Posts by Andrew Geddis
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"I await the results of the police investigation with interest."
I can tell you what those results will be right now. Whatever evidence there may be that a crime was committed, the "public interest" requirement of the Solicitor General's prosecution guidelines has not been met.
-
Speaker: Music: The Vinyl Frontier, in reply to Alan Perrott,
@Alan: "oops, sorry about that, I just get tired of such comments. taste is a personal thing."
This springs to mind:
-
Speaker: Music: The Vinyl Frontier, in reply to Alan Perrott,
@Alan: "It's music, not a cure for cancer, and I say that as an, umm, enthusiast."
Perhaps, then, you should spend your time reading medical journals rather than blog posts in which people with similar individual quirks self-depreciatingly share in-jokes? That might help lower your general sense of smug righteousness.
-
"The other friend, Tim, was as pleased as Sylvie was at seeing the British indie stuff when he saw Galaxie 500’s On Fire album, which again reiterated to me the importance of them going to a good home."
I hope to God that this came out of the 1/3rd of albums you've got on CD as well ... or else you, sir, may be a geek, but you are no music geek.
-
New Zealand is a better place with No Right Turn keeping everyone honest, and with expert bloggers like Graeme Edgeler and Andrew Geddis writing ...
I found this to be an interesting and thought provoking piece ... until I read this bit. Then I fell over laughing and hurt my think bone too much to continue.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review: Trusting Voters, in reply to tussock,
That’s the whole point of a threshold, takes away small-party seats and gives them to (most often) the biggest.
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 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 in Parliament) out of having a 5 or 4% threshold than does National or Labour.
-
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.
The constitutions of all registered political parties (including their candidate selection rules) are available here, in accordance with s.71B of the Electoral Act: http://www.elections.org.nz/rules/parties/registration/registered-political-parties.html
If you mean more than this - i.e., "why exactly did NZ First place Brendan Horan sixth on its list?" - then I guess you'll need to join NZ First and take part in the process for yourself!
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review - The Proposals, in reply to James Butler,
Goldilocks was still ejected from the house by a bear majority.
Possibly the first time anyone, anywhere has made a genuinely funny joke about the issue of electoral reform. To you, sir, I bow in humble amazement.
-
Here's the Commission's reasons for plumping for 4%:
"In conclusion, therefore, the Commission’s sense is that 5% is too high and that 3% is the lowest end of an acceptable range. We suggest 4% is preferable. It reflects the Royal Commission’s original recommendation. It would compensate for abolition of the one electorate seat threshold. It is in line with comparable democracies such as Norway and Sweden. And it is in line with public opinion and the weight of submissions received by the Commission."
It's the Goldilocks number! Not too high, not too low, and supported by just the right number of people!!
-
Legal Beagle: Before the fall, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I suspect they’ll leave the fallbacks to the Government. I reckon if they think it should be 3% they’ll just say so, referendum or not.
Depends how the Commission handles its brief. If I were them (which I'm not ... but then neither is anyone else ... except them, of course) I'd be thinking on two tracks. One is, what do we think the "best" form of MMP would be, given all the submissions we've received? (Note that this isn't a counting opinions exercise - it involves evaluating the strength of the arguments made/evidence provided for the various policy options.) The second is, what changes can actually get made? (This is where the counting of heads matters - given the public sentiment as expressed through the submissions process, what ideas (good as they may be) simply don't have a chance of being accepted into law?)
Given these two-tracks, there may be a gap open up between the ideal and the possible in that the Commission believes there are good arguments for having a lower threshold than the bulk of submissions to the review supported (my impression flicking through these is that the majority favoured either no change or 4%). Hence the possibility of a report that says something like "there are very good reasons for having a threshold at 3%, but this would be such a significant change to MMP (and one that was not broadly supported in public submissions received) that it should only be adopted if the voters agree to it. However, the strength of the arguments for lowering the threshold from 5% combined with the support from submissions would justify Parliament moving to a 4% threshold without the need for further voter approval."
As you say, this may not differ from your view that there may be contingent recommendations ... it's just a particular prediction of such a recommendation.
And, of course, the Government and Parliament have to agree before any changes are made!
True. But I'm still not sure what "problem" the Commission would be addressing by recommending "more party democracy" ... aside from the public's view that they don't really like or trust political party "bosses". And, frankly, I'm not sure there's anything the law can do to fix that issue (without creating a range of other potential problems, including unleashing the lawyers on internal party faction fights). I just hope the Commission thinks the same way!