Becouse it’s the McGillicuddy Serious Party she was voting for. That was basically a vote of no confidence.
She appears to have been living in the Eden electorate, was registered in Mt Albert, and stood as a candidate in New Lynn, so could not have voted for herself, in any event.
I know she was young and silly, and having a bit of fun, in 1993; she basically accepted that last evening when she had no answer to John Campbell as to why she didn’t register in New Lynn so she could at least vote for herself, rather than for her friend in a third electorate. As the item “faded to black”, her voice indicated that she was as bemused about that as John was.
Regardless, I now agree with Alistair Thompson upthread – “the electoral address issue is a non-issue”. Where she was living, and with whom, while claiming the DPB, is what is relevant.
Also, it should be noted that the relevant Act in force on polling day, Saturday 6 November 1993, was the Electoral Act 1956, as amended.
…, but I just figured she forgot to change her address on the roll and then just voted in Mt Albert because hell it didn’t make a difference."
Yes, a perfectly likely explanation. I hope that’s all it was.
I understand they broke up pretty soon after she got pregnant / gave birth.
But voter fraud? Even fraud to cast a throwaway vote?
Yes, this is one aspect of Metiria Turei’s story that doesn’t quite ring true.
In 1993, she received 121 votes as the McGillicuddy Serious candidate in New Lynn. Her friend, one K Julian (MCGS), in Mt Albert, in respect of whom she purportedly committed electoral fraud in order to vote for, received 195 votes. Why would you go to such trouble to vote for your friend, in favour of voting for yourself in another electorate?
I just hope she wasn’t actually living with / under the same roof as, the father of her daughter at the Mt Albert address at that time. If she was, she may have to resign from parliament prior to the election.
Also, I’d just point out that Lindsay Perigo (who?) was not the first to suggest a collective presidency for the US, it was unsuccessfully proposed by Edmund Randoph and others in the Federal Convention of 1787.
Lindsay Perigo (founding leader of the Libertarianz Party), in his magazine, Free Radical, was actually proposing a Triumvirate for New Zealand (the three Tribunes being elected by STV nationwide), not for the US. Quite different to Randolph's proposal that the three members of the Executive would be "drawn [i.e., appointed] from different portions of the country."
It is in that context that I mentioned him as being the originator of the proposal. I did not want people thinking it was my original idea, when it wasn't. (See his proposal here: http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/constitution/ .)
Thanks for your comments, Rich.
I should have said, no *direct* role to play in filling single-vacancy public offices.
Bringing extremist candidates into power is in many ways an artefact of such unfair voting systems[.]
To me, what you are saying here is that any electoral system used to directly fill a single public office is unfair, and *invariably* throws up an extremist candidate. With regard to the US, one out of 45 ain't bad - and even then, Trump only made it by way of the Electoral College. And, as we are now witnessing, he is being somewhat constrained by the other two branches of government. Although I wouldn't put money on it, I doubt he will be re-elected.
Thank you for bringing Edmund Randolph's three-person presidency proposal to my attention. I was unaware of that. I was, however, aware of the information contained in your other comments.
Okay. You're basically saying that, in all circumstances, "the people" have no role to play in filling single-vacancy public offices.
France and the United States are never going to give up their republican forms of government. Also, there will always be reasons, and a desire in certain circumstances, to elect single office-holders. I will comfort myself in the knowledge that you have at least conceded that conventional instant-runoff STV is "probably the least worst" method of determining who wins single-vacancy elections. I don't recall you doing that previously.
You went on to suggest that public, single-office, elections - necessarily including single-seat STV - [can] bring extremist candidates into power, without giving any examples, but then opined that Marine Le Pen would not win under AV (IRV) voting. I agree, but neither, in my view, will she win the second round on 7 May - just as they did in 2002, a majority of voters will "hold their noses" and vote for Macron.
Setting aside Ireland France, and turning to US presidential, US senate and US House elections, it just so happens that I have given a little bit of thought to how they might be improved. My thoughts are briefly set out here (see the 10th and 11th comments)--
(My suggested improvements, suitably amended, could also, of course, apply in respect of gubernatorial, state house and state senate elections.)
Two clarifications: when I say the two co-presidents would have equal power with the president, I should have said they would have equal status; and my reference to the square root of the population should have read the cube root of the population (the "cube root rule").
I'm not expecting you to respond (unless you care to). I'm just taking this unexpected opportunity to let a wider audience see what one set of improvements (in my view) might look like.
(all systems of directly electing a single leader, including NZ mayoral elections, are intrinsically bad, but conventional instant run-off STV is probably the least worst => I’d suspect Le Pen would have been eliminated at the 3rd or 4th round of such a system).
Certainly, FPP and two-round voting are terrible ways to fill a single vacancy.
I know you prefer that mayors be voted in by fellow councillors immediately following a triennial election, Rich, but how do you think the offices of the president of France, Ireland, or even the United States, should be filled, in a way that is recognisably democratic? Or is that not important to you?
I have to ask, because you didn't go on and give us your alternative method.
The CPI increase during 2016 for all groups was 1.3% – 1214 / 1198, so actually 1.34%.
The Household Price Increase for beneficiary households during 2016 was 1.4% – 1021 / 1007, so actually 1.39%. For the highest income households it was not 0.6%, but 0.7% – 1019 / 1012, so actually 0.69%.
So, officially, the difference between overall inflation and price increases for beneficiary households during the 2016 year was + 0.1% (but actually only + 0.05%). Still, beneficiaries would no doubt consider that 0.1% to be worth having.
For the record, I agree with the premise of your blog, Graeme. If the government has the data to enable it to act more fairly towards beneficiaries, it should use it.
Graeme, I note that HLPI Table 1.01 is not set out the way the CPI (3.01, etc.) tables are. Therefore, the HLPI - beneficiaries group is just that. There is no "All groups less cigarettes and tobacco subgroup" (CPI 3.01, line 28), etc.
That being the case, I wonder if you should amend clauses 4 (61HA(3)) and 5(2A) of your draft bill, to remove the references to "excluding cigarettes and other tobacco products". (In any event, what about alcoholic beverages (CPI 3.01, line 27)?)
Thank you for bringing the NZ Progressive Bills Project to my attention. I've already started thinking about the bill I'm going to draft. <g>
Once again, I'm not arguing with you, Paul. In my humble, you're spot on.
"[...] why didn't I vote for all 43?" (Strictly speaking, why didn't I rank-order all 43?)
It's pretty clear to me, you didn't rank-order all 43 because you knew, deep down within, that your rankings beyond 9 would have merely been arbitrary. Yes, indeed, it would have been a pain, and for what? Answer: certainly no additional satisfaction in a job well done.
"[...] it should be a lot easier." And it was! You made sure of that, by rank-ordering only 9 candidates. (Just quietly, between you and me, I say, "Well done.") Imagine if this election had been by multiple-FPP, citywide? You would still have agonised over whether or not to give a tick to one, two, ..., 10, or 14 candidates. And, you would still have had to sort them out, in your own order of preference (more or less), even though you would not have been voting that way.
I'm going to let you into a little secret. As you probably know, I rank-ordered 13 out of the 20 Capital and Coast DHB candidates (see upthread). All seven elected candidates - six women and one man - were included in my 13. But, my first preference was for that great lady, (incumbent member) Helene Ritchie, who finished up as the runner-up! As you know, that means my vote stayed solely with her right through the entire count. To me, that's a bummer, but, as you can imagine, I'm still pretty happy. So, too, should you be (in my view).