Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: On Consensus

Steven Peters

Thu, 23 May 2013 12:07:05 +1200

Yes I took what you said at face value. So you want to see independent MP's who can act according to their 'own' conscience, and not part of a collective conscience ie a party. I would argue that a collective conscience can integrate a far larger amount of information from…

BenWilson

Wed, 22 May 2013 17:07:26 +1200

Yes it was addressed to you, as in '.the most horrifying thought of all is that the party system might break down completely, and individuals might vote according their own views of right and wrong'.

I was mocking that kind of thinking. Sorry about the lack of clarity – I…

Steven Peters

Wed, 22 May 2013 08:54:12 +1200

Yes it was addressed to you, as in '.the most horrifying thought of all is that the party system might break down completely, and individuals might vote according their own views of right and wrong'. I am not sure that 'representative government' prohibits parties from acting as representatives, as you…

BenWilson

Tue, 21 May 2013 22:41:19 +1200

From what you are saying, are you in favour of a lowered threshold, or against it?

Not sure if that's addressed to me, but if so, then yes, I've been in favour of a lowered threshold from the first moment that I heard of the stupid idea that we even…

Sacha

Tue, 21 May 2013 19:51:21 +1200

We've lost rational anger

and it pisses me off (seriously)

Steven Peters

Tue, 21 May 2013 19:20:41 +1200

From what you are saying, are you in favour of a lowered threshold, or against it? I personally wouldn't have any problem with 60 individual parties or independents in the House, because in theory, each would be different from any other, and have their own basis of support, or voters…

BenWilson

Tue, 21 May 2013 15:47:37 +1200

Fair enough Steven, I guess I'm not sure exactly what every individual in parliament feels about thresholds. There may even be people in the big parties who feel the same way, that breaking off from their party might be less horrifying if there was at least a chance of forming…

James Littlewood*

Tue, 21 May 2013 11:37:51 +1200

Am I indulging in self interest if I point out:

– that MMP is the fairest system by virtue of being the most proportional;
– that a lower electorate threshold equals greater proportionality still;
– that you can’t oppose the reduction of the electorate threshold without automatically displaying your own…

Tim Michie

Tue, 21 May 2013 10:16:46 +1200

Globally, Political dysfunction spells trouble for democracies gives interesting context.

Greg Dawson

Tue, 21 May 2013 08:50:33 +1200

Maybe related to where if you're angry, you're assumed to have lost the argument (even if there is no argument)?

I'm not sure how long it has been around in our communal psyche, but I know there is nothing more annoying to me than someone who gets patronising because you're…

Steven Peters

Tue, 21 May 2013 08:15:17 +1200

Not all are opposed to more parties in Parliament Ben, if by that you mean a lower threshold than 4% (a lower threshold does not necessarily mean more parties in Parliament) . Mana, wants a one seat threshold, and the Maori party wants it lowered also. Besides, other parties who…

tussock

Tue, 21 May 2013 03:06:10 +1200

The votes lost by supporting such a system.
I'm suggesting the big parties might possibly go for it, which means their PR machines get on board. Ideally they both get on board and there's no fight about it at all.

My take is the big parties have the option to…

BenWilson

Mon, 20 May 2013 21:38:53 +1200

NZers used to be able to get seriously pissed off. I don't think it's in the national psyche any more. A gradually growing peeve is the limit of political stonk we've got left.

Rob Stowell

Mon, 20 May 2013 12:54:33 +1200

I’m still amazed that we ever got MMP in the first place.
Hard to remember now, but NZers were seriously pissed off at what was done to the country by politicians who, erm, said they'd do something else, or just never bothered to mention they were planning to sell off…

BenWilson

Mon, 20 May 2013 09:53:59 +1200

To summarise, you target the big two.

I like the way you're thinking but there's a factor you haven't considered. The votes lost by supporting such a system. It's no use to a party to gain 100,000 disaffected unvoters if they lose 50,001 voters to the other party, who won't…

Steven Peters

Mon, 20 May 2013 08:35:27 +1200

The evidence from last election shows that vastly Increased expenditure per vote does not translate into significantly more votes (i.e. Conservatives and Act). I agreet that we will end up with four parties, so its FPP lite, which is a continuation of our long history of two dominant parties, unfortunately.…

tussock

Sun, 19 May 2013 23:32:39 +1200

To summarise, you target the big two. Threaten an arbitrary swing against the due winner and hope to get both of them to commit before the election so you don't even have to deliver. There's benefit for them in it by weakening the smaller parties, giving them more options after…

tussock

Sun, 19 May 2013 23:25:26 +1200

If my take on this is correct, what is your solution?
I'm not sure. Let's see if I can essay one up.

The low turnout we're getting should scare the crap out them, but they trust their PR spending to keep any populist upstart from grabbing all the stay-homes and…

Sacha

Sun, 19 May 2013 17:23:07 +1200

years of collective effort

always

Hilary Stace

Sun, 19 May 2013 13:54:30 +1200

But a pretty consistent approach to anything related to disability rights – the benign state has never given anything willingly. Every legal advance in disability rights has required a huge battle by disability activists such as the 1989 Education Act, the inclusion of disability in the 1993 Human Rights Act…

Ian Dalziel

Sun, 19 May 2013 09:28:48 +1200

Flight mode or Roman?
In lieu of less people's unions, more binding tribunes perhaps?

(ps: I'll work for salt!)

Steven Peters

Sun, 19 May 2013 08:28:43 +1200

Well said tussock. I agree with your the basic analysis for a better democracy. However as I see it, the problem is that the current MMP settings favour the continued National AND Labour centrist oligarchy. Both sought to stop MMP and hence a better democracy. I expect they, as well…

tussock

Sun, 19 May 2013 04:31:42 +1200

Why do you support ‘no party vote threshold’

Hi, I'm not Graeme, but I do support the very low party vote threshold (of about 0.8 seats, or a 1.4 first divisor, as you will). Anyhoo, to me it's a pretty damned simple case now of the majority stealing votes from…

Sacha

Sat, 18 May 2013 20:59:30 +1200

And the penny-pinching is despicable. Ryall repeats his mantra that the only human rights that count are ones we can 'afford' to pay for.

Mr Ryall stressed that the costs of the law change had to be manageable in tough economic times.
...

Officials reported that if all carers for adults…

Hilary Stace

Sat, 18 May 2013 20:35:45 +1200

Not just shoddy. The word vindictive has been going around Facebook by those who have been watching this case over many years. This is how you do the minimum to meet the requirements of a court case which dragged on for many years and which the Ministry finally lost, and…

Rob Stowell

Sat, 18 May 2013 19:29:59 +1200

Too much 'urgency' in this govt; not enough solid well-thought-out legislation.
Wondering what Graeme makes of this Geddis column on legislation regarding payment for looking after disabled relatives? It may effect a lot of us, and it seems just- shoddy.

Rob Stowell

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:46:48 +1200

if National doesn’t either
That's the weasel escaping from Collin's lips, without her ever actually saying it :)

Rich of Observationz

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:42:58 +1200

As in, the detail of MMP is not entrenched.

If NACT were smart and evil, as opposed to just evil, they could have dealt with this more cleverly by proposing a referendum on the recommended changes, plus an increase in the parliamentary term to four years. That would be accepted…

Rich of Observationz

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:35:42 +1200

Steven Peters

Fri, 17 May 2013 11:19:59 +1200

Thanks for this Ben, will reply more fully later (still waiting for Graeme's comment).
Meanwhile, can anyone confirm for me that any changes proposed by the Electoral Commission review, would require a 75% (absolute) majority to pass in the House to be enacted, and not merely an overall majority of…

BenWilson

Fri, 17 May 2013 10:58:04 +1200

I can tell you why I don't agree with them.

Fragmentation: Yes, "no party vote threshold" is by definition more fragmented. However, you have to believe that fragmentation is bad to consider this a problem.

Less effective: It will be harder for parliament to ignore the opinions of such small…

Rich of Observationz

Thu, 16 May 2013 11:48:15 +1200

Logically majority <= consensus <= unanimity

I'd suggest that Banks and Dunne obviously don't support the suggested change, and if National doesn't either, we don't get to 'majority' so the issue of 'consensus' doesn't arise.

National are of course being disingenuous in suggesting that they aren't progressing the measure because of lack of consensus. But would it be any worse if they introduced a bill, supported it to second reading and then voted it down? (A Labour or Green member could introduce a private members bill to put this to the test..)

Steven Peters

Thu, 16 May 2013 09:37:07 +1200

Why do you support 'no party vote threshold', Graeme, given the prevailing arguments, as advanced by the Electoral Commission, that this will/might lead to a multiplicity of parties in the Parliament, 'fragmenting' it, making government 'less effective' and allegedly making coalitions more tenuous.

Ian Dalziel

Thu, 16 May 2013 08:14:27 +1200

does this help?
Mr Key ...when on a mandate, ensure any dicking around with people is consensual...

BenWilson

Thu, 16 May 2013 01:40:50 +1200

I'm glad to see that the questions around the definition of "consensus" got raised. It seems to mean anything from bare majoritarianism to unanimity, depending what outcome the user desires. I don't much like it as a word, would probably only use it in the case of a small number…

Sacha

Wed, 15 May 2013 20:12:36 +1200

if a majority in parliament doesn't want them (let alone a supermajority) they don't happen

without leadership, that's true.

Sacha

Wed, 15 May 2013 20:11:29 +1200

For Greens like Holly Walker, consensus probably describes a process rather than an outcome; for Judith Collins and co it may well seem like just a synonym for everyone agreeing.

Rich of Observationz

Wed, 15 May 2013 19:56:02 +1200

Well, isn't the point of democracy that we aren't ruled by appointed experts in a statutory commission? Such commissions can recommend things, but if a majority in parliament doesn't want them (let alone a supermajority) they don't happen.

Of course, it would be more honest for National (and possibly Labour)…

Steven Peters

Wed, 15 May 2013 18:26:45 +1200

'There does not have to be consensus about the meaning of consensus, especially in politics. Besides, its a c word, like 'consultation'.

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 15 May 2013 17:29:27 +1200

I recall facilitating a “consensus” process once and being reminded by the participants that “consensus” isn’t the same as “agreement” or “unanimous”

Merriam-Webster gives unanimity as one of the definitions of consensus.

The consensus definition in wikipedia of consensus decision-making is __Consensus may be defined professionally as an acceptable resolution,…

Steven Peters

Wed, 15 May 2013 15:45:43 +1200

I think it is the 'washed' among the electorate that have the most to fear from no threshold, not the 'great unwashed', Keir.
'No threshold' is a red herring. The issue is – What happens now that a statutory body has suggested changes be made to our MMP system before…

Bob Williams

Wed, 15 May 2013 15:01:18 +1200

I recall facilitating a "consensus" process once and being reminded by the participants that "consensus" isn't the same as "agreement" or "unanimous"

Greg Dawson

Wed, 15 May 2013 14:19:30 +1200

Well, isn't the general opposition to no threshold based on fear of madmen and time wasters sneaking into the house?

I think that the ongoing efforts by the current government and opposition will eventually make that a much less unusual, and hence less frightening scenario.

Keir Leslie

Wed, 15 May 2013 14:07:04 +1200

The problem is that the unwashed masses of NZ don't particularly want 'no threshold', and it's a bit problemy to force that onto them.

Steven Peters

Wed, 15 May 2013 13:01:14 +1200

A kindred spirit! However, even if desirable, it is highly improbable a public body would endorse 'no threshold' , let alone the electorate (but you never know, if the issues are aired sufficiently well).
How might a re-consideration of the (current and recommended) MMP system come about, notably the level…

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 15 May 2013 12:19:36 +1200

You are happy with what the EC has produced, whereas I feel it is mere tinkering, and does not alter the status quo. In fact, it make worsens it.

I am not happy with the EC's recommendations. I think we shouldn't have a threshold at all, and that if we…

Steven Peters

Wed, 15 May 2013 12:17:35 +1200

I more faith in the possibility that a Royal Commission would have the substance and authority to produce a much less timid document than the EC has produced, as I am sure it would wish to investigate how a revised MMP system might address the chronic political and growing economic…

Rich of Observationz

Wed, 15 May 2013 12:06:48 +1200

It's not a very effective gerrymander though, given that there are no coat-tailed MPs in the current parliament and there might be none in the next (nor did any parties get 4-5% support).

What might happen after the next election could be this – where NZF and Craig just miss threshold…

Allan Moyle

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:49:37 +1200

Major electoral law changes should all take effect effect one term distant to (if only slightly) minimise the incentive for self-interest to trump principle.

Have to ask why don't they do this – make the changes but apply them from 2017 onward – it is not as if there is…

Rich of Observationz

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:43:45 +1200

That's the 27th Amendment, which I believe holds the record for the longest ever time taken to pass a legislative measure – 203 years.

The US also has a (legislative) rule that sets the presidential salary above the vice-president's, and mandates the VP's renumeration as the cap on all other…

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:37:43 +1200

There is only one way it would happen, if one party sees it in their short term electoral interests to have the process taken out of MP’s hands more substantively, such as another Royal Commission, to settle the issue of changes to MMP.

I am reasonably confident we'd get the…

Rich of Observationz

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:36:28 +1200

Anyways, I suspect a referendum on tweaks to MMP might risk a record low turnout, and would also be putting quite a lot of influence with the unelected Electoral Commission in choosing the 4%/no coat-taiing option vs the status quo.

I'd actually favour a new constitutional settlement on a basis…

Steven Peters

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:28:53 +1200

I am pleased to note that you now seem more comfortable with the abolition of the OST – even 'in isolation', although I am unsure how this is practical?
You labour (excuse pun) the 'consensus' issue somewhat, in my view. National is perfectly entitled to ignore the Electoral Commissions report.…

Rich of Observationz

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:27:55 +1200

I think National's real position is:
- we have done the numbers and feel that the (admittedly miniscule) chances of ACT or Dunne getting a second MP outweigh the increased likelihood of having Winston in the next parliament, and that we might be able to buy him anyway should that…

tony j ricketts

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:27:32 +1200

An interesting point about 'for the next-election-but-one'. I believe one of the last changes to the US Constitution was to make any changes to pay of politicians apply only after the next election.

Sacha

Wed, 15 May 2013 11:11:37 +1200

Courage is a useful word. Not seeing it much these days in our 'leaders'.

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 15 May 2013 10:59:42 +1200

My error. I think Labour got support for the use of urgency?

Slightly more support, but still not really:

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. Urgency is sought because, for the…

linger

Wed, 15 May 2013 10:45:32 +1200

My error. I thought Labour had reached out further than just to the Greens, both in the use of urgency, and for the content of the bill.

George Darroch

Wed, 15 May 2013 10:43:17 +1200

Hey, the Greens were opposition at the time :)

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 15 May 2013 10:12:18 +1200

Actually, that was one case where opposition support was sought and obtained.

The following is copied directly from Hansard (.pdf):

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 61
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.…

Martin Connelly

Wed, 15 May 2013 10:02:56 +1200

A really excellent article. Thanks

linger

Wed, 15 May 2013 09:37:16 +1200

Where was the consensus when Labour passed a law electing Harry Duynhoven to Parliament?
Actually, that was one case where opposition support was sought and obtained.

David Hood

Wed, 15 May 2013 08:56:09 +1200

As someone supportive of MMP, I am feeling this morning that National has acted in very poor faith over the whole referendum saying this will be the process then ditching it when they did not get the outcome they wanted.
I also felt, from listening to Morning Report today, that…

Public Address

Wed, 15 May 2013 08:56:09 +1200

Discussion from blog post.