This is a summary of the Future for Local Government report - He piki tūranga, he piki kōtuku.
Recommendations that stood out to me were reducing the voting age for local elections to 16, implementing ranked voting (STV), and increasing the term limits to four years.
Also, not mentioned in RNZ’s summary is the recommendation that the number of local councils is reduced from 80 to about 15.
Only if they get the votes.
it would work even better for parties.
Are you talking about candidates? The candidate with the most votes would win. Only one candidate would win.
Or they just vote for the parties they want.
I am not, and I’m not sure how you got that impression.
It would not, because of the abuse I outlined in my previous reply
I got that impression because you used the word candidate.
You outlined a scenario where there would be an infinite number of seats in the parliament. It’s a set number and seats are divided according to votes.
When I said candidate, it was when I was saying it’s normally only used for candidate voting, not for parties like yours saying it was good for.
If you go and read it again with the knowledge I was talking about parties, hopefully you’ll see what I was getting at. It doesn’t create infinite seats, but it does create infinite votes.
Ok I addressed the party issue as well. Just like there is only one candidate that can win there are only a limited set of seats in the parliament.
The votes are tallied. The party with the most votes is allocated their seats. The party with the second most votes is allocated their seats and so on until all the seats are filled. There would have to be a way to settle ties but that’s not that difficult.
I don’t feel like I’m getting my idea across, regardless of if I’m correct or not. I’ll try to explain my thought process a little more.
Let’s say there are 10 voters, and the election is only for parties. National has a list of potential MPs.
National:
Labour has put forward their candidates:
And then the Legalise Marijuana party saw a loophole, and so has registered a bunch of extra parties. Theirs looks like this:
LM1:
LM2:
LM3:
LM4:
LM5:
LM6:
LM7:
LM8:
LM9:
LM10:
Now our 10 voters come into the voting booth, and they see the list of options:
5 voters want to vote for National, so they only vote for National. They are all against legalising marijuana and don’t like Labour’s policies so they don’t vote for anyone else.
4 voters want to vote for Labour, so they do. They are also all against legalising marijuana and don’t like National’s policies so they don’t vote for anyone else.
1 voter wants to vote for the Legalise Marijuana party. The party has told them how they can vote for all 10 of their subsidiaries, so they do this.
Now we add up the votes.
5 for National 4 for Labour 10 for Legalise Marijuana subsidiary parties
The Legalise Marijuana party now has 52% of the seats and so can pass their law, but only 1 out of 10 voters actually voted for them.
You say this is fair because they all had the same number of potential votes. I say it’s unfair because 10% of votes got 52% of seats.
How do you figure that?
The party itself only has one vote.
In your example the votes are tallied. There are five votes for national, they get the most votes and they are allocated five seats. labour has four votes and they are allocated four seats. All other parties have one vote and a tie break is needed to determine who gets the last seat.
It’s not like you get to add the votes of the other parties together.
No, the party formally registered 9 new parties and split their members across them.
Now they have a coalition of parties whose members all came from the same original party.
How many people are voting? If there are nine people voting each giving all of their votes for the parties then the parties should win and rule because they have more voters. Nine people voted for these parties while only five people voted for National and four for Labour.