Posts by bmk
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Voting Referendum: Jus' Sayin', in reply to
Of course that was the initial one I saw last night then forgot about that today. That would be in fact be the most likely scenario.
So I disagree with people who say that a zero threshold will mean that stable governments cannot be formed.
-
Legal Beagle: Voting Referendum: Jus' Sayin', in reply to
So the only difference between the two methods in this case would be that under the St Lague method National get 1 more seat and ALCP don't get a seat. This makes me think 'my' method is superior to the St Lague method:)
Which would have actually made a huge difference in voting blocks. The only realistic easy governing solution would be a National-Green coalition because I couldn't see the National party getting the Family Party and ALCP happy with each other.
-
Legal Beagle: Voting Referendum: Jus' Sayin', in reply to
Out of interest I made a spreadsheet and calculated the 2008 election with a zero percent threshold using 'my' (sure there is an actual name for it) allocation method and came up with this being the result:
National 54
Labour 41
Green 8
Maori Party 5 (be entitled to 3 - thus creating overhang of 2)
NZ First 5
ACT 4
Progressive 1
United 1
Bill & Ben 1
Kiwi Party 1
ALCP 1Does anyone know how this election would have looked with a zero percent threshold using our St Lague method of allotment? Would be interested to see how/if it differed from what I have above.
-
Legal Beagle: Voting Referendum: Jus' Sayin', in reply to
How does that work exactly? 120 seats suggest to me that every 5% should get 6 seats. Mathematically I get that if all seats were to be allocated evenly every 0.83% earns one seat. But obviously it doesn't work that way? How come?
I want a zero % threshold but then I don't think someone should get a seat with 0.4% of the vote because this would mean that despite having got only 0.4% of the vote they would make up 0.83% of the parliament. This is equally undemocratic.
I think a zero % threshold should be introduced but then the seat allocation should be purely mathematic. So for each 0.83% you get one seat. At the end whatever seats are unallocated go to whoever was closest to their next 0.83 point.
-
Legal Beagle: Voting Referendum: Jus' Sayin', in reply to
I would actually prefer a zero threshold. To me it wasn't undemocratic that Act had MPs as a result of Rodney Hide winning Epsom, what was undemocratic was that NZ First didn't have any MPs despite winning a larger share of the vote.
I feel if enough people vote for a party to get them a list MP (I am guessing about 0.8% - would this be right Graeme?) then those people deserve a list MP.
I don't agree with the idea that if a party gets say 5.0% of the vote they are entitled to 6 MPs whereas a party that gets 4.9% of the vote get none. By doing this you are in effect saying to people your vote doesn't count even though you make up nearly one in twenty people.
-
STV does suffer from the unfortunate thing that it can also stand for Sexually Transmitted Virus. I am sure this will cost it some votes in the ballot box. Who's gonna vote for a STV?
-
Hard News: Someone has to be accountable…, in reply to
Exactly. I think we are onto him now. Let's call in Rick Deckard:)
-
Pity we can't ensure all politicians pass the voight-kampff test before they are allowed to be sworn in. If every politician at least had empathy, no matter the rest of their political leanings/thoughts, the world would be a better place.
-
Hard News: Someone has to be accountable…, in reply to
Only if it were actually the original Rodney Hide and not an android.
Which actually explains a lot of things such as his lack of empathy.
-
I would like to watch Roller Derby sometime. And I have seen a sign-written car around Whangarei which suggests there is a team from here but never heard anything about it otherwise so I don't know whether they play here or travel to Auckland to play. Guess I should google it.