Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I’m also far from convinced by his choice of office space in the electorate
These things matter in Auckland. Location, location location. I'm thinking an entertainer's kitchen with indoor/outdoor flow. Light charcoal paintwork?
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to Cocytus,
The Sainte-Laguë method ...is not a percentage of the vote = number of seats system. If it was then National's 47.31% of the vote translates to only 56 seats not 59.
Yes it is.
The reason why 47.31% of the vote => 59 seats is that:
3.37% of the votes went to parties that didn't make threshold.
47.31 / (100-3.37) = 48.96%
48.96 * 120 = 59 seats (by simple rounding and ignoring the 121st overhang seat)St Lague is just a way of fairly and consistently rounding off the numbers.
-
Legal Beagle: Election #11: Notings, in reply to Greg Dawson,
As I've said before, there isn't any reason to vote split in most electorates (the usual suspects excepted). That's a benefit of MMP, you can vote for the candidate/party you actually agree with on both the electorate and party vote.
Ok, if you feel strongly that one or both of the major party candidates should or shouldn't be your electorate MP, then vote for the other one. But in general, it makes no difference.
-
I'm fairly unconvinced that more regulation of "speech" is the answer.
The regulation of (wireless) broadcasters is, I think, predicated on their use of a scarce resource that gives them monopoly power to disseminate content. For as long as that state continues, something like the current situation is probably appropriate. (Though there is a question whether print media, given their high barriers to entry, should be included on this basis, and whether we should accept the foreign monopoly ownership of all our significant daily papers).
Everything else should, I think be subjected to as minimal regulation as possible. The legal "privileges" of the media would seem to come in two forms:
- crowd control, where only limited numbers can have physical access to an event
- legal exceptions, where a statute would limit the ability of the media to operateI'd suggest that actions, rather than status, should determine the latter. If someone has files on people and they're writing a book/blog/thesis, then that should be a defence under the Privacy Act, providing their use of the information is appropriate. If they're selling electricity, then they shouldn't have that defence.
Also, [I haven't checked if this is touched on] it would make sense for our laws to stand the test of international best practice (article 10 of the ECHR and the First Amendment to the US constitution). Apart from being a Good Idea, this might help build a consensus on setting boundaries that can be enforced internationally.
-
I actually think "strategic" (or "tactical") voting is a bit of a distraction under MMP. If Banks and Dunne had lost their electorates, we'd still have a National-led government - it'd just have a slightly different shape and Peters might be the next governor-general / ambassador to London.
Articulating a real and distinct alternative is a surer way to actually win elections.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
A ministerial exception under S.36E of the Securities Markets Act, on the grounds that it's only kids playing on the intertubes?
Might be embarrassing as and when a Reserve Bank employee gets caught betting on the OCR.
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Lew Stoddart,
I don't really understand ipredict, but people seem to be very keen on it.
How is it legal? You would have thought that gambling on (alleged) inside information would contravene gaming law, securities law or both.
-
Maybe Labour should adopt a more transparent mechanism that puts the leadership and list decisions in the hands of ordinary members?
Can anyone provide a convincing reason why not?
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to merc,
Smells like GST fraud. One hopes that Customs have sighted and maybe assayed those coins.
-
Parliament telling future governments that they must advise Parliament if they intend to spend over a certain amount of money is something Parliament can do
Isn't that why they have to pass a Finance Act every year to give effect to the budget?