Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There can only be one president. A parliament is not similarly constrained.
And there can only be one MP for Wellington Central.
If proportionality is the be-all-and-end-all of democracy, then why isn't any system that requires a winner-takes-all result - like an electorate seat, or a presidency - automatically undemocratic?
-
Act getting MPs when NZ First is denied are not exactly [an unalloyed good]
It's not ACT that's getting MPs. It's ACT voters who are getting MPs.
It is unfair that the geographic distribution of voters can have a spooky-action-at-a-distance effect on list votes, and this should be fixed.
As it happens, I agree.
I didn't used to: the argument that it's unfair that ACT voters got the MPs they actually voted for never swayed me (I think it's obviously wrong - it is fair that the 85,000 ACT voters get 4-5 MPs) but then someone put that argument in a different way: that it's a massively unfair advantage that voters in Epsom (or wherever) get - that their votes are worth a lot more than others' votes, and that's wrong in a democracy - and I didn't have a good answer.
I oppose the threshold. I support a lower threshold (preferably none), but the coat-tails rule means that some voters have massive power that cannot be justified in a "one person, one vote, all votes of equal value" democracy.
-
Proportionality - the result reflecting the votes cast - is the signifier of a democratic electoral system.
I disagree. I'd go with popular acceptance of the result. Proportionality is good, but you can have something properly-called a liberal democracy without it.
I think the US Presidential election was basically democratic despite the fact John McCain doesn't get to be President for 45.7% of the term.
-
But it is unfair, and removing the coat-tails mechanism would make our system fairer in one intuitive sense. It might make it less proportional, but proportionality is not the be all and end all of an electoral system.
It is unfair. The question is "how do we make it fair?"
You're six. Your Mum gives your sister an icecream for being helpful. You say "I was helpful too, Mum, can I have an ice-cream too? It's not fair if Keira gets one and I don't."
Your Mum says "that's right, you were very helpful today as well, and I think I should be fair." To create fairness your Mum has two options: giving you an ice-cream too, or taking the ice-cream away from your sister. Which is better?
The solution to the problem of 95,000* NZF voters not getting any representation in Parliament is not to tell the 85,000* ACT voters that they shouldn't be represented either.
Removing the coattails mechanism does not make the system "fairer". It's just that instead of being unfair to 95,000 voters, we'd have a system that was unfair to 180,000 voters.
*could people stop saying NZF got twice the support of ACT but no seats?
-
You're sure? I know it wasn't last time, that the changes were all radically different to FPP, but is there something that says it must be this way? MMP Redux just can't be one of the options?
Am I sure the bill introduced by the government to set up their 2011 referendum won't have MMP redux as as option in its second question? Yes.
Does it have to be done this way? No.
Could the select committee looking into the 2011 referendum bill recommend changes so a different MMP system was an option? Yes.
And would that be a perfectly valid way to hold a vote on our electoral system? Yes. I just don't see it happening.
-
Is it totally impossible that one of the options in the second referendum could be "the status quo"?
One of the options in the second referendum will be the status quo. Anything else would require a supermajority in Parliament.
I'm asking if the first referendum could guarantee change, or if the second, having laid out the options in more detail, could actually give the opportunity to reject change?
The first cannot guarantee change, and no matter the result of the first, the second will provide an opportunity to reject all change.
Also, is it impossible for one of the other options in the second referendum to be 'tinkered with MMP'?
Impossible? No. It won't be written that way, but if our answer to the first of the questions in 2011 is "let's keep MMP, we don't want a binding referendum on replacing it" then I see no reason why the next Parliament - instead of drafting, for example, an Electoral (Single Transferable Vote) Amendment Bill for us to accept or reject in 2014 - couldn't draft an Electoral (Changes to MMP) Amendment Bill instead.
-
I find it funny that the press/National ... assumes that National will win the next two elections.
They only have to win the next one. The presumptive 2014 referendum would be binding.
-
Well, yes, technically the first one only binds the government to stage a binding second referendum if required, but ... bloody lawyers.
Now they haven't released draft legislation yet, but I very much doubt this will be the case.
The upcoming referendum will bind absolutely no-one. There will be no requirement to hold a second referendum built into the law setting it up and any attempt to include one will be meaningless. There being a second referendum rests solely on whoever is elected to govern (and has a legislative majority in the House) at the next election deciding to honour any pre-election pledge to follow what the public wanted.
Sorry, but hating Winston isn't a good enough reason for effectively removing the vote ... from supporters of small parties.
It's not hatred of Winston, but dislike of ACT :-)
-
The point of this referendum is not: how do we make Parliament more democratic. That would be a very good question to ask.
That would be a really bad referendum question...
-
MMP: This Time It's Binding
So much for my presumptive post ... about how this isn't a binding referendum :-)