<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>




<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: MMP Review: Trusting Voters</title>
		<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/</link>
		<atom:link rel="self" href="https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/rss/" type="application/rss+xml"/>
		
		<description><![CDATA[A talking shop where we put the questions and our community illuminates the issues.]]></description>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<copyright>Copyright (c) 2026 Public Address</copyright>
			

		
			<item>
				<title>tussock</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267777#post267777</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267777#post267777</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>ODT editorial, you'd have to ask for their sources I suppose. Electoral Commission by the look of it, I haven't read all their stuff so don't know.</p><p><a href="http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/221747/mmp-review" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/221747/mmp-review</a></p><p><q>Non-voters gave largely the same reasons as in 2008 for not voting: "other commitments" (14%), "work commitments" (9%), "couldn't be bothered" (14%),…</q></p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Sat, 18 Aug 2012 02:23:07 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267699#post267699</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267699#post267699</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>specifically because the election result was so certain there was no point to it</q></p><p>any link about that?</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:23:14 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>tussock</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267689#post267689</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267689#post267689</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>OK, good reasons to dump the threshold, even if you don't like the small parties.</p><p>1: They totally take power off each other, the more of them are in there. Part of Winston wanting less parties is he has the most power when there's only one of them, his, and…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2012 05:08:54 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>tussock</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267687#post267687</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267687#post267687</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<q>The second is debateable … the Sante Lague fomula used to apportion seats amongst those parties that cross the threshold slightly favours smaller parties over larger one. So one could argue that the Greens and NZ First actually get more benefit (in terms of the amount of representation they get…</q>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:08:54 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267686#post267686</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267686#post267686</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>There’s an argument that if we got rid of the threshold, we should also adopt a counting system that requires more votes for the first MP.</q></p><p>That was essentially my proposal, and also the one offered by the Royal Commission, who recommended a modified form of Sainte-Laguë in the event…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:43:42 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267641#post267641</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267641#post267641</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						There's an argument that if we got rid of the threshold, we should also adopt a counting system that requires more votes for the first MP.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:41:47 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267640#post267640</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267640#post267640</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Which is why local government would be way more functional if we ran it like national government:<br />&ndash; councillors elected as part of parties (local or national)<br />&ndash; the mayor/leader elected by councillors and hence able to command a majority</p><p>At the moment, it's just a personality contest do see…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:40:22 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Kyle Matthews</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267638#post267638</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267638#post267638</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<q>I’m feeling like getting rid of the overhang altogether is probably a bad move… surely a cap of 121 (or just outright lifting the number of MPs to 121) would be a better idea – same number required for a majority, while keeping ever so much more proportionality and giving…</q>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:21:58 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Brent Jackson</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267636#post267636</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267636#post267636</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						But the threshold definitely increases the chances that a big party can govern on its own or with only one party.  Smaller parties are constantly at risk of sliding below a threshold.  I think larger parties have much more to gain from the threshold than smaller ones.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:57:14 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Andrew Geddis</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267555#post267555</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267555#post267555</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>That’s the whole point of a threshold, takes away small-party seats and gives them to (most often) the biggest.</q></p><p>The first part of that claim (a threshold takes away small party seats) is true. The second is debateable ... the Sante Lague fomula used to apportion seats amongst those parties…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 05:06:27 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>tussock</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267520#post267520</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267520#post267520</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						Why would Colin Craig give up on his push for 5% just because it drops to 4%? Much more likely he grabs 3.5% either way, which gives seats to National. That's the whole point of a threshold, takes away small-party seats and gives them to (most often) the biggest.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:23:13 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Moz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267460#post267460</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267460#post267460</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Ok, having used lunch to feed this into a wee spreadsheet I get this:<br />Raw percentage of the vote:<br />National	45%<br />Labour	25%<br />Greens	20%<br />Maori	4%<br />ACT	1%<br />Mana	1%<br />Winston	1%<br />Xian	1%<br />minors	2%</p><p>As above, assume that ACT, Mana, Winston and Colin Craig win their seats…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:51:37 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Clarke</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267447#post267447</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267447#post267447</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>see a certain large cities "ex-green/lapsed-green/informal-green" mayor for an example</q></p><p>It's not really a very useful example, as the council table is a very different place to the caucus table. For starters, there are no real party affiliations at local government level, merely a spread of political proclivities ranging from…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:10:15 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Christopher Nimmo</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267446#post267446</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267446#post267446</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						I'm feeling like getting rid of the overhang altogether is probably a bad move... surely a cap of 121 (or just outright lifting the number of MPs to 121) would be a better idea &ndash; same number required for a majority, while keeping ever so much more proportionality and giving…
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:09:18 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Moz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267429#post267429</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267429#post267429</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						How about this for a scenario. Posit that Labour continues their current form and gets a solid 25% of the vote, but doesn't hold on to enough electorates to create an overhang{1}. National screw up and only get 45% of the vote. With the new rules and soome careful cups…
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 12:32:11 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267408#post267408</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267408#post267408</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						It will play out, for sure. They do seem aware of that.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:41:41 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Keir Leslie</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267403#post267403</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267403#post267403</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						You know I am sure that no party ever says "oh we're going to be sell-outs and disgraces once we get in office". But they almost all do.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:34:22 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267399#post267399</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267399#post267399</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>I think that whilst a governing Green caucus might certainly come under temptation to descend into Labour style expediency and trimming*, the party structures are there to constrain this.</p><p>* see a certain large cities "ex-green/lapsed-green/informal-green" mayor for an example.</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:25:45 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Moz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267398#post267398</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267398#post267398</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>if enough of the Greens would discover sitting in the back of a ministerial limo comfortable enough to develop a similarly obstructed caucus colon... The triumphalism of Green supporters means they never pause to consider that the latter is probably more</q></p><p>Tom, it hasn't happened in other Green party offices…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:16:24 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Moz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267396#post267396</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267396#post267396</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Sacha, I'm not saying it's <strong>likely</strong> that both Mana and Maori would want to join a Labour-Green coalition, just that Rich's thought experiment seems to require it. That's why I said "National would need one, Green-Labour would need both... which would be easier to get?"</p><p>Rich, you continue to make…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:06:47 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267395#post267395</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267395#post267395</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Having crunched some numbers, I think that the scenario I posited, where National get a large absolute majority which is negated by Labour becoming an electorate-only party, is unlikely except in an unlikely limiting case.</p><p>Which suggests that losing the overhang isn't that much of a problem, at least at…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:00:51 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267391#post267391</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267391#post267391</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>The triumphalism of Green supporters means they never pause to consider that the latter is probably more likely than the former.</q></p><p>From media coverage, didn't the party devote themselves to exactly that topic at their most recent national conference? Nice try, though.</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:35:06 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267379#post267379</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267379#post267379</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						If someone want to spell out exactly what scenario you want judged: party votes for all (relevant) parties, number of electorate seats for all parties, I can adjudicate :-)
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:47:34 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267369#post267369</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267369#post267369</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>On past numbers Mana and Maori will both clear the new 4% threshold</q></p><p>How did you work that one out? Mana got 1.08% last time, the Maori Party got 2.39% in their best showing ever in '08.</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:04:35 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Tom Semmens</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267367#post267367</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267367#post267367</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>The interesting question is whether any Labour MPs would resign rather than go down that route.</q></p><p>It is interesting to consider if a proper coalition with the Greens would act as a dose of political purgative to a constipated Labour caucus, or if enough of the Greens would discover sitting…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 08:55:11 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267321#post267321</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267321#post267321</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>Mana-Maori</q></p><p>one of those is more right than left, you realise?</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:56:32 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Moz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267303#post267303</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267303#post267303</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>I'm assuming no more overhangs, as proposed, so there are only 120 seats ever.</q></p><p>Ok, my take on "no overhang" is that extra electorate seats get set aside when proportional calculations are done. So the simple case of Labour getting 20 seats on 5% of the party vote means we…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:24:42 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267300#post267300</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267300#post267300</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						I'm assuming no more overhangs, as proposed, so there are only 120 seats ever.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:57:45 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Moz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267287#post267287</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267287#post267287</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>Well no (55% of *votes* not seats).</p><p>If you were following earlier, we have a two-vote MMP system. If a sizeable number of people split their votes electorate to Labour/ party to Green then Labour could still hold maybe 20 electorates (last election was 22), even if Labour went down…</q></p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:44:37 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267281#post267281</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267281#post267281</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Yes.</p><p>Of course, this is a fairly unlikely scenario. (and actually, the Greens would also lose list seats in the above situation and would need a few more points to compensate)</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:23:47 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267280#post267280</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267280#post267280</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						That would be the overhang provision that the Commission proposes should be removed?
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:17:25 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267279#post267279</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267279#post267279</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Well no (55% of *votes* not seats).</p><p>If you were following earlier, we have a two-vote MMP system. If a sizeable number of people split their votes electorate to Labour/ party to Green then Labour could still hold maybe 20 electorates (last election was 22), even if Labour went down…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:13:32 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Moz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267277#post267277</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267277#post267277</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>What would be great would be if National got 55%, Labour 15% and a bunch of electorates and Green 30%, leading to a Green-led government. I'd just love the impotent rage of the righties if that happened.</q></p><p>I assume you guess those numbers wrong because an election resulting in National…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:52:13 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Idiot Savant</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267274#post267274</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267274#post267274</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>What would be great would be if National got 55%, Labour 15% and a bunch of electorates and Green 30%, leading to a Green-led government. I'd just love the impotent rage of the righties if that happened.</q></p><p>I think you and I have a different definition of "great".</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:32:13 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Stewart</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267273#post267273</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267273#post267273</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>What would be great would be if National got 55%, Labour 15% and a bunch of electorates and Green 30%, leading to a Green-led government. I'd just love the impotent rage of the righties if that happened.</q></p><p>The reactions of a large number of Labourites would also be worth keeping…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:59:23 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Craig Ranapia</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267270#post267270</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267270#post267270</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>Only if you’re thinking in FPP terms. There are more parties than two.</q></p><p>Perfectly well aware of that. I was trying not to over-qualify my point into a run on sentence that would give Proust the yips. :) </p><p>As far as I'm aware Labour is the only party currently in…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:38:17 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267269#post267269</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267269#post267269</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Something interesting on the electoral angle is what happens if Labour keeps losing party support to the Greens, but hangs on to a tail of electorates. We could wind up with an overhang (or non-overhang) for Labour.</p><p>What would be great would be if National got 55%, Labour 15% and…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:37:20 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267265#post267265</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267265#post267265</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						This doesn't seem to be a problem in the US. You'd think that Romney might have been put there by Democrats registering as Republicans (which is done by ticking a box, no financial payment or agreement to rules needed) but that hasn't ever really happened.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:24:27 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267262#post267262</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267262#post267262</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						Rob Salmond makes <a href="http://pundit.co.nz/content/leftie-strategerizing" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">some observations</a> about the left-right calculus for Labour. Worth a read.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:17:32 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>FletcherB</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267261#post267261</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267261#post267261</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>but the rest of us don’t.</q></p><p>Whether the process is democratic or authoritarian, it seems fair to limit control over list selection, or in fact any other party rules, to members of the party…</p><p>Otherwise,  left or right leaning voters could be “helping” the other parties choose their most incompetent…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:16:37 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267260#post267260</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267260#post267260</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>do you think the United States' exhaustive (and exhausting) primary processes lead to either better quality candidates or quality decision making on the part of voters?</q></p><p>No. We can do better with less fuss than that. Just a little more information conveyed meaningfully and continuously by an independent agency like…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:16:11 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267259#post267259</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267259#post267259</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>I'd say it's a draw</q></p><p>Only if you're thinking in FPP terms. There are more parties than two.</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:13:30 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Craig Ranapia</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267258#post267258</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267258#post267258</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>but the rest of us don’t.</q></p><p><br />Sure &ndash; and any views I have on the Labour Party's constitutional reforms are unsolicited and generally ignored. I'd say it's a draw. :)  And in all seriousness, do you think the United States' exhaustive (and exhausting) primary processes lead to either better quality…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:08:35 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Rich of Observationz</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267253#post267253</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267253#post267253</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>The technical term for this is "Labour"</q></p><p>I think that for Labour, the contest that matters is on their right, between them, National and NZF. All of those parties are as undemocratic as each other, so they cancel each other out.</p><p>The other contest on their left, between Labour and…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:55:12 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267252#post267252</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267252#post267252</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>giving talking head</q></p><p>very good</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:53:18 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267251#post267251</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267251#post267251</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>The solution for National Party members concerned about this is to require the party to amend its rules. They have the power!</q></p><p>but the rest of us don't.</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:52:58 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Craig Ranapia</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267250#post267250</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267250#post267250</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>He had a smirk on his face…</q></p><p>And so he should – it’s eminently smirk-worthy watching a <a href="http://www.exceltium.com/who/matthew/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a PR flack/lobbyist</a> with a, shall we say, patchy track record of disclosing conflicts of interest when giving talking head playing the blushing virgin.</p><p>And if you want to talk about a…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:52:14 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Sacha</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267246#post267246</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267246#post267246</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>But I'm not sure the market needs that help.</q></p><p>You seem to be assuming some perfect 'market' of electoral knowledge exists, much like an economist's fantasyland. I believe the checks and balances that ethical media and other players provided simply aren't there to the same degree any more. Market failure…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:46:37 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267237#post267237</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267237#post267237</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>On TV1's Q+A this past weekend, Matthew Hooten points out that the law already requires a "democratic" list selection process, then proceeds to sum-up the National Party list selection process..</q></p><p>Indeed. David Farrar has made similar observations in the past.</p><p>The solution for National Party members concerned about this is…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:19:20 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>FletcherB</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267230#post267230</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267230#post267230</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>On TV1's Q+A this past weekend, Matthew Hooten points out that the law already requires a "democratic" list selection process, then proceeds to sum-up the National Party list selection process..</p><p><q>In the National Party, there is a very highly democratic process that they begin with their regional conferences and then…</q></p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:40:26 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Craig Ranapia</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267229#post267229</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267229#post267229</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>But I'm not sure the market needs that help. "Party Z is so secretive they won't even tell you how their list is selected, why would you vote for them?" seems a reasonable line of attack.</q></p><p>Quite.  And here's another proposal:  New Zealand First could have held US-style primaries to…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:34:36 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Clarke</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267222#post267222</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267222#post267222</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>Voters who care that a party is protecting "useless" electorate MPs with high list places will be less likely to vote for them.</q></p><p>The technical term for this is "Labour".</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:10:44 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267221#post267221</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267221#post267221</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>we could require parties to disclose the exact method used to order their list, so that voters can decide for themselves whether it is democratic enough for them.</q></p><p>We could. And as Andrew points out, we do.</p><p>But I'm not sure the market needs that help. "Party Z is so…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:51:15 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Richard Love</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267220#post267220</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267220#post267220</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>The constitutions of all registered political parties (including their candidate selection rules) are available here, in accordance with s.71B of the Electoral Act</q></p><p>That is true, but it is a relatively obscure place and the actual list selection information is buried in among all the other party rules.</p><p>I think…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:50:58 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Andrew Geddis</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267210#post267210</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267210#post267210</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p><q>If we want to help the market, we could require parties to disclose the exact method used to order their list, so that voters can decide for themselves whether it is democratic enough for them.</q></p><p>The constitutions of all registered political parties (including their candidate selection rules) are available here,…</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:44:26 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Idiot Savant</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267204#post267204</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267204#post267204</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						If we want to help the market, we could require parties to disclose the exact method used to order their list, so that voters can decide for themselves whether it is democratic enough for them.
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:54:14 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Graeme Edgeler</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267196#post267196</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267196#post267196</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>I was about to comment that I realised this was a change from the position I took in my submission, but actually, it <a href="http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/mmp-review-3-the-submission/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">doesn't differ as much as I thought</a>:</p><p><q>67. Again, it can be argued that this power is already in the hands of party members. If party members…</q></p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:12:15 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
			<item>
				<title>Public Address</title>
				<link>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267195#post267195</link>
				<guid>https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-mmp-review-trusting-voters/?p=267195#post267195</guid>
				<description><![CDATA[
						<p>Discussion from blog post.</p>
					]]></description>
				<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:12:15 +1200</pubDate>
			</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
