could put fully developed options up for each. It certainly wouldn't be the problem.
You only need fully-developed options for each if the first referendum is binding. It would still be better (democratically ... it would still be more intimidating) to have the second question in the first round here preferential. FPP might get 26% of the vote to 74% split evenly between the rest, despite it being everyone else's least favourite option, etc.
Shirtcliffe's one referendum idea was doomed to fail. Indeed, given how the entrenching provisions (and the associated standing order) are written, I'm not 100% sure the Clerk would actually let Parliament pass a law which tried to do it the way he intended.
It's a bit sad to think the option Simon Power originally floated was very like Shirtcliffe's, but it was good to see when the current structure came out.
I'm not sure that's true. I don't think there was ever a solid proposal, just the idea that we might do it some other way, and not wanting to rule something out that you haven't fully considered.
-
A preferential vote means a lower chance of MMP winning outright on the first ballot, which means another bite at the cherry of change.
A preferential vote on which system we should use would be better from a democratic perspective, however the idea that it could be completed quickly (which is something he at least had been arguing) is laughably absurd.