Posts by Tim McKenzie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Islander,
I’m not sure what you are implying here
Graeme pretty much explained what I was suggesting (thanks Graeme). I'd add, though, that even if there isn't currently any significant political skew caused by the Māori electoral option, it creates the possibility that in future, a group might deliberately try to cause political skew through a kind of political migration that doesn't require anyone to move house.
I'm not saying that the Māori electoral option makes it easy to elect a candidate who's opposed by 90% of the general public; I'm just saying it makes it slightly easier than it would otherwise be.
But of course, no-one is likely to try coordinated stationary political migration while we have MMP, because the party list system makes it so much easier to elect candidates who are very unpopular among the general public.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to tussock,
each new religion just claimed long-existing morality as their own
On this topic, C. S. Lewis argues in the first few chapters of Mere Christianity that the (almost) universal belief that there is a universal moral standard is evidence for the existence of a creator.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to tussock,
It’s how Christian doctrine came to disagree with slavery, because the mass working class already did.
[citation needed]. I tried to find some discussion of this on Wikipedia, but it gave the opposite impression. E.g.,
At the behest of Dominican priest Bartolomé de las Casas who was shocked at the treatment of natives in the New World, Spain enacted the first European law abolishing colonial slavery in 1542, but weakened these laws by 1545. In the 17th century Quakers and evangelical religious groups condemned slavery as un-Christian; in the 18th century, rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized it for violating the rights of man. Though anti-slavery sentiments were widespread by the late 18th century...
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to tussock,
@Tim, etc. Under FPP people just get put in safe seats.
Consider a candidate that 90% of the New Zealand public want out of Parliament. It would be extremely difficult for any party to find an electorate safe enough to put that candidate in (although with Māori electorates having self-selected voters, it becomes slightly more plausible).
Under MMP, on the other hand, at least two or three parties could offer that candidate a safe seat sufficiently high on their list, as long as they kept quiet about it. Even if the media made a big deal about it, National or Labour could still probably get the candidate in, because most voters would base their party vote either on who they wanted as Prime Minister or on the candidates their party vote was likely to have a marginal effect on, lower down the list.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
He’s the MP for Helensville, with 74% of the votes. I can’t think of any electoral system that would change this.
John Howard was preferred to his closest opponent by at least 60% of his electorate in 1975, 1977, 1987, 1990, and 1996, but he lost the seat in 2007, long before 90% of the Australian populace wanted him out of Parliament.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Matthew Smith,
Tim, under MMP (and most electoral systems aside from STV), we don’t get to vote against anyone, only for someone.
Yes, under most systems (including STV) a "No confidence" option would add at least a little to the legitimacy of winners.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I don't think I've ever quoted Burke, although I don't think I'm really speaking against him here.
It must have been someone else, then. I think it was on Public Address, but I can't find it.
Anyway, even tax policy is an ethical issue, and should therefore be a conscience issue. Tax law allows (perhaps requires?) the Government to confiscate a proportion of people's wealth. This may be justifiable if it benefits society as a whole. (Your ethics may require that it results in a net benefit to those from whom the wealth is confiscated, or even that wealth is confiscated only from those guilty of some wrongdoing.) But if you do not believe (with good reason) that a certain tax policy will benefit society, then how can you possibly vote in favour of it in good conscience? To do so would be to vote in favour of unmitigated theft.
-
Oh, yes; I forgot to mention that MMP also gives more power to parties by allowing them to stand candidates for all 120 seats; independent candidates have only 70 seats to choose from.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Australian voters? I think you mean Bennelong voters
Are Bennelong voters not Australian voters?
The point is that a huge majority of New Zealanders (say 90%) might oppose Steven Joyce's (or, say, Winston Peters's) return to Parliament, but if the party is determined, and a small proportion of voters is willing, they will be returned to Parliament anyway, and will stand a good chance of being part of the Government. So much for Government by consent.
For this to happen under PV, it requires that the few willing voters just happen to be astoundingly geographically concentrated in one electorate.
And because MMP gives parties more influence over who gets into Parliament, it gives them more influence over how their MPs vote in Parliament.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I vaguely remember you (or it may have been someone else) quoting part of Edmund Burke's famous speech to the electors of Bristol
Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.