I’d thought giving no ranking would hurt a candidate more than a low ranking.
Lots of people do. That's why I post this every time we have an ranked vote election :-)
What happens if you don’t number all candidates sequentially? E.g.
Candidate A: rank 1
Candidate B: no ranking
Candidate C: rank 3
A valid vote for candidate A. In the even candidate A is elected, or eliminated, the vote will not transfer to any other candidate. This is functionally identical to voting Candidate A: rank 1, and leaving the rest blank.
(still in minor nit territory) true for the last seat, but it’s really “if anyone has NUMBER-OF-OUTSTANDING-VOTES/(NUMBER_OF_OUTSTANDING SEATS+1) votes then they’re elected”
That was because I was using an example where you needed two candidates. Also, it's not number of outstanding seats + 1, the quota is still calculated using number of seats + 1, even after the first person is elected.
Hospital Board voting is only silly if the government hasn’t taken away your right to vote for your local hospital board
My view is that we should elect people into positions where they make decisions (especially decisions around funding levels), and not elect people into positions where they are administering decisions made by others.
If DHBs had the power to tax people/businesses/whatever in their area in order to fund healthcare, so that elections were about how much healthcare your DHB would provide etc. I would absolutely support having DHB elections. At present, DHBs appear to be organisations whose main purpose is to provide someone whom the government can blame when the health system doesn't work well.
Minor nit: the quota changes downwards during the voting, largely because people don't rank all 40 odd (in Dunedin's case) candidates
I did include an acknowledgement of that in an earlier question, but I accept if you were only reading that, then it could be a bit misleading:
If anyone now has a majority of the remaining votes, they’re elected.
Graeme, does the supercity enabling legislation still block Auckland from adopting an STV electoral system if it so desired?
Not as far as I can see. That was only for the 2010 election.
PS I am happy for people to swipe this and post it elsewhere. If you'd like a shorter or edited version, please get in contact. I'm happy to proofread something like this for anyone (even professional publications) without charge.
Are you suggesting that Trump does his own writing, or that someone other than Meredith McIver is his ghost writer?
If Parliament passes a law with 75% super-majority that conflicts with something in the constitution, what actually happens to the constitutional provision?
Does it just not apply where it conflicts with that specific law, or is there a general interpretation principle that it won’t apply in similar conflicts with other laws, or does it have to be changed to remove the conflict?
I would guess that Sir Geoffrey will propose that the Constitution is over-ridden only in the particular circumstances, although it may be that, depending on the particular case, that the Courts may be more like to defer in related circumstances in the future.
Which reminds me, is the proposed constitution subservient the the treaty (which is after all our founding document), or superior to it? I’m kinda curious, because the legal status of the treaty is something I haven’t really researched.
The Treaty is part of Palmer's constitution.
(at least as it is currently drafted)
We may then be inspired. I’d see the key points as:
- entrenched and enforceable social and economic rights
Sir Geoffrey was asked about social and economic rights. He noted he was a conservative on such issues, asking eg, what we think a court could do in current circumstances if there was a right to housing.