Maori Seats

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Maori Seats

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1831705 26-Jul-2017 16:01

eph:

Might it be because the slavery continued till 1863? I assume slavery was not legal in the Empire then so Crown was I guess supposed to act after they've annexed the Islands.

Very valid point and if they were enslaved in Mainland NZ then its different. I do know that Maori enslaved some of the Indigenous Moriori people when they took the Chatham Islands. They were brought back to mainland NZ by Maori.

gzt:
Some fairly hard-nosed people have been elected to government over the years. Its not a long bow to draw that some started with attitudes similar to your own.

Yet these people examined the evidence and concluded there was a case to answer and proceeded towards recognition and settlement. It is you who ignores history.

I get that. But this is a "treaty settlement", care to explain why this falls under the treaty? We have already discussed that the Chatham Islands were not part of NZ when the treaty was signed. Therefore why is this claim against the treaty?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1831713 26-Jul-2017 16:12

Wiggum:

eph:

Might it be because the slavery continued till 1863? I assume slavery was not legal in the Empire then so Crown was I guess supposed to act after they've annexed the Islands.

Very valid point and if they were enslaved in Mainland NZ then its different. I do know that Maori enslaved some of the Indigenous Moriori people when they took the Chatham Islands. They were brought back to mainland NZ by Maori.

gzt:
Some fairly hard-nosed people have been elected to government over the years. Its not a long bow to draw that some started with attitudes similar to your own.

Yet these people examined the evidence and concluded there was a case to answer and proceeded towards recognition and settlement. It is you who ignores history.

I get that. But this is a "treaty settlement", care to explain why this falls under the treaty? We have already discussed that the Chatham Islands were not part of NZ when the treaty was signed. Therefore why is this claim against the treaty?

The Crown has conceded it has a responsibility irrespective if it predates the Treaty of Waitangi. The Crown can settle the claim separately if it so elects to do so and one would hope that an equitable settlement is achieved.

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1831881 26-Jul-2017 21:53

frankv:

Read it.

Firstly, there's no mention of 51%... as you quoted, it says "50 per cent (or slightly more)", which I take to mean 50.1% or 50.2% or thereabouts... the rounding error involved in the calculations. Can you please give me an example of how 51% of votes can result in less than 50% of seats.

Interestingly, the MPs who defined the shape of the MMP system we use today decided to NOT maintain proportionality in the event of an overhang. In Germany, if an overhang (a party wins more local seats than its share of the party vote would have given it) occurs....then the size of the Parliament as a whole is increased to keep it proportional.

Our MPs decided to not do that.....and now some of them moan about it.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1832025 27-Jul-2017 09:07

The model used to allocates seats (publicly available) assigns seats to smaller parties first. In some circumstances it causes one or more of the larger parties to be short changed by a seat. The party with the largest share of the votes is most likely to be short changed.

You can look at the % of party vote various parties have had over the years vs the % of seats in parliament and see the relationship change subtly.

Mike

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1832030 27-Jul-2017 09:16

When this overhang topic popped up, I googled a bit. There has been a vote or votes on it, 2/3 are happy as it is

So it doesnt matter

UNTIL it affects a major party, then it will be all you hear about. And look at now. Winston would go to Labour/Greens. Maori party probably would as they act only for themselves. ACT will work with anyone he said just two days ago. Anything could happen and it probably will. The only downside is the OT topic on it here if and when it happens!

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1832034 27-Jul-2017 09:26

tdgeek:

When this overhang topic popped up, I googled a bit. There has been a vote or votes on it, 2/3 are happy as it is

So it doesnt matter

UNTIL it affects a major party, then it will be all you hear about. And look at now. Winston would go to Labour/Greens. Maori party probably would as they act only for themselves. ACT will work with anyone he said just two days ago. Anything could happen and it probably will. The only downside is the OT topic on it here if and when it happens!

I agree. I think the whole Greens/Metiria saga has done enough damage as it and there really is no concern at the moment about Maori MMP overhangs. In this election, a vote for either Winston or Labour is just a vote for the greens/Metiria. And that's going to put many people off IMO.

Dingbatt

6756 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1832035 27-Jul-2017 09:27

Linuxluver:

Interestingly, the MPs who defined the shape of the MMP system we use today decided to NOT maintain proportionality in the event of an overhang. In Germany, if an overhang (a party wins more local seats than its share of the party vote would have given it) occurs....then the size of the Parliament as a whole is increased to keep it proportional.

Our MPs decided to not do that.....and now some of them moan about it.

Interesting. I have always thought the proportional part of MMP should take priority over the mixed member part. But I had considered that you could have the electorate MP that causes the overhang represent their constituents in Parliament but not have a vote and that their party's votes would only count in the proportion that they gained from the party vote. Therefore if your party wins 45.2% of the vote, you get 45.2% of the say. Where this falls down is in the conscience votes and wrests all the power to object from the individual MP.
However, using the German system,, would that mean if Peter Dunne won Ohariu, but United Future only got 0.2% of the Party Vote we would end up with 500 MPs?

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1832038 27-Jul-2017 09:31

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

When this overhang topic popped up, I googled a bit. There has been a vote or votes on it, 2/3 are happy as it is

So it doesnt matter

UNTIL it affects a major party, then it will be all you hear about. And look at now. Winston would go to Labour/Greens. Maori party probably would as they act only for themselves. ACT will work with anyone he said just two days ago. Anything could happen and it probably will. The only downside is the OT topic on it here if and when it happens!

I agree. I think the whole Greens/Metiria saga has done enough damage as it and there really is no concern at the moment about Maori MMP overhangs. In this election, a vote for either Winston or Labour is just a vote for the greens/Metiria. And that's going to put many people off IMO.

No.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1832041 27-Jul-2017 09:36

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

I agree. I think the whole Greens/Metiria saga has done enough damage as it and there really is no concern at the moment about Maori MMP overhangs. In this election, a vote for either Winston or Labour is just a vote for the greens/Metiria. And that's going to put many people off IMO.

IMO No.

Fixed that for you

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1832044 27-Jul-2017 09:39

While have my view on what Ms Turei should do I do not believe that she has/will do a lot of damage at the polls. I have gained this feeling after seeing what the general public reaction has been.

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1832045 27-Jul-2017 09:40

Wiggum:

tdgeek:

Wiggum:

I agree. I think the whole Greens/Metiria saga has done enough damage as it and there really is no concern at the moment about Maori MMP overhangs. In this election, a vote for either Winston or Labour is just a vote for the greens/Metiria. And that's going to put many people off IMO.

IMO No.

Fixed that for you

Do you recall the long list of MP's that were/did/lied dodgy? Including our PM and last PM. Recently we have a new member for NZF, the porn MP. Its not IMO, its proven over and over that the people whine about today's bad MP and forget about it

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1832077 27-Jul-2017 09:53

tdgeek:

Do you recall the long list of MP's that were/did/lied dodgy? Including our PM and last PM. Recently we have a new member for NZF, the porn MP. Its not IMO, its proven over and over that the people whine about today's bad MP and forget about it

The above is again just your opinion. I certainly don't want Ms Turei as head of social services in NZ. Therefore IMO many New Zealanders will think twice before giving their votes to labour or Winston.

At the risk of this thread going the same way as the other one, I will refrain from answering any more. The elections this year will sure be interesting. Adiós

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1832106 27-Jul-2017 11:06

tdgeek:

When this overhang topic popped up, I googled a bit. There has been a vote or votes on it, 2/3 are happy as it is

So it doesnt matter

UNTIL it affects a major party, then it will be all you hear about. And look at now. Winston would go to Labour/Greens. Maori party probably would as they act only for themselves. ACT will work with anyone he said just two days ago. Anything could happen and it probably will. The only downside is the OT topic on it here if and when it happens!

For reasons I have stated, it's the major parties that are most affected by overhang - or from their perspective 'underhang'. One seat can make all the difference between ruling or not and needing coalition partners or not. If my memory serves me correctly this cost national an absolute majority in one of its recent election wins.

A small party is most likely to get more seats than they are entitled to.

Mike

tdgeek

29750 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1832121 27-Jul-2017 11:29

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

When this overhang topic popped up, I googled a bit. There has been a vote or votes on it, 2/3 are happy as it is

So it doesnt matter

UNTIL it affects a major party, then it will be all you hear about. And look at now. Winston would go to Labour/Greens. Maori party probably would as they act only for themselves. ACT will work with anyone he said just two days ago. Anything could happen and it probably will. The only downside is the OT topic on it here if and when it happens!

For reasons I have stated, it's the major parties that are most affected by overhang - or from their perspective 'underhang'. One seat can make all the difference between ruling or not and needing coalition partners or not. If my memory serves me correctly this cost national an absolute majority in one of its recent election wins.

A small party is most likely to get more seats than they are entitled to.

I agree. But a vote that was taken saw a 2/3 for status quo. I found that surprising. An easy way out is to allow a portion of a seat, say 61.666 seats. Add the overhang of say 3 seats, then gross them back to 120. 120 physical seats, the Bill etc votes happen to be not whole numbers. Perhaps simplify that by the leader of the party gets the one rounding on his or her seat

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#1832154 27-Jul-2017 12:35

tdgeek:

An easy way out is to allow a portion of a seat, say 61.666 seats. Add the overhang of say 3 seats, then gross them back to 120. 120 physical seats, the Bill etc votes happen to be not whole numbers. Perhaps simplify that by the leader of the party gets the one rounding on his or her seat

You could do that with the entire parliament. Cap parliament at the number of electoral seats. Allocate additional votes to party whips so total votes reflect shares of party votes. Those additional votes would not be usable or required for conscience votes.

The only problem would be parties who get >5% but don't win an electorate (e.g. Greens). Having sufficient people in parliament to handle the work. You might have to have allow a few extra seats for that situation. You could easily scale total votes to maintain absolute proportionality to the party vote.

Mike

1 | ... | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22