Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Just like the Grey Chameleon, Peter Dunne. Except that last election his piddle of a party forced Labour to reject all the Green support so that he could grasp some power.
UF promised prior to the last election that they would not work in a government which included the Greens. People voted for them knowing this.
After the election, he kept his word, and Labour had an option: Greens or UF? Labour chose UF; hardly "forced".
-
The provision is there in subsection 8, but we haven't had any real cases for that to apply to yet.
Derek Fox came with 600 or so votes in 2002...
-
__independents don't create overhang__
but a one-electorate party a la Jim Anderton could?
...
How does that work Graeme? By logic they would be an automatic overhang.If an independent wins an electorate seat (or an electorate seat is won by a candidate from a party that does not submit a list) then that seat is removed from the calculation, and proportionality is maintained over the other (119) seats.
For example: all 70 electorates are won by independents, and Bill & Ben get 100% of the party vote (and submit a full list). Parliament has 70 independent MPs, and 50 B&B list MPs.
Contrast with this: the Residents' Action Movement wins all 70 electorates (and have submitted a party list). The Republic of New Zealand Party get 100% of the party vote (and have submitted a very full list). Parliament has 70 RAM MPs, and 120 RoNZ MPs.
-
And finally, let's greatly expand the statute of limitations for prosecutions from six months -- if not do away with it altogether. I think we've seen ample evidence how you can stonewall and obfuscate for six months quite easily.
The EFA did expand the time for commencing a prosecution. The time limit is now 3 years.
-
On a related topic, how does redundancy work for ... the MPs and/or Ministers themselves?
Retiring and losing MPs keep getting paid for three months' from polling day.
Those ceasing to be ministers (etc.) get paid their ministerial salary until they cease to be ministers (which hasn't happened yet), and thereafter get paid as MPs.
Those ceasing to be ministers, and ceasing to be MPs get paid their ministerial salary until they cease to be ministers (which hasn't happened yet), and thereafter get paid as if they were MPs until three months after polling day.
-
linger - independents don't create overhang.
-
I can't see any logical connection between turnout and overhang. Overhang results when a party gets members in only through winning electorates. And you can win an electorate with a plurality, you don't need a majority.
[made up numbers]
200,000 people sign up for the Māori roll, allowing 7 Maori seats. 2,000,000 voters overall.We have an election and everyone on the electoral roll votes.
If everyone on the Māori roll voted two ticks Māori Party (and no-one else party-voted Māori), then that would translate into 12 seats - 7 electorate and 5 list.
But let's change the numbers. Everyone on the General roll votes (but still not for the Māori Party), but only half of those on the Maori roll vote (again, two ticks Māori Party). The Māori Party again wins the 7 electorates, but is only entitled to 6 seats overall. Result - overhang!
Now imagine only 7 people in the Māori electorates vote - one in each electorate. Māori Party gets all 7 votes, and thus 7 seats, but the Māori Party is not entitled to any seats based on its party vote - 7 overhang!
Low turnout in certain sectors can most definitely lead to overhang.
-
And, naturally, I meant "alluded". How on Earth did that happen?
-
And just to complete the matter: what was wrong then and is still wrong now?
Claiming that being a member of the Executive Council does not make one a member of the executive. That charade lasted a couple of weeks, tops, necessitated by Winston Peters' pre-election promise not to join either National or Labour in government.
Being a minister means you are in government, and it means you are not in opposition.
-
If you pick a new and exciting candidate who actually has no substance and no political nous you might manage to lose an unloseable election... anyone remember 2005?
Labour didn't pick a new and exciting candidate in 2005.
After the 2002 election - at which National had fallen to less than 21% of the vote - the only party that could possibly have been fighting an unloseable election in 2005 was Labour. How can a party be expected to lose an election merely three years after it secured almost twice the votes of it opponent?