Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The fact that the first option is FPP has me motivated.
The first option is FPP because they're currently listed in alphabetical order, they won't necessarily be on the actual ballots.
7 Referendum on day of general election
(1) On the day appointed for the polling to take place for the general election, a referendum of electors must be held on each of the questions about the voting system set out in Parts A and B of the referendum voting paper in Schedule 1.
(2) Despite the form of the referendum voting paper in Schedule 1, the order of the options for the question in Part B of the referendum voting paper—
(a) must be determined by the Chief Electoral Officer by lot; and
(b) must not be listed in the order set out in the form in Schedule 1, unless that order is the result of the determination made under paragraph (a). -
Rocksteady? I was expecting a post about mining!
And then I saw the words "Speaking of..." and expected a segue to mining.
And there's a new mash-up ... featuring Rep John Boehner losing the plot over healthcare reform
I was able to flick on the C-Span feed for the end of the House debate, and thought Boehner did a much better job in his final speech than Pelosi did in hers. But that's probably not what this is about.
-
The final select committee report has been released today, and I (I suspect it was me, but someone else might have mentioned some of them too) got a number of things changed:
1. Life without parole is no longer mandatory/available for third-strike manslaughter (it will be life with 20 years non-parole, or at least 10 years non-parole if 20 would be too excessive).
2. No third strike offence can be tried in the summary jurisdiction.
3. Third strike offences must be tried in the High Court.
4. Quashed convictions can result in properly quashed warnings.
5. Quashed warnings can result in re-sentencing for offending for which sentences were imposed in reliance on the existence of a warning.
6. Erroneously recorded warnings can be corrected.There were some other new changes too. The main one is the inclusion of some new offences:
sexual conduct with children and young persons outside New Zealand (e.g. underage sex tourism)
procuring murder
conspiracy to murder
poisoning with intent to cause greivous bodily harm
infecting with diseaseAcid throwing and incest are still gone. And assault with intent to rob never was (I said it was in my update, but was mistaken ... I blame scoop, which has placed an advertisement after the penultimate offence in the list).
-
So voting to just reform MMP with tweaks doesn't come under any of this? Or does that arise from the required review, in the case the country chooses to retain MMP?
It arises from the required review.
It would be really interesting to note the correlation afterward in terms of how much people really did just go for the first option presented.
I suspect the bias is much stronger in block vote or STV elections. Or elections where you don't have much information (local council wards (but less so mayor), DHBs, students' association executive etc.)
If you get to rank everyone, you'd possibly be more likely to give the number 1 spot to your favoured candidate, the bottom spots to your least favoured candidates, and fill in the gaps from the top to the bottom. I don't see that happening to any great extent with a small set of options, like the four in Part B, or in something like the Party Vote which you get one choice and presumably care about it. But, potentially, given that many people might be voting in this referendum not because they care, but because the paper is handed to them when they go to vote in the actual election, you might get some top-box effect.
Random random ballots are probably better (except for the poeple counting them), and they've been done in New Zealand before, so feel free to add that to your select committee submission!
-
Shouldn't they be randomised?
No. They're counted by hand. That would just be mean.
Yeah, randomised ballots rather than all in one, random, order.
The last local government election in Wellington saw three different methods used our Regional Council votes (FPP) were in alphabetical order by surname, our DHB votes (STV at large) were in random order, and our City Council votes (STV by ward) were in random random order (in a different random order on each ballot). But our votes (STV at least) were counted with computer assistance.
-
That's a whole lot better than the EFA text, to be sure, but what exactly is "an advertisement"? Presumably it's defined elsewhere, but I didn't see it in e.g. this bill or the 1993 Act.
It's not. It carries its ordinary meaning.
-
There's the Campaign for MMP.
I don't believe there's yet any formal grouping behind any of the options, or against MMP.
-
It's a little rushed, but I wanted my idea out there quickly, so feel free to ask questions about any of the detail (or big picture) I've missed =)
-
Local Government actually capable of acting in the interests of the whole of Auckland, ensuring that local and regional infrastructure is built toward long-term goals of enhancing action of region-wide social issues and ensuring robust economic performance in the largest metropolitan area in the country and the best chance for a prosperous New Zealand?
And Graeme, by what standards would you say that Auckland's Councils were failing to do all that?
I wouldn't. Although I suspect there were views to that end in the Report of the Royal Commission. My point was mainly that there were other rationales than saving money, and indeed those other rationales were much more important.
-
And by the way, if significant savings wasn't the point of super sizing the city, what was?
Local Government actually capable of acting in the interests of the whole of Auckland, ensuring that local and regional infrastructure is built toward long-term goals of enhancing action of region-wide social issues and ensuring robust economic performance in the largest metropolitan area in the country and the best chance for a prosperous New Zealand?