Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Watching World, in reply to Hilary Stace,
I think the main problem the US faces in this respect is that it's got different systems in every state. They're very much held back by the way their federal system emerged historically. Not just on this, either. NZ can make adjustments to the voting system that affect every citizen, and debates on the problems are national debates. In the US they have to have 50 debates for every one that we have. I wonder if there's anyone at all, anywhere, who comprehends the US voting system in its entirety.
-
I feel obliged to point out that there is still a way for the major parties to game the system, so massive that the massiveness is itself probably the reason it has never happened. There would just be too much outrage.
This method would be if they actually split themselves into 2 parties which are 100% aligned, different only in name and position on the electoral ballot. Call them Labour and Labor, for instance. One would contest the electorates, and the other would contest the party vote. This could generate a huge overhang, a major party taking it's share of electorate seats, but getting nothing in party vote, and a "minor" party, getting a major party share of party vote. Effectively it would add the number of electorates to the current total number of seats held by the party.
I haven't read the full EC report yet to see if they mention this. Too busy today, I have an exam.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
I bet he's saying that because he can see that the Conservative party could bite big chunks out of his support.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
Ben, you argue that the end justifies the means in that a system that creates inequality between voters, which the OST does, is justifiable because it (might) bring about a small increase in proportionality, and reduce the dominance of the two old oligarchs.
I'm not justifying it, I'm weighing up the pros and cons between the current reality and the system just proposed by the EC. It's not a simple task, because it's unknown what the effect of a lower PVT is. Incidentally, they concur that it's a 20% drop, and contextualize that with:
1.15 Lowering the party vote threshold from 5% to 4% would be a 20% reduction in the number of party votes a political party needs to be eligible for an allocation of list seats. Based on the last three elections,9 to cross a 4% threshold, political parties would need to win around 92,000 party votes. At 5% they would need to win around 115,000. This represents a significant reduction in the threshold
Which means small parties would need to get 23,000 less votes to cross the threshold. That's worth something. Not sure exactly what it's worth.
The thing that seems quite important to me in the report is the extent to which they took into account the general will of the population, and the thoughts in the submissions. I don't think they were mere lackeys of the establishment as you're sort of suggesting. There is surprisingly little support for a lower threshold than 4%. I think the average person is simply wrong on this, but I do believe in a democracy that their opinions are important.
Which is why I quoted the piece above that says "we are mindful that experts in electoral systems recommend ‘incremental improvements’ rather than major change". Ultimately, whilst the total move in the direction of proportionality might be quite minor, the fairness that it brings back, and the removal of the ability of the major parties to pick which minor parties get representation, is a stepwise change that, if successfully sold to the public, does constitute a move forward. It also simplifies the future choice, removing the OST from muddying the waters the way it has so far.
If it were followed, and the population ratifies it (is this necessary? Graeme?) then we would get at least another 9 years to see what the influence is on the political system of the removal of that power the major parties has. It might very well bring back considerably more confidence in small parties, as their ability to whore for the majors to get the crumbs would be gone.
-
Hard News: The Watching World, in reply to Sacha,
Ask a blind person who currently can not cast a vote on their own in NZ.
Sure, there's advantages in some ways, that relate to small numbers of cases out of the vast mass of the population. So I'll rephrase my head scratching to "what benefits that aren't massively outweighed by the losses"? Being unable to vote without help vs being unable to vote at all because the machines weren't working, or were too slow.
-
Hard News: The Watching World, in reply to Sacha,
There's an interesting tension between security/audit and better accessibility in electronic voting, but it's reconcilable.
It seems like a classic example of where using technology actually makes things worse. People volunteer to do election scrutineering and counting. The labour cost is zero. People like to do it. It's an important task, an occasion, and a way of engaging citizens in the political process.
Hearing that people had to queue up for miles to use a single machine in the US, many missing out altogether, had me scratching my head as to what actual benefits were conferred by using a machine.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I meant it's the end of them getting coat-tailing benefits, which is the whole point of them being the Mana Party, rather than the Hone Harawira Party. They'd have to get over 4% support in the party vote, a very big hill to climb. Mind you, they get at least one more throw on the current system, and if they build up, they could look credible once more.
I kinda doubt it though
Very hard to pick at this point. Is reconciliation between Harawira and the Maori Party completely impossible? Maybe they have learned the hard way that he had a good point? I've never been able to pick what way Maori politicians will move under MMP, they've been very canny players all along.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Brent Jackson,
Because they are abolishing the electoral seat threshold, it is likely that we will get a less proportional parliament than under the current system. What a wasted opportunity.
Not sure. It could be about the same. We could lose 5 coat tailers, but gain 5 on a party list (who would have got none). And 5 would be at the upper end of the number that coat-tailing has produced. My feeling is that it's a small improvement in proportionality, and progress overall toward making a less major-party dominated system. Epsom would lose the power it had, and wherever the hell Dunne is.
Sadly, it probably kills Mana and installs Colin Craig.
This part was extremely interesting:
The Commission engaged UMR to conduct two surveys in the weeks following the release of the Proposals Paper to gauge support for a 4% party vote threshold and the abolition of the one electorate seat threshold. In the first survey, conducted soon after the release of the Proposals Paper, 46% of those surveyed supported lowering the party vote threshold to 4%, while 42% opposed it, and 12% were unsure. In a survey conducted two weeks later, 40% surveyed supported a 4% threshold, 41% did not, and 19% were unsure. Most of those opposed to a 4% party vote threshold preferred that it remain at 5% or higher. Those supporting a threshold below 4% were within the margin of error.
That is some interesting data all right. They got a massive proportion of the submissions requesting lower than 4%. But the number of people in the general population supporting it is "within the margin of error".
Also:
While Wilson and Fowlie prefer 3%, this would be a massive 40% reduction from the current threshold, and we are mindful that experts in electoral systems recommend ‘incremental improvements’ rather than major change
Seems very sound, on the basis of the previous finding.
In other words, if the opportunity was wasted, it was wasted by the general will of the population of NZ. If you trust UMR. I don't have any reason not to.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review #1: The Party…, in reply to Steven Peters,
Yes. It's a target, that everyone gets equal representation. I don't think we get that close, but it's something to aim for and you judge the system in comparison to others, rather than an absolutely perfect end point.
-
ok, how do you convert a Bouncy Castle?
Tell it that last minute repentance doesn't wash in Bouncy Castle heaven, whilst suggestively holding a pin.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 408 409 410 411 412 … 1066 Older→ First