Posts by Mikaere Curtis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I've revised my numbers as if the Maori electorates were increased in size to the same as the average general electorates, and maintained the same voter turnout and voting patterns.
Accordingly, the adjusted party votes are therefore:
National 1056902.312
Labour 821328.431
Greens 159476.183
ACT 85726.979
Maori 70145.403
Progressives 21381.301
United Future 20583.394Then I wrote a program to calculate the Sainte-Laguë results, and they are:
National 56
Labour 44
Greens 9
ACT 5
Maori 4
United Future 1
Progressives 1So, there is still an overhang. Unless you use Graeme's assumptions and change not only the size, but the voting turnout as well.
-
That's just how the Sainte-Laguë method works out, which I note isn't applied in his analysis.
Yeah, forgot about that. It's not easy to apply, so I'll code up an application to do it tonight and repost.
I suspect that the main difference between my and your numbers will be in the assumption of voter turnout rates. My assumption is larger seats, same rates; I predict a 1 seat overhang. More tonight...
-
Instead, I re-did the numbers of the basis that a whole bunch of extra voters suddenly appeared in the Maori electorates, and voted in the same proportions as those already there.
I did the same, and this is what I got:
Using your numbers: Average general roll = 44,534, average Maori roll = 32,809.
So, vote increase in Maori seats is 0.357.
This results in 48,732 extra voters across all 7 seats, and brings total party votes to 2,405,295.
Maori Party get 14,165 extra party votes across the 7 seats, bringing their total party vote to 70,145.
2,405,295 / 120 = 20,044 party votes required to get one list MP.
So, the Maori Party earn enough votes for 3 list MPs. Ergo, the overhang of 2 MPs is still the same.
-
Maori electorates and general electorates represent the same number of people overall, but in 2008, the average general electorate was responsible for electing 1.849 MPs (1 electorate MP (duh!), and 0.849 list MPs). Because of lower enrolments and lower turnout, the average Maori electorate was responsible for electing 1.051 MPs (1 electorate MP, and 0.051 list MPs).
List MPs are an aggregate of all votes across all seats, so a comparison with electorates isn't particularly valid.
This applies to the overhang as well. The reason the Maori Party end up with an overhang is that they don't get the required level of party vote, not just in Maori seats but in all seats, to bring in a member from the list.
Personally, I think Maori seats are a dated relic that should go the same way as the property qualification and the idea that folks with lady-parts were just too emotional to vote responsibly
So, how do you feel about a party that thinks Maori shouldn't decide for themselves, and had a policy of abolishing the Maori seats irrespective of Maori views to the contrary ? Oh, and at the same time as campaigning on promoting personal choice.
-
There are two dimensions to a drug legalisation framework. The first is the freedom to use a drug. Granting adults the right to choose to use cannabis or MDMA is Good Thing, IMO. Not only because the social and health costs are demonstrably lower than alcohol, but also because it enables the police to focus on crimes with actual victims.
The other dimension is accessability. I would suggest that a huge issue with tobbacco products is that they are the most accessible drug in our society (apart, perhaps, from sugar - assuming you consider sugar drug). Every dairy, every service station, every supermarket deals these little packets of addiction. Imagine the social damage if pokies were similarly ubiquitous.
Therefore, I am wary of allowing multinationals to deal in cannabis. They'd keeping push the envelope until they got maximum distribution networks. I'd rather start with the "grow you own" model, and evaluate it after a few years.
Ecstasy-type drugs, OTOH, would benefit from a lot of study aimed at identifying and mitigating the risks of use, so I'd be happy for them to be treated more like pharmacy items, and restricted accordingly.
@Tom, you need to meet more potheads :) My friends who still use regularly *never* rant on about legalisation.
-
Or does this happen: They only need to pull back 2 or 3 mortgages and they can "pay back" what they were originally given to play with. ......So whose do they pick?
This sounds like a very short term liquidity problem, one that could be handled by taking out a loan/issuing bonds etc. Assuming they don't want to do that, my guess is they would quickly securitise* their best available loans, and get the money that way.
* Simply put, securitisation is when you sell the predicted interest stream on a group of loans. The bank gets cash up front (which they can on-lend in new loans), and the buyer gets a higher rate of return that they could make on a term deposit. Abuse of this process caused the financial meltdown in the first place, but our banks tend to be quite conservative, securitising the better loans and not creating junk loans in the first place.
-
I can understand the name suppression, passage of time, disproportionate punishment and all that. However, I can't understand the discharge without conviction. In addition to the fraud, there were real victims.
The dead boy's sister was also quoted by Judge de Ridder.
"The deeply cruel, shameful and malicious manner in acquiring such details is akin to literally stealing from the grave and has caused deep distress for the entire family, especially for my elderly mother, to be subjected to further trauma and pain in the memory of her beloved infant son and our darling little brother's name."
Where was the SST when they were needed ? Oh, helping him avoid any kind of sentence at all. I really hope the media hound McVicar about his involvement in this.
-
Kevin Hague made a nuanced post over at Frogblog:
...
We wanted to be clear that we do stand by the people of Canterbury and acknowledge the need to expedite some processes to facilitate recovery, while also strenuously disagreeing with the approach being taken and doing our very best to improve it. In the context within which we had to work we believed that our very active efforts to change the Bill and to put down the markers in the debate against which the Government should be judged, but to vote for the Bill at third reading was the best match for that set of objectives.
I acknowledge and fully respect that others believe that either our assessment of the balance of those objectives was wrong or that there would have been better ways of achieving those two objectives. For Green Party supporters who believe that we got it wrong, I’m sorry to have disappointed you. I understand too that there are some people for whom a single issue becomes so simportant that their vote is cast entirely on that issue. However, political parties can’t really work on that basis. We have to do our best to have policy and make decisions across a very broad range of issues, and then ask voters to judge this whole mix, and our behaviour on everything, even if there are aspects with which they disapprove. My hope is that most people who disapprove of the judgment call we made on Tuesday will be able to consider it against this broader context.
I totally get basis for the never-vote-Green-again dummy-spitting, but seriously, who are you going to vote for ? It was a hard choice, and maybe they made the wrong decision, but at least they are aware of it. Contrast that with Labour, National et al.
-
Except it doesn't. Saying it does doesn't make it so. And as a person of Canterbury, I don't like being used like this.
You do get that this was a symbolic gesture, don't you ?
Look, I really do get what you are all saying about the law being shite, and all that, and I think it would have been entirely OK for the Greens to vote against it. In the end it was a judgement call (and not, as some have said, an exercise in political expediency). The Greens really aren't the problem - its the authoritarianism inherent in the Labour and National parties. The Greens may have voted the wrong way, but National and Labour were totally into the whole deal !
I suppose Labour deserves some small credit for, apparently, requiring the term of the legislation to be reduced from a barely credible five years to two -- but, otherwise: loyal Opposition? Hardly.
Well and good, but Russel says they opposed some useful Green amendments, too.
We tried to get Orders in Council published within 24 hours and presented to next day’s sitting of Parliament. Nats and Lab opposed.
We tried to get a majority of elected Cantabrians onto Recovery Commission (rather than a majority of central govt appointees as it is now). Nat and Lab opposed.
We tried to get a 6 month sunset clause written into the Act, with the ability to move a motion to extend it for another 6 months. Nat and Lab opposed.
-
For what benefit? How does that give members any more control over party lists?
Exactly. The Greens have less than 10,000 members, yet have the most democratic list selection process (STV ranking by all members, subject to only minor tweaking for geographical/gender/ethnic balance).
If you don't like how parties behave, the real solution is to get involved. You really can't dictate their behavior by statute.