NZ as a Republic?

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

Forums › Politics › NZ as a Republic?

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2971621 22-Sep-2022 11:10

I believe that this subject must be discussed however it does not need urgency. There should be extensive public consultation. If there were to be a referendum the decision cannot be a simple majority. This a very serious decision for the nation and any vote for change must be via a substantial majority of say 70/30 or we will be setting ourselves up for a whole lot of grief.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Earbanean

1111 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 377

#2971660 22-Sep-2022 11:59

MikeB4:

I believe that this subject must be discussed however it does not need urgency. There should be extensive public consultation. If there were to be a referendum the decision cannot be a simple majority. This a very serious decision for the nation and any vote for change must be via a substantial majority of say 70/30 or we will be setting ourselves up for a whole lot of grief.

When you say "must" be a 70% threshold, that is just your opinion. I'm not necessarily saying that's wrong, but I don't think that it's actually enshrined in law anywhere. It's just your opinion on what should happen. Many others may agree. Many won't.

However, as a comparison, Scotland voted on splitting away from the UK and becoming a completely independent country and they just used a straight 50% referendum. Their decision was massively more significant that our decision around who our nominal head of state is, and the UK parliament set a 50% threshold on it. So there is precedence for a 50% referendum here.

I suspect that all royalists will want a 70% (or higher) threshold, while all republicans will want 50%. So even setting that threshold is fraught with problems. Equally the actual question that is asked will be a massive issue. e.g. Australia voted not to become a republic, but a large part of that was based on the alternative they were offered.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2971665 22-Sep-2022 12:07

I didn't say it must be 70% I said "must be via a substantial majority of say 70/30. That is a suggestion not a definitive. A clear majority either way goes a long way to avoid strife following a vote. It could be 60/40, 80/20 for change or the status quo remains. A result of 51/49 will bring a nightmare.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Earbanean

1111 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 377

#2971669 22-Sep-2022 12:12

MikeB4:

I didn't say it must be 70% I said "must be via a substantial majority of say 70/30. That is a suggestion not a definitive. A clear majority either way goes a long way to avoid strife following a vote. It could be 60/40, 80/20 for change or the status quo remains. A result of 51/49 will bring a nightmare.

Wouldn't a vote of 51/49 in favour of change, but with no change occurring, bring a similar (or worse) nightmare?

evilengineer

466 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 367

#2971693 22-Sep-2022 12:52

Any one who's British can tell you all about the fun of a 52/48 referendum result. 😬

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2971694 22-Sep-2022 12:54

That's the problem with referendums.

There needs to be a massive win on one side or the other otherwise the losing side feels aggrieved and just pushes for another referendum.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2971696 22-Sep-2022 12:57

SJB:

That's the problem with referendums.

There needs to be a massive win on one side or the other otherwise the losing side feels aggrieved and just pushes for another referendum.

There could be a non binding referendum, just to get a feel. And in the year ahead, educate the masses on the pros and cons (not just Constitution related)

Or just leave it on the shelf, until it evolves into a regular topic, then educate and referend

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2971702 22-Sep-2022 13:06

Even the US founding fathers recognised the risk of change by simple majority thus any constitutional change requires a two thirds majority in the Congress and Senate.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#2971707 22-Sep-2022 13:17

MikeB4:

Even the US founding fathers recognised the risk of change by simple majority thus any constitutional change requires a two thirds majority in the Congress and Senate.

That works really well with the Republican Senate filibuster blocking every piece of meaningful reform legislation.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2971708 22-Sep-2022 13:21

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

Even the US founding fathers recognised the risk of change by simple majority thus any constitutional change requires a two thirds majority in the Congress and Senate.

That works really well with the Republican Senate filibuster blocking every piece of meaningful reform legislation.

I only used the US as an example of using greater than first past the post results. I don't think a general discussion of the effectiveness of teh US system in general is appropriate for this thread and can be had in the "Politics" twilight zone section

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2971744 22-Sep-2022 14:37

I still come back the point that you need to win by a big margin.

You could argue that if the referendum split needs to be 70-30 and the result is 69-31 you have a lot more unhappy people than if you leave it at 50-50.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Earbanean

1111 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 377

#2971758 22-Sep-2022 15:06

Yep, a 69/31 split would mean more than twice as many Aotearoans want change, than want the status quo. To then have no change, would raise some questions about democracy as majority rule.

We had a 50% vote on changing our electoral system to MMP, which was a pretty big decision. We had a 50% vote on putting John Key's tea towel up the flagpole. Scotland had a 50% vote on full independence from the UK. I think it's most likely we'll use a 50% referendum for this. Monarchists probably won't be happy about that.

As an aside, as this gets more airtime, it'll be interesting to see which news organisations etc, say "referenda" and which say "referendums".

gzt

18694 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7831

Lifetime subscriber

#2971833 22-Sep-2022 19:35

MikeB4: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/history-of-the-governor-general/modern-duties

The GG acts on the direction of Parliament. Example Even if the GG refused royal assent on a law parliament can still pass it into law. Whilst the GG has so called reserve powers they are at the behest of Parliament. The GG cannot act unilaterally. Therefore to that extent the powers and role of the GG are ceremonial

Once again your most substantial claims in this instance are incorrect and in this case even contradicted by the document you linked above.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 289

#2971891 23-Sep-2022 06:40

tdgeek:

<snip>

I can't think of many pro's to becoming a republic

I can think of one but it is so important that it is clear to me that we should become a republic.

When a head of state visits another country, they get treated as you would expect for a head of state.

They meet the top figures from the state that they are visiting - bankers, business leaders, government ministers etc etc.

They will in be accompanied by people holding similar roles in their own country.

The visit will facilitate meetings between those groups from both countries.

When the British monarch visits other countries, they are not accompanied by the head of federated farmers or the New Zealand minister for trade or anyone else representing New Zealand interests.

When our Govenor General visits another country they are seen as a miinor official and they do not open doors in the same way.

We are losing out because of this and we are conducting the promotion of New Zealand's national interests with one hand tied behind our back.

It costs us in trade deals, influence, investment and I expect many other areas.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 289

#2971893 23-Sep-2022 06:44

shk292:

Having a republic means we'd need to have a head of state other than the monarch, which would then incur the expense of elections.

And we'd then likely have someone with a political background, which may be divisive.

Like you, I can't see any benefit

Right, so the presidents of Ireland and Germany are political and divisive? Care to name one post war president from those two countries who meets that description?

I mention those two countries because they share our electoral system. Indeed when we went to our current electoral system, we based it on a close study of those two coutries.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10