Forms of government for New Zealand

Forums › Off topic › Forms of government for New Zealand

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 13

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1025855 15-Apr-2014 21:48

gzt:
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

I actually support the current system, there is no compelling reason to change, however if we were to drop the GG/Monarchy the use of the judiciary to audit election results and confirm the results. Let the House of Representatives pass the laws. There would need to be some tweaking of how constitutional change is down. We would also need to formalise our divided constitutional documents into a formal constitution.

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

JimmyH

2898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1554

#1025857 15-Apr-2014 21:49

charsleysa: dissolute parliament

I don't think that word means what you thing it does. It does, however, make the entirety of the quote quite funny - well done!

Sideface

9650 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15600

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1025860 15-Apr-2014 21:54

To my amazement, nobody has said it yet, so I will: "It doesn’t matter what you vote for – a politician always gets in!” (anon)

Sideface

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1025867 15-Apr-2014 22:14

KiwiNZ: We would also need to formalise our divided constitutional documents into a formal constitution.

Now this is why it hasn't already happened - and it's going to be a fight from hell to abandon myths and concepts of nobility and succession from both sides. A non-secular constitution is a death wish for future NZ - promoting a secular constitution will only end political careers.

Ragnor

8279 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 585

Trusted

#1025927 16-Apr-2014 03:06

I don't see any compelling reason to change.

There's a reason why there are no meritocracies in practice, how do you measure merit and who decides/measures.

Parliamentary republic's like France of Germany aren't much difference in practice to our or the UK system, you just have extra side show every x years to elect a president.

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1026024 16-Apr-2014 10:21

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

E-Democracy. It will happen. One day.

With New Zealand's relatively clean and simple political system (meaning no State or Provincial levels of government to contend with) we'd be the perfect test bed for new political technology.

One of the reasons we still struggle along with such outdated political systems in our modern world, is the huge risk in involved in making changes. We need to backup an ISO of the current system and test out a new one.

The shift to MMP was considered radical, but has sort of worked in making government more inclusive (or perhaps divisive) a step in the right direction.

But the system's not fixed.

There are other countries who's politics – under similar systems to NZ – have been seriously affected by interference from the Queen's representative.

The Canadian Federal Parliament was Porogued by the Governor General in 2008.
It was seen to have been done under the urging of the sitting Prime Minister to avoid a looming vote of no confidence by an (unholy alliance) of opposition parties.

In Australia (back in 1975 I think) The Governor General fired – controversial - Prime Minister Gough Whitlam..
Whitlam later campaigned strongly for Australia to become a Republic.

Both actions caused a lot of soul searching, protesting on the streets and questions about whether the powers of the Governor General should be curbed, and what could replace them..

The question really is “was the will of the people done?” in either case.

@salty's “revocable transferrable vote” combined with @ charsleysa's “computer based voting system managed by the electoral commission where each person can manage their vote just by logging in online” might be one possibility. - Just up to Geekzoners to figure out the details now:)

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

#1026030 16-Apr-2014 10:30

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

E-Democracy. It will happen. One day.

With New Zealand's relatively clean and simple political system (meaning no State or Provincial levels of government to contend with) we'd be the perfect test bed for new political technology.

One of the reasons we still struggle along with such outdated political systems in our modern world, is the huge risk in involved in making changes. We need to backup an ISO of the current system and test out a new one.

The shift to MMP was considered radical, but has sort of worked in making government more inclusive (or perhaps divisive) a step in the right direction.

But the system's not fixed.

There are other countries who's politics – under similar systems to NZ – have been seriously affected by interference from the Queen's representative.

The Canadian Federal Parliament was Porogued by the Governor General in 2008.
It was seen to have been done under the urging of the sitting Prime Minister to avoid a looming vote of no confidence by an (unholy alliance) of opposition parties.

In Australia (back in 1975 I think) The Governor General fired – controversial - Prime Minister Gough Whitlam..
Whitlam later campaigned strongly for Australia to become a Republic.

Both actions caused a lot of soul searching, protesting on the streets and questions about whether the powers of the Governor General should be curbed, and what could replace them..

The question really is “was the will of the people done?” in either case.

@salty's “revocable transferrable vote” combined with @ charsleysa's “computer based voting system managed by the electoral commission where each person can manage their vote just by logging in online” might be one possibility. - Just up to Geekzoners to figure out the details now:)

I have a couple of questions....
What is wrong with our current political system?
What is wrong with our current voting system?

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

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1026034 16-Apr-2014 10:33

It's not fully inclusive. It's not fully representative. It's not "real time".

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1026051 16-Apr-2014 11:01

Sidestep: It's not fully inclusive. It's not fully representative. It's not "real time".

Care to expand?

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

gzt

18684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7825

Lifetime subscriber

#1026052 16-Apr-2014 11:01

KiwiNZ: I have a couple of questions....
What is wrong with our current political system?
What is wrong with our current voting system?

Speaking for myself there is nothing really wrong with it, but it is clear we are moving towards change, therefore we should consider how best we can preserve all the good bits as we move forwards.

I'm not sure that I trust a prime minister who appointed a former military commander and (at the time) current head of the GCSB to the top constitutional post in the country to lead this process.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1026082 16-Apr-2014 11:22

KiwiNZ:
Sidestep:
SaltyNZ: However... I have no idea how you would do it in practice.

E-Democracy. It will happen. One day.

With New Zealand's relatively clean and simple political system (meaning no State or Provincial levels of government to contend with) we'd be the perfect test bed for new political technology.

One of the reasons we still struggle along with such outdated political systems in our modern world, is the huge risk in involved in making changes. We need to backup an ISO of the current system and test out a new one.

The shift to MMP was considered radical, but has sort of worked in making government more inclusive (or perhaps divisive) a step in the right direction.

But the system's not fixed.

There are other countries who's politics – under similar systems to NZ – have been seriously affected by interference from the Queen's representative.

The Canadian Federal Parliament was Porogued by the Governor General in 2008.
It was seen to have been done under the urging of the sitting Prime Minister to avoid a looming vote of no confidence by an (unholy alliance) of opposition parties.

In Australia (back in 1975 I think) The Governor General fired – controversial - Prime Minister Gough Whitlam..
Whitlam later campaigned strongly for Australia to become a Republic.

Both actions caused a lot of soul searching, protesting on the streets and questions about whether the powers of the Governor General should be curbed, and what could replace them..

The question really is “was the will of the people done?” in either case.

@salty's “revocable transferrable vote” combined with @ charsleysa's “computer based voting system managed by the electoral commission where each person can manage their vote just by logging in online” might be one possibility. - Just up to Geekzoners to figure out the details now:)

I have a couple of questions....
What is wrong with our current political system?
What is wrong with our current voting system?

IMV the answer to your first question is 'nothing much although I'd prefer an Upper House personally rather than a dodgy committee system'

To the second, aside from encouraging time wasting toy parties, I object most to be required to register on a public list in order to exercise the right to vote.

The right to vote descends from my NZ citizenship, not from my presence on a list. Ergo, proof of citizenship in the form of a NZ passport presented on polling day should entitle the person presenting the passport to vote, whether on a list or not.

Lenovo

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

Bee

741 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 189

#1026083 16-Apr-2014 11:25

Currently the people vote once every 3 years and the dictatorship that wins that vote then does what they please for the next 3 years. At the next election when the people see they have done nothing in 3 years they get another term so that they can achieve something.

2 things we should change right now:

Change the parliamentary term to 4 years. This is generally recognised as being long enough to achieve most things without being too long.

Devise some system whereby a referendum is binding. e.g if the majority result is 70%

DONT waste time changing the flag and dont waste time on the monarchy debate - this should be seriously debated one day but just not right now.

Doing your best is much more important than being the best.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1026087 16-Apr-2014 11:30

Bee: Currently the people vote once every 3 years and the dictatorship that wins that vote then does what they please for the next 3 years. At the next election when the people see they have done nothing in 3 years they get another term so that they can achieve something.

2 things we should change right now:

Change the parliamentary term to 4 years. This is generally recognised as being long enough to achieve most things without being too long.

Devise some system whereby a referendum is binding. e.g if the majority result is 70%

DONT waste time changing the flag and dont waste time on the monarchy debate - this should be seriously debated one day but just not right now.

I agree re term. 3 years is ridiculous.

Referenda are a two edge sword.

NZ seems to like things like banning smacking and allowing homosexual marriage. How would it be if a binding referendum reversed those decisions (bearing in mind that a non-binding one already reversed the smacking thing).

Or how about a binding referendum banning further Treaty settlements? Or criminalising homosexuality completely?

It's not enough to say "oh that would never happen here" because it might.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1026093 16-Apr-2014 11:42

Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
Sidestep:
SaltyNZ: However... I have no idea how you would do it in practice.

E-Democracy. It will happen. One day.

With New Zealand's relatively clean and simple political system (meaning no State or Provincial levels of government to contend with) we'd be the perfect test bed for new political technology.

One of the reasons we still struggle along with such outdated political systems in our modern world, is the huge risk in involved in making changes. We need to backup an ISO of the current system and test out a new one.

The shift to MMP was considered radical, but has sort of worked in making government more inclusive (or perhaps divisive) a step in the right direction.

But the system's not fixed.

There are other countries who's politics – under similar systems to NZ – have been seriously affected by interference from the Queen's representative.

The Canadian Federal Parliament was Porogued by the Governor General in 2008.
It was seen to have been done under the urging of the sitting Prime Minister to avoid a looming vote of no confidence by an (unholy alliance) of opposition parties.

In Australia (back in 1975 I think) The Governor General fired – controversial - Prime Minister Gough Whitlam..
Whitlam later campaigned strongly for Australia to become a Republic.

Both actions caused a lot of soul searching, protesting on the streets and questions about whether the powers of the Governor General should be curbed, and what could replace them..

The question really is “was the will of the people done?” in either case.

@salty's “revocable transferrable vote” combined with @ charsleysa's “computer based voting system managed by the electoral commission where each person can manage their vote just by logging in online” might be one possibility. - Just up to Geekzoners to figure out the details now:)

I have a couple of questions....
What is wrong with our current political system?
What is wrong with our current voting system?

IMV the answer to your first question is 'nothing much although I'd prefer an Upper House personally rather than a dodgy committee system'

To the second, aside from encouraging time wasting toy parties, I object most to be required to register on a public list in order to exercise the right to vote.

The right to vote descends from my NZ citizenship, not from my presence on a list. Ergo, proof of citizenship in the form of a NZ passport presented on polling day should entitle the person presenting the passport to vote, whether on a list or not.

I have often thought that the Electoral Role thing seems messy, however not every citizen has a passport and with it now only valid for a handful of years it costs a lot more. So I guess its a compromise. We had an Upper House in the past and like the UK it became a lucrative retirement hobby for
washed up Parliamentarians.

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

Bee

741 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 189

#1026097 16-Apr-2014 11:44

I agree re term. 3 years is ridiculous.

Referenda are a two edge sword.

NZ seems to like things like banning smacking and allowing homosexual marriage. How would it be if a binding referendum reversed those decisions (bearing in mind that a non-binding one already reversed the smacking thing).

Or how about a binding referendum banning further Treaty settlements? Or criminalising homosexuality completely?

It's not enough to say "oh that would never happen here" because it might.

That's why the conditions have to be clearly defined.

maybe at least 80% of eligible voters must vote and decision must be majority of 75% - this might never happen but at least then there is the possibility of the people being heard and actually listened to.

Doing your best is much more important than being the best.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 13