Legal Beagle: Election #11: Notings
26 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Do you happen to know, is the decision about the number of list seats for each party set already? Or does it wait until after recounts?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Do you happen to know, is the decision about the number of list seats for each party set already? Or does it wait until after recounts?
It waits until after the recounts. The overall number of MPs for each party is set, unless someone requests a party vote recount (they won't, I checked to see how close parties were to getting or losing one MP via the party vote and it wasn't particularly close). But exactly how many list MPs a party gets depends on how many electorates they get (e.g. if a recount showed Paula Bennett won Waitakere, National would gain one electorate MP and lose one list MP, and Labour would gain one list MP to make up for their lost electorate MP - to ensure they both had the right number of seats overall).
-
Thanks :) When I read the leg it looked like the list determination happened after the declaration in s179, and so would occur in parallel with recounts, which could lead to disproportionality if there was a change at recount.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
which could lead to disproportionality if there was a change at recount
Disproportionality does occur if the change happens because of an election petition, however. But thanks for the thought, you’ve given me an idea for another short post :-)
-
I predicted here a few months ago that Paula Bennett would lose her electorate seat and so it has came to pass...just.
-
Also interesting too see that if everyone who voted Garth Hughes had voted for Chauvel then he would have won Ohariu. Also all those Parker/Hay votes in Epsom would have elected Goldsmith and kept Banks out.
Lefties really need to learn how to vote strategically.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Lefties really need to learn how to vote strategically.
I think you mean tactically. Who's to say they weren't voting strategically?
-
Fair point on semantics Graeme.
I realise some Green voters hate Labour as much as National/Act/UF. I just wonder whether it's still not getting through that vote splitting is fine.
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
Lefties really need to learn how to vote strategically.
It's a heroic assumption to think that everyone would vote Goldsmith (or Chauvel) if Parker / Hay (or Hughes) had not been on the ballot paper.
Interesting to note (I haven't pulled the numbers yet) that the candidate informal votes were generally several times the number of party informal votes in each electorate.
That is, there were a lot more people who knew the party they wanted, and not the candidate, than the other way around.
-
Thanks Graeme ,
What is your predictions on the Judicial recounts ? In your experience do they change the result? -
Russell Brown, in reply to
I predicted here a few months ago that Paula Bennett would lose her electorate seat and so it has came to pass…just.
No worries. She's still up for a promotion.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
What is your predictions on the Judicial recounts ? In your experience do they change the result?
I don't have experience of this, but I very much doubt there will be a difference. The local returning officer will have been damn careful. Unless the standard for divining voter intent is changed, if there's more than like three votes different, I'll be quite surprised.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
No worries. She’s still up for a promotion.
Don't be a party pooper, let me have my 'fun'.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
No worries. She's still up for a promotion.
A good Judas goat is hard to find.
-
Back. There were 19,874 informal party votes - you could argue 'None of the Above' soundly beat United, and came within 5,000 votes of both Act and Mana.
53,344 informal candidate votes. In individual electorates, informal candidate votes ranged from 1.5x to well over 5x the informal party votes. Some would have been accidental, most I expect were deliberate.
Are there more informal candidate votes when a party is not running? We'll see when the split vote reports come out. Graeme, the Electoral Commission expects to have these online next week, "subject to any judicial recounts" they said. (For the election: referendum info in January.)
From 2008 in Ohariu, 15% of Green voters gave their electorate vote to Dunne, or 527 people. You can't assume all Green votes would have gone to Chauvel.
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
The local returning officer will have been damn careful.
And the party scrutineers will have good info on exactly how many and which voting papers are in dispute (although thanks to the black sticker system, not whose votes they are.)
-
Sacha, in reply to
still up for a promotion
Vote for stability and continuity, says Key.
If everyone does the same thing the whole time, I think it has a stale feel to it and I don't want that.
-
merc,
Got to give Key credit for jamming home the differences. Labour is stale, simple. Key never takes his eyes off his competitor, and he gives out clues. Remember he said that Labour totally underestimated him? Remember the debates with Cullen? Remember he was very wary of engaging with Clarke in public?
Labour lack smarts, and I am too wary to mention the out of date union tactics. -
Looking at the relative votes for Maori, Mana, ACT, party informal, and United (31k, 24k, 23k, 19k, and 13k), there could be an argument for not only no threshhold, but also for informals to count as 'None of the Above': ie the seat does not get allocated.
Might be an incentive for more people to turn out.
Had the above applied for 2011, Conservative would have had 3 seats, Legalise Cannabis 1, and 1 seat would have been unfilled.
-
Sacha, in reply to
for informals to count as 'None of the Above': ie the seat does not get allocated.
I like that idea for the electorate vote. Automatic byelection in that seat until the parties put up a candidate the locals like enough to vote for.
-
Graeme: typo at # 2., I think you mean "or" not "of".
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
typo at # 2., I think you mean “or” not “of”.
fixed.
-
Richard Aston, in reply to
there could be an argument for not only no threshhold, but also for informals to count as ‘None of the Above’: ie the seat does not get allocated.
Might be an incentive for more people to turn out.I think the idea of a "none of the above" vote is a great one , you could add a threshold to it, say if NOTA ( non of the above) votes exceed 20% of the total vote then the result for that electorate is nullified and they have to try again.
-
Greg Dawson, in reply to
I realise some Green voters hate Labour as much as National/Act/UF. I just wonder whether it’s still not getting through that vote splitting is fine.
I think you'll see once the split votes stats come through that Green voters tend to be a lot more tactical than Labour voters.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
As I've said before, there isn't any reason to vote split in most electorates (the usual suspects excepted). That's a benefit of MMP, you can vote for the candidate/party you actually agree with on both the electorate and party vote.
Ok, if you feel strongly that one or both of the major party candidates should or shouldn't be your electorate MP, then vote for the other one. But in general, it makes no difference.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.