I’d also been puzzled as to why community detention wasn’t considered – but of course
I've replied via email.
…what does it seem when you weigh the sentencing in light of the true facts?
Still basically fine, to be honest. We do try to keep first-time 18 year-old defendants out of prison where possible.
To be honest, even with the higher charge with the three year max, a discharge without conviction still wasn’t totally impossible, as the discharge Hautahi Kingi ultimately received shows (his charge was assault with intent to injure, which is also 3 years max).
Is the Spinoff an independent blog or is there a media outlet (or NZ on Air) funding behind it?
It's not and a blog, and I don't believe there's another media outlet (or NZ on Air) funding it.
I don't see why an online outlet should become a Press Council member, especially if they come out with rulings like this.
Membership of the Press Council provides certain rights in court proceedings, that are not available to media outlets that aren't members of it or the BSA.
I, too, will be rank-ordering all the candidates – and putting the lowest number against my least-favoured candidate – for both the mayor and councillor elections.
You put the lowest number next to your *most*-favoured candidate!
I have a feeling, however, that the resistance you encountered at that meeting, was at least partly to do with the fact that the candidates instinctively felt that by answering your (great) question, they would be helping their opponent(s), perhaps at their own cost.
I assumed it was because they were scared of either: (1) appearing defeatist; or (2) scaring off voters who might vote for them, but are against the person they name.
Gerry Brownlee attempted to immediately progress this Bill to its Third Reading, which Winston Peters blocked for whatever reason.
Legislation shouldn't pass with no debate is a pretty good reason, I'd have thought.
Does this happen immediately, or does ballot-stuffing like this still delay any further Bills from being introduced for substantially longer, even if it goes through rapidly?
When space becomes available, because a member's bill has had it's first reading debate (passed or failed), there's a ballot the following day. MPs have to enter their proposed bills each time.
To get to neutral, it has to have enough positive points to outweigh the time and money required to pass a bill.
Depends what the alternative is. There are a bunch of other much worse bills submitted to the ballot. Ranked from best possible new laws to worst possible new laws in that bunch, it's probably toward to middle :-)
you forgot to add the part about how you think this is a highly necessary Bill and that its robust debate is well worth the allocation of Parliament’s limited resources
It does meet the most important test for a piece of legislation:
First, do no harm.
STV’s so-called defects are not properties, if that’s the right word, that ordinary voters in large public elections can in any way take advantage of.
I’m absolutely fine with STV, and what anomalies remain don't really concern me either.
What proof do have that STV “certainly doesn’t have that property?”
The Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem?
And in multiple-winner STV elections, later-no-harm seems likely to harm voters’ preferences over the sets of possible winners.
Tactical voting is possible in all fair electoral systems with more than two candidates.