|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 18, 2020 0:01:21 GMT
IMO whenever this system is in operation it would be better if people could only stand for one type of seat and not have two bites of the cherry to get elected. IIRC that was the case in Wales to begin with when the Welsh Assembly was first established. I don't think it was ever a rule, though some parties may have adopted it. It makes no sense, though. You could have candidates on a party's list deliberately undermining constituency campaigns to improve their chances. I seem to remember Alun Michael being a potential victim of it in the first or second Assembly election, although the memory is rather hazy. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Oct 18, 2020 2:18:59 GMT
IMO whenever this system is in operation it would be better if people could only stand for one type of seat and not have two bites of the cherry to get elected. IIRC that was the case in Wales to begin with when the Welsh Assembly was first established. Although in this case some list candidates are effectively just making up the numbers; the National candidate in this election was 18th on their Party list; they’ve never elected below 12 before according to 1News’ broadcast, so I don’t think anybody a) envisioned him losing his electorate, and b) Nationals doing so badly in the electorate section that they got so far down the list. There can also be an advantage thinking of Scotland and Wales - once you get past the top 3-4 on a Party list they become anonymous, whereas running in a FPTP electorate gives you as an individual and your Party a higher profile which in turn can be used to drive your Party’s list vote up. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 18, 2020 2:49:46 GMT
I don't think it was ever a rule, though some parties may have adopted it. It makes no sense, though. You could have candidates on a party's list deliberately undermining constituency campaigns to improve their chances. I seem to remember Alun Michael being a potential victim of it in the first or second Assembly election, although the memory is rather hazy. The rule was not in place in 1999. IIRC Michael nearly missed out on a seat because he was parachuted into the Welsh Labour leadership too late to contest his party's nomination for any constituency, so had to be top of the list in Labour's weakest region instead. This also meant it didn't cause a by-election when he resigned from the Assembly the following year after Rhodri Morgan ousted him. I think that rule should be rendered irrelevant anyway, because I'm not in favour of lists. New Zealand should adopt the Baden-Württemberg variant of MMP, as should everywhere else. And I'll keep banging on about it across multiple threads until at least one other jurisdiction does so! |
|
|
|
Post by groznik on Oct 18, 2020 4:14:16 GMT
Well that was a most enjoyable watch [watched about 3+ of the 5 hours coverage I would guess] 2 things I would note: The National party are run by a "board of directors" and the local organisations have no say at all in the running of the party including choosing candidates!! [WOW] Oh to have a leader with the grace, compassion, style and substance of Ardern; considering what muppets we have to suffer in the UK and USA right now!! I don't think that is right. In fact the problem has been that the National Party Board and Office has very little control over electorate candidate selection and this is done by a protracted system involving numerous cups of tea with leading lights of the party membership in the electorate. A friend went through the process in 2014 in a safe rural electorate with a large membership and I don't believe it has changed. The problem is that there is no central candidates list or similar and some of the problems which the National Party has had recently have been caused by unsuitable candidates being chosen. Also, the inevitable conflict between electorate responsibilities (particularly in a huge rural electorate - some have population centres 3 hours drive apart) and the need for MPs to have roles in Parliament and for the party elsewhere. The list ranking is chosen by the centre it is true but largely based on input from divisional conferences. For new candidates it tends to be alphabetical order towards the bottom. As a NZ resident and regular reader, I might make a few observations if I may. Not surprised by the result at all as there is a huge amount of gratitude respect and affection for Jacinda for (as people see it) sparing us from the horrors of COVID much of the rest of the world suffers from. The leaders of the two main parties are all important and the rest of the team almost a side issue. The result is a weird hybrid of MMP and an almost presidential system and posters showing the party leader and candidate are usual (it means the central office with a much bigger budget pays 50% of the cost). Jacinda mania is a real feature. I was roundly reprimanded for daring to indicate I was not voting for her (not least because I don't live in her electorate!) The National party campaign was a fiasco. It made the 2001 Tory campaign and the 1983 Labour campaign seem models of clarity. The less said about the Muller interlude the better, but if you are running on having a strong team and competence, the failure to show either quality means you lose all credibility and it is impossible to campaign against what is widely seen as a success without being carping. The last straw was the finance spokesman being unable to do his maths properly and having a $4bn hole in his budget. Labour dominated social media and online advertising and the front page of the newspaper on Friday was a full page picture of Jacinda which must have cost a fortune! What was really interesting was the split voting patterns which will be interesting when the data is out. A lot more people than usual would have voted for their local National MP then for other parties for their list choice which is why more than you might have expected survived. Extraordinary only 4 electorates had on provisional figures National leading the party vote. In Wellington where I live the Labour/Green share is nearly 75% in the three electorates. This was certainly a COVID election as pre-COVID the feeling was that Labour had not excelled on fulfilling its 2017 campaign promises and ran the risk of being a one term Government. The Coalition was unwieldy to say the least with NZ First being a loose cannon and a brake, but they may have done them a favour by stopping the more radical ideas being implemented. Labour could blame the National Party for the problems they inherited but now they have complete control (in what is a pretty close approximation to an elective dictatorship) and nowhere to hide if they don't do better. Anyhow, still around 500,000 special votes to be processed so will change further. I voted out of electorate so mine will automatically be a special. FWIW, I think the system here is far better than the UK as the polling station count is provisional only and so mistakes can be ironed out without complex litigation. |
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,141
|
Post by cogload on Oct 18, 2020 7:35:44 GMT
One thing I did learn - I always thought it was Jacinda with a hard c, it isn't - pronounced with an s.
At least according to my dodgy hearing whilst watching TV1...
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Oct 18, 2020 7:56:11 GMT
One thing I did learn - I always thought it was Jacinda with a hard c, it isn't - pronounced with an s. At least according to my dodgy hearing whilst watching TV1... No, it’s Jacinda with a soft c, to give you jass-inda. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,714
|
Post by mboy on Oct 18, 2020 8:06:53 GMT
IMO whenever this system is in operation it would be better if people could only stand for one type of seat and not have two bites of the cherry to get elected. IIRC that was the case in Wales to begin with when the Welsh Assembly was first established. I don't think it was ever a rule, though some parties may have adopted it. It makes no sense, though. You could have candidates on a party's list deliberately undermining constituency campaigns to improve their chances. It also leads to electoral paradoxes, such as where veteran list MPs do such a good job that the party gains lots at the next election...so all the good list MPs lose and are replaced by rookie constituency MPs. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,714
|
Post by mboy on Oct 18, 2020 8:07:45 GMT
I think that rule should be rendered irrelevant anyway, because I'm not in favour of lists. New Zealand should adopt the Baden-Württemberg variant of MMP, as should everywhere else. And I'll keep banging on about it across multiple threads until at least one other jurisdiction does so! I agree!  |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Oct 18, 2020 8:59:12 GMT
The constituencies are a little side joke that largely serves to add some meaning to the electoral maps we nerds enjoy (except for the win a seat to get representation thing and a vague guarantee of some form of local representation for everywhere - though this depends on candidates not or rarely being parachuted into seats they have no connecton to. And of course variants where you get rewarded for a strong direct seat haul - Wales being probably by far the most extreme example of this in actual existence anywhere in the world, and thus not somewhere any conclusions about mmp systems in general can be drawn from!). The real electoral system is the list. And the obvious sensible reform proposal is to make it open list.
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,714
|
Post by mboy on Oct 18, 2020 9:41:30 GMT
The constituencies are a little side joke that largely serves to add some meaning to the electoral maps we nerds enjoy (except for the win a seat to get representation thing and a vague guarantee of some form of local representation for everywhere - though this depends on candidates not or rarely being parachuted into seats they have no connecton to. And of course variants where you get rewarded for a strong direct seat haul - Wales being probably by far the most extreme example of this in actual existence anywhere in the world, and thus not somewhere any conclusions about mmp systems in general can be drawn from!). The real electoral system is the list. And the obvious sensible reform proposal is to make it open list. Can you expand on your point about wales? |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,815
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Oct 18, 2020 10:23:45 GMT
The British system is lovely - i don't want to miss it! -, but the contrary of "the most efficient one of all"! The "normal" procedure - counting of few hundred votes in each PollingStation - is easily done within 1 hour. It is efficient – results in each constituency might take 4 or 5 hours to arrive on average but once declared, are almost always official as something must have gone very blatantly wrong for them to be overturned. It balances that efficiency with a need for spectacle and raw human reaction that makes election night what it is. Sadly the present Austrian electoral system, although it does technically have constituencies, wouldn't really be compatible with those kinds of public declarations. But this thread is about New Zealand so I don't want to get too sidetracked. No, "4 or 5 hours to arrive on average" is not efficient compared to the 1 - 1.5 hour(s) needed in most continental countries. (And the latter have usually only minimal errors to be corrected afterwards.) |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 18, 2020 10:31:10 GMT
Well that was a most enjoyable watch [watched about 3+ of the 5 hours coverage I would guess] 2 things I would note: The National party are run by a "board of directors" and the local organisations have no say at all in the running of the party including choosing candidates!! [WOW] Oh to have a leader with the grace, compassion, style and substance of Ardern; considering what muppets we have to suffer in the UK and USA right now!! I don't think that is right. In fact the problem has been that the National Party Board and Office has very little control over electorate candidate selection and this is done by a protracted system involving numerous cups of tea with leading lights of the party membership in the electorate. A friend went through the process in 2014 in a safe rural electorate with a large membership and I don't believe it has changed. The problem is that there is no central candidates list or similar and some of the problems which the National Party has had recently have been caused by unsuitable candidates being chosen. Also, the inevitable conflict between electorate responsibilities (particularly in a huge rural electorate - some have population centres 3 hours drive apart) and the need for MPs to have roles in Parliament and for the party elsewhere. The list ranking is chosen by the centre it is true but largely based on input from divisional conferences. For new candidates it tends to be alphabetical order towards the bottom. As a NZ resident and regular reader, I might make a few observations if I may. Not surprised by the result at all as there is a huge amount of gratitude respect and affection for Jacinda for (as people see it) sparing us from the horrors of COVID much of the rest of the world suffers from. The leaders of the two main parties are all important and the rest of the team almost a side issue. The result is a weird hybrid of MMP and an almost presidential system and posters showing the party leader and candidate are usual (it means the central office with a much bigger budget pays 50% of the cost). Jacinda mania is a real feature. I was roundly reprimanded for daring to indicate I was not voting for her (not least because I don't live in her electorate!) The National party campaign was a fiasco. It made the 2001 Tory campaign and the 1983 Labour campaign seem models of clarity. The less said about the Muller interlude the better, but if you are running on having a strong team and competence, the failure to show either quality means you lose all credibility and it is impossible to campaign against what is widely seen as a success without being carping. The last straw was the finance spokesman being unable to do his maths properly and having a $4bn hole in his budget. Labour dominated social media and online advertising and the front page of the newspaper on Friday was a full page picture of Jacinda which must have cost a fortune! What was really interesting was the split voting patterns which will be interesting when the data is out. A lot more people than usual would have voted for their local National MP then for other parties for their list choice which is why more than you might have expected survived. Extraordinary only 4 electorates had on provisional figures National leading the party vote. In Wellington where I live the Labour/Green share is nearly 75% in the three electorates. This was certainly a COVID election as pre-COVID the feeling was that Labour had not excelled on fulfilling its 2017 campaign promises and ran the risk of being a one term Government. The Coalition was unwieldy to say the least with NZ First being a loose cannon and a brake, but they may have done them a favour by stopping the more radical ideas being implemented. Labour could blame the National Party for the problems they inherited but now they have complete control (in what is a pretty close approximation to an elective dictatorship) and nowhere to hide if they don't do better. Anyhow, still around 500,000 special votes to be processed so will change further. I voted out of electorate so mine will automatically be a special. FWIW, I think the system here is far better than the UK as the polling station count is provisional only and so mistakes can be ironed out without complex litigation. Did you still vote National in this election, or were you one of those won over to ACT? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Oct 18, 2020 10:32:36 GMT
The constituencies are a little side joke that largely serves to add some meaning to the electoral maps we nerds enjoy (except for the win a seat to get representation thing and a vague guarantee of some form of local representation for everywhere - though this depends on candidates not or rarely being parachuted into seats they have no connecton to. And of course variants where you get rewarded for a strong direct seat haul - Wales being probably by far the most extreme example of this in actual existence anywhere in the world, and thus not somewhere any conclusions about mmp systems in general can be drawn from!). The real electoral system is the list. And the obvious sensible reform proposal is to make it open list. Can you expand on your point about wales? In the Welsh and Scottish system, not only are there unconnected regional lists, D'Hondt is used, and parties get to keep overhang seats without compensation to the others to make it proportional - as the size of Parliament is fixed these overhang seats are actually subtracted from other parties' due. All of this matters little in Scotland because there are enough topup seats, but it fairly majorly distorts the party composition of the Senedd. This has another effect besides the one on proportionality, though: the size of the Labour group is largely independent from their list vote and is instead determined by the constituency results in the marginal seats (except those in the Mid & West region). When Labour hold Cardiff North it's literally an extra seat for them and one seat fewer to the opposition. This is a feature totally alien to mmp. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Oct 18, 2020 10:38:46 GMT
It is efficient – results in each constituency might take 4 or 5 hours to arrive on average but once declared, are almost always official as something must have gone very blatantly wrong for them to be overturned. It balances that efficiency with a need for spectacle and raw human reaction that makes election night what it is. Sadly the present Austrian electoral system, although it does technically have constituencies, wouldn't really be compatible with those kinds of public declarations. But this thread is about New Zealand so I don't want to get too sidetracked. No, "4 or 5 hours to arrive on average" is not efficient compared to the 1 - 1.5 hour(s) needed in most continental countries. (And the latter have usually only minimal errors to be corrected afterwards.) During the recent Northern Territory election in Australia, Antony Green of the ABC was arguing with followers on Twitter that the speed in which the UK election results were produced was indicative of a “couldn’t care less, let’s just get it done attitude” and that any results not subject to the triple check system employed in Australia were unreliable and inaccurate. I don’t necessarily agree with him, and counting at polling stations isn’t as feasible here as elsewhere, but I don’t see how you reduce the time for counting FPTP constituencies, or what the rush is. I certainly agree partly with Green that there should be at least one full recount two or three days after the event to ensure the accuracy of the result. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 18, 2020 10:49:31 GMT
I certainly agree partly with Green that there should be at least one full recount two or three days after the event to ensure the accuracy of the result Yes, that would be a good idea if practicable. And maybe for all elections, not just Westminster. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 18, 2020 11:06:44 GMT
Can you expand on your point about wales? In the Welsh and Scottish system, not only are there unconnected regional lists, D'Hondt is used, and parties get to keep overhang seats without compensation to the others to make it proportional - as the size of Parliament is fixed these overhang seats are actually subtracted from other parties' due. All of this matters little in Scotland because there are enough topup seats, but it fairly majorly distorts the party composition of the Senedd. This has another effect besides the one on proportionality, though: the size of the Labour group is largely independent from their list vote and is instead determined by the constituency results in the marginal seats (except those in the Mid & West region). When Labour hold Cardiff North it's literally an extra seat for them and one seat fewer to the opposition. This is a feature totally alien to mmp. Alien to the German sort, which the Kiwis merely copied.  Compensatory seats are the one part of the BaWü system I definitely wouldn't bring over here. (The other bit that would be up for debate is the 5% hurdle.) If the law says the Commons has 650 seats, then that must be an absolute upper limit. None of this creating jobs out of thin air for 111 extra professional politicians like we had at the last Bundestag election. That's already not popular in Germany and it would go down like a cup of cold lead balloons over here. No, "4 or 5 hours to arrive on average" is not efficient compared to the 1 - 1.5 hour(s) needed in most continental countries. (And the latter have usually only minimal errors to be corrected afterwards.) During the recent Northern Territory election in Australia, Antony Green of the ABC was arguing with followers on Twitter that the speed in which the UK election results were produced was indicative of a “couldn’t care less, let’s just get it done attitude” and that any results not subject to the triple check system employed in Australia were unreliable and inaccurate. I don’t necessarily agree with him, and counting at polling stations isn’t as feasible here as elsewhere, but I don’t see how you reduce the time for counting FPTP constituencies, or what the rush is. Yes, that's exactly it. The sole duty of a returning officer is to ensure that the writ is answered by returning a member to Parliament. They are legally bound to try election as the first resort and to ensure this is conducted freely and fairly. If the result is a tie, there is no mechanism to resolve the deadlock democratically. If there isn't an exact tie but it's very close, there is AFAIK no legal recourse to delay the declaration beyond the evening following election day. Any error then has to be glaring to get the result altered or overturned. Which is as it should be. I agree that there's no rush to get a result within 60-90 minutes of polls closing, but I also can't see how other countries put up with waiting days, weeks or even months until the definitive result is declared long after everyone's packed up and gone home from the actual count. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Oct 18, 2020 11:26:26 GMT
I agree that there's no rush to get a result within 60-90 minutes of polls closing, but I also can't see how other countries put up with waiting days, weeks or even months until the definitive result is declared long after everyone's packed up and gone home from the actual count. I think largely because, certainly in Australia, 90% of the results are obvious on election night, and the only real delay is the 13 day period for return of postals, not something I’d advocate, and the couple of days counting provisional ballots where a person votes at another polling station (at the last Queensland state elections because it coincided with the first day of an Ashes Test they set up a polling station at the Gabba so you could watch the cricket and vote), again something you wouldn’t necessarily introduce here. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,557
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 18, 2020 11:58:03 GMT
If I've been following this correctly, the constituency seats were 43:20 (and 2 others) despite the votes being 49%:27%. Not as much of a landslide as I would expect from such voting figures. I also realise that I haven't been following NZ elections in anything like as much detail as I did 15 or 20 years ago. Then I used to know a whole lot more about the individual constituencies and politicians than I do now. In about 1998 I casually mentioned to one of my vision NZ cousins that I had met the leader of the NZ Green Party (at a meeting of the Electoral Reform Society) and my cousin didn't even recognise the name. P.S. Now I've realised that there are 72 constituencies and only 48 list seats. I thought there were 65:55. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Oct 18, 2020 12:19:03 GMT
I think that rule should be rendered irrelevant anyway, because I'm not in favour of lists. New Zealand should adopt the Baden-Württemberg variant of MMP, as should everywhere else. And I'll keep banging on about it across multiple threads until at least one other jurisdiction does so! I agree! Can either of you enlighten me about the Baden-Wurttemburg system? Sound like it may be of interest, but anything is an improvement on this god-awful undemocratic FPTP system! |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,557
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 18, 2020 12:29:54 GMT
I agree! Can either of you enlighten me about the Baden-Wurttemburg system? Sound like it may be of interest, but anything is an improvement on this god-awful undemocratic FPTP system! The additional seats go to the best losers from the FPTP constituencies rather than from a separate list. |
|
Compensatory seats are the one part of the BaWü system I definitely wouldn't bring over here. (The other bit that would be up for debate is the 5% hurdle.) If the law says the Commons has 650 seats, then that must be an absolute upper limit. None of this creating jobs out of thin air for 111 extra professional politicians like we had at the last Bundestag election. That's already not popular in Germany and it would go down like a cup of cold lead balloons over here.