Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
[I think this means Craig is supposed to like them...]
-
And if that by-election meant that Act no longer held Epsom? Would Roy still get to stay until the next election, even though the sole reason for her presence would now be gone?
Yes.
Your suggestion that it "could totally change the composition of Parliament" is the reason why. Undertstandably, we don't want that to happen.
Interestingly, it also applies to election petitions.
For example Party X gets 4% of the vote (say 5 MPs). Candidate Y, the leader of Party X is elected to an electorate and the party gets 4 list MPs.
Opponent Z takes election petition against Y alleging that Y went around on polling day destroying ballot boxes (and the votes inside them) in areas likely to have supported Z. Z proves this in the election petition and then a prosecution of Y for this behaviour results in his conviction for destroying ballot papers and receiving the maximum penalty for this crime against democracy (six months' imprisonment).
Party X keeps 4 list members until the next election.
-
Oh, and a slightly related question, what happens in the event that the likes of Rodders gets sent up the river? After all, Act's only in Parliament because he's there. Take him away, and then what? A by-election? Potentially (in fact very probably) it would go to another party, and that could totally change the composition of Parliament.
A by-election, but everyone else gets to stay.
-
__One popular theory is that McCain wanted Lieberman and Rove wanted Romney, and McCain chose Palin to piss Rove off ...__
BTW, Graeme you are aware of Leiberman's voting record? He might well be hawkish on defence and Iraq, but on gay rights, gun control and abortion he's still the anti-Christ to the Republican "base".
Yes. That was my point.
Russell's suggestion was that McCain who wanted Lieberman, chose Palin in order to piss off Rove.
If the point of McCain's VeeP pick was to piss of Karl Rove, he'd have gone with Lieberman. That - as you reiterate - would have pissed off Rove a lot.
A lot more than his choice of Palin.
Thus, McCain's choice was not primarily motivated by a desire to annoy Karl Rove. And his choice of Palin, in particular, was not to piss off Karl Rove.
[A proof by contradiction, if you will]
-
One popular theory is that McCain wanted Lieberman and Rove wanted Romney, and McCain chose Palin to piss Rove off ...
If that was the aim, wouldn't he just choose Lieberman?
-
It's a jersey I bought in Rotorua the night the Bay took on the British and Irish Lions
...
For those keeping score (and clearly someone was) it was 48-12 to the Lions.
Which is just one reason I haven't gone to a game. What on Earth was wrong with the name Wellington?
-
Bah... really need to fact check ... before posting things like that
No, you may still have been right:
the only Republican in the 2006 midterms who increased her majority
:-)
-
TPM has a good backgrounder on Palin's "Troopergate" problems.
And Daily Kos has a good backgrounder on how her son is really her grandson
:-)It's not women you distract, by and large, by yelling 'look, boobies!'
I recognise people will have issues with a republican running-mate, but couldn't people have waited at least a week before coining VPILF?
-
alas there was only the note that they're going to end up with a mass plurality system for their President, which will leave them even further away from any chance of a Condorcet election for the most powerful idiot in the world.
Agreed (well it seems like the right word, anyway).
I did not that in the unlikely event of a constitutional amendment "the only serious alternative being a nationwide winner-take-all (__not necessarily first past the post__) popular vote."
I would envisage that the best system for a nationwide vote would be a form of preferential vote. The only 'recent' serious attempt at change envisaged a run-off vote if no pair got more than 40% of the popular vote. It still needs some catalyst to happen, however.
-
No.