Forms of government for New Zealand

Forums › Off topic › Forms of government for New Zealand

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 13

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#1025762 15-Apr-2014 19:03

I propose someone from the meritocracy or appointed by the bdfl edits this thread to remove the crap page killing formatting edit:on the previous page lol.

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1025763 15-Apr-2014 19:11

Quite happy with current arrangements.

Not a fervent monarchist, but I can't see much upside in changing, so therefore have better things to worry about. It ain't broke, so there's no pressing need to fix it.

As long as we don't get a system which adds another layer of electioneering and politicking - of which we have quite enough - I'm content.

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1025766 15-Apr-2014 19:20

JimmyH: Quite happy with current arrangements.

Not a fervent monarchist, but I can't see much upside in changing, so therefore have better things to worry about. It ain't broke, so there's no pressing need to fix it.

As long as we don't get a system which adds another layer of electioneering and politicking - of which we have quite enough - I'm content.

What if the change was something simple like removing the head of state and the governor general being voted in by the public at the same time as they vote like normal?

That would remove the monarchy side of things without drastically changing anything.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

SaltyNZ

8867 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9548

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1025768 15-Apr-2014 19:22

I would start with the axiom that anyone who wants to be in Parliament be banned from it. But I'm not sure where to go from there. Either you have the form of a democracy - in which case you stabilise on a two party system with parties that are as wildly different as Brie and Camembert, plus electioneering, or you have some other arrangement where you can't get rid of today's idiot/crook, even if only to replace him or her with another idiot/crook.

I personally like some form of revocable transferrable vote. For example, in an electorate, suppose there are 5 candidates, and they receive X votes in that electorate of Y total votes at the last election. In Parliament, the electorate gets Y votes out of Z total national votes, and each candidate casts X votes on any given motion in Parliament. The motion/bill is passed or failed based on those total numbers. But here's the thing, if I care particularly about some issue, I can temporarily withdraw my vote from my chosen candidate and cast it myself however I like.

It combines the ability of a citizen to get involved in a direct democracy with the deference we normally give our elected representatives.

However... I have no idea how you would do it in practice.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1025771 15-Apr-2014 19:26

If we went down the road of dumping the current head of state we do not need to replace it. Simply use the current parliament without the Governor General.

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

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1025772 15-Apr-2014 19:26

SaltyNZ: I would start with the axiom that anyone who wants to be in Parliament be banned from it. But I'm not sure where to go from there. Either you have the form of a democracy - in which case you stabilise on a two party system with parties that are as wildly different as Brie and Camembert, plus electioneering, or you have some other arrangement where you can't get rid of today's idiot/crook, even if only to replace him or her with another idiot/crook.

I personally like some form of revocable transferrable vote. For example, in an electorate, suppose there are 5 candidates, and they receive X votes in that electorate of Y total votes at the last election. In Parliament, the electorate gets Y votes out of Z total national votes, and each candidate casts X votes on any given motion in Parliament. The motion/bill is passed or failed based on those total numbers. But here's the thing, if I care particularly about some issue, I can temporarily withdraw my vote from my chosen candidate and cast it myself however I like.

It combines the ability of a citizen to get involved in a direct democracy with the deference we normally give our elected representatives.

However... I have no idea how you would do it in practice.

That sounds like a good way of doing things.

As for implementation, you would need a computer based voting system managed by the electoral commission where each person can manage their vote just by logging in online.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1025774 15-Apr-2014 19:30

KiwiNZ: If we went down the road of dumping the current head of state we do not need to replace it. Simply use the current parliament without the Governor General.

True. But let's suppose that a party gets 75% of the seats in parliament, they would be incontestable and would no longer need to vote in order to pass legislation. If that occurs how do we mitigate the issue?

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1025775 15-Apr-2014 19:33

charsleysa:
KiwiNZ: If we went down the road of dumping the current head of state we do not need to replace it. Simply use the current parliament without the Governor General.

True. But let's suppose that a party gets 75% of the seats in parliament, they would be incontestable and would no longer need to vote in order to pass legislation. If that occurs how do we mitigate the issue?

That can happen now

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

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1025777 15-Apr-2014 19:39

KiwiNZ:
charsleysa:
KiwiNZ: If we went down the road of dumping the current head of state we do not need to replace it. Simply use the current parliament without the Governor General.

True. But let's suppose that a party gets 75% of the seats in parliament, they would be incontestable and would no longer need to vote in order to pass legislation. If that occurs how do we mitigate the issue?

That can happen now

That's why we have a governor general. They have to power to stop new legislations from being formed and dissolute parliament, though these are emergency reserve powers.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1025778 15-Apr-2014 19:45

charsleysa:
KiwiNZ:
charsleysa:
KiwiNZ: If we went down the road of dumping the current head of state we do not need to replace it. Simply use the current parliament without the Governor General.

True. But let's suppose that a party gets 75% of the seats in parliament, they would be incontestable and would no longer need to vote in order to pass legislation. If that occurs how do we mitigate the issue?

That can happen now

That's why we have a governor general. They have to power to stop new legislations from being formed and dissolute parliament, though these are emergency reserve powers.

The Executive Council basically tells the GG what to do, Royal assent is automatic. There are reserve powers to dissolve parliament on advice by the executive.

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

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1025786 15-Apr-2014 19:54

KiwiNZ:
charsleysa:
KiwiNZ:
charsleysa:
KiwiNZ: If we went down the road of dumping the current head of state we do not need to replace it. Simply use the current parliament without the Governor General.

True. But let's suppose that a party gets 75% of the seats in parliament, they would be incontestable and would no longer need to vote in order to pass legislation. If that occurs how do we mitigate the issue?

That can happen now

That's why we have a governor general. They have to power to stop new legislations from being formed and dissolute parliament, though these are emergency reserve powers.

The Executive Council basically tells the GG what to do, Royal assent is automatic. There are reserve powers to dissolve parliament on advice by the executive.

True, we could just appoint the executive council as the backstop, but since the governor general is usually the one that appoints the members of the executive council we would have to use some sort of voting system in which candidates would run unaffiliated to any of the parties to minimise the risk of a bias executive council.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

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.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1025787 15-Apr-2014 20:01

The elected Governments Cabinet members are the Executive Council, the GG chairs it but is not a member of it. We elect our law makers in a democratic process and they are the people that should govern not some absurd group you are suggesting.
Our system has worked well for a long time and provides a better system than any of the alternatives out there. It does not need fixing as it is not broken.

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

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1025799 15-Apr-2014 20:46

Meritocracy is a fundamentally and seriously flawed concept, as to measure "merit" requires a (human) value judgement to be placed on the very thing that the same people making that value judgement decide is worthy of measure. See the problem?

As for the suggestion that IQ should be used to select candidates for a "meritocratic" leadership, I truly hope people suggesting this are joking. For better or worse, some of my personal friends are professors and other academics with (I'm sure but never actually asked) remarkably high IQs. Despite being pretty good at what they do (for work), I can't think of one who'd be able to run a piss-up at a brewery - let alone run a country

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1025801 15-Apr-2014 20:49

JimmyH: Quite happy with current arrangements.

Not a fervent monarchist, but I can't see much upside in changing, so therefore have better things to worry about. It ain't broke, so there's no pressing need to fix it.

As long as we don't get a system which adds another layer of electioneering and politicking - of which we have quite enough - I'm content.

I am too - quite happy with present arrangements (except I am a republican).
The failures aren't with the system we have, but public apathy and lack of education.

gzt

18685 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7826

Lifetime subscriber

#1025827 15-Apr-2014 21:22

KiwiNZ: If we went down the road of dumping the current head of state we do not need to replace it. Simply use the current parliament without the Governor General.

At the mo the GG plays a critical role in forming a govt. I earlier proposed we keep the office but appoint/elect some retired judges (ie from a merit pool) to serve the same function instead.

Friendly question here. How do you propose this function is performed in the absence of a office GG?
Regards
-gzt

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 13