MMP Scottish Style: Why do Scots Call 44% a Majority?

Last thursday, 5 May, Scotland elected 129 MSPs. Scottish elections use MMP - the same system as we are familiar with in New Zealand - but not the same MMP. In the Scottish election, the SNP won a 53.5% majority of seats with 44% of the vote. (representing 47.2% of party votes for the 5 elected parties and 1 elected independent, 47.7% of the party votes for just the 5 parties which got over 4% and 50.1% of the party votes for just the 4 parties which got over 5%)

Coming soon: An analysis of the Scottish election under various subtly different types of MMP.

Some summary: (detail to come later)

System (variations of MMP)	Used in	MSPs
		SNP	Lab	Con	Lib Dem	Greens	Other	Total
D'Hondt, No Overhang, no exclusion, Regions	Scotland	69	37	15	5	2	1	129
Same only with St Laguë		64	34	15	7	7	2	129
St Laguë, Overhang, 5% exclusion, no Regions	New Zealand	64	39	18	8			129
D'Hondt, No Overhang, no exclusion, only 4 Regions	Scotland*	64	38	15	7	4	1	129
St Laguë, Overhang, Scandinavian exclusion**, no Regions	My Ideal System	58	35	16	7	6	7	129
Exact Proportion to Votes		56.8	33.9	15.9	6.7	5.6	10.0	129

* - This is if each Region was merged with one of its neibours, i.e. Region 1: Highlands & Islands plus North East, Region 2: Mid & Fife plus Central, Region 3: Glasgow plus West, Region 4: Lothian plus South

** - where the first quotient is 1.4 in stead of 1. The following quotients remain at 3, 5, 7 etc.

Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two Music Video

The quality of this is just impressive. I already agreed with the message, but to come up with all those succinct yet poetic soundbites? I don't know how they do it. A definite improvement over the first one (which i also think is good), though they used the "hair of the dog" line in both videos.

Also liked the "Hayek splosives" line, and the court/inquiry theme.

Found at Not PC

ANZAC Day Blog Posts

Some ANZAC day perspectives on national defense:

Not PC

Whale Oil

Kiwiblog Spindoctoring on the Offenders' Levy

In response to this piece at Kiwiblog:

To summarize the situation, this offenders' levy is a $50 fee charged to all convicted offenders at time of sentencing. National introduced it (it was in their 2008 campaign) and considers it a significant and worthwhile source of new income for their victim support scheme, while Labour considers it a "gimmick" which will not raise significant new income because of the cost of collecting it. From here, it is one big argument about the numbers.

From Simon Power's announcement:

The levy is collected after reparation and before fines, and is in addition to any sentence or court order.

This is the main point that i feel Kiwiblog has willfully ignored. How many of the 55% of offenders from which the levy has been collected have outstanding fines? In my view, any money raised from such people is not new income and should not be included in the figures when working out whether the levy raises enough to cover it's own set-up and administration costs. Rather, since the offender has not earned an extra $50 anywhere, it will mean he will pay $50 less off his fines. It is simply a transfer of funds from the account to which the fines are due into the levy account.

It is the same smoke and mirrors as when Kiwiblog says things like "The government has saved $X Million in spending cuts and redirected them into higher priority areas." This is looking at a spending reshuffle and trying to sell it as a spending cut, which it is not. With the offenders' levy, DPF is looking at (specifically in the case of offenders with outstanding fines) a spending reshuffle, and trying to sell it as a revenue increase, which it is not.

Discussion on the numbers coming soon. [EDIT: or maybe not]

Re Goff's "firing squads" comment - It wasn't that bad

Kiwiblog and Whaleoil often have interesting things to say, which i appreciate when i read. Other times, they are partisan beyond sense. One example i can't ignore:

This is all about a quote from Phil Goff (source: here)

“I saw the army out in the street and I thought court mar­tial, fir­ing squads you just can’t believe how low a small minor­ity of peo­ple can get,”

Which imo means the idea crossed his mind, a normal human instinct in such a situation. DPF even admits to having this reaction here. Note what Phil Goff did not say - anything about considering such a measure, or even actively thinking about it. There is really nothing he said that DPF didn't, so it is odd that DPF said the following: (also here)

"Interesting that Phil Goff on radio said that army should shoot looters. Wonder how his caucus feel about his law and order policy?"

Now this looks like a quick joke at Goff's expense, especially considering it was only on twitter. Although it does misrepresent what was said, it's not an accusation. This is in contrast to Whaleoil's post (here) where he says:

I won­der per­haps if he will ask Phil Goff he sim­i­larly regrets his com­ments made on BFM on 28 Feb­ru­ary where he said:

I saw the army out in the street. I thought, okay, court mar­tial, fir­ing squad. You just can’t believe how low a small minor­ity of peo­ple can get. You know, to exploit people’s mis­ery in this way is just beyond forgiveness.

As you can see that is a whole mag­ni­tude worse than any­thing Judith Collins sug­gested, which was a long prison sen­tence. Phil Goff mean­while was con­sid­er­ing fir­ing squads.

The media really needs to ask Phil Goff what he meant by think­ing of fir­ing squads. I mean seri­ously they do. “Beyond for­give­ness” and “court mar­tial, fir­ing squads” for looters!

Will Grant Robert­son ask Phil to retract?

Now this also misrepresents what Goff said, although the actual quote and context was provided, and is an accusation. This is what i mean by "partisan beyond sense." DPF involves himself in this accusation by linking to it with the statement here:

"Talking of due process though, Whale Oil has a quote from a senior politician calling for looters to get court-martialed and a firing sqaud. Go check it out – you may be surprised with who the politician is."

Whaleoil then continues his behaviour here. An extract:

"It is clear that he isn’t jok­ing. And even if he was he shouldn’t have been."

I don't think Phil Goff was joking either when he suggested firing squads - his comment was never a suggestion!

I don't find it enjoyable to read such false accusations all in the name of partisanship. Stick to something i do enjoy - partisan critique of Labour's actual policies.

Borders and administration and Australia

This is an interesting point. Basically blaming copyright law for what's happening to Borders in Australia. Haven't decided whether i think it's right yet, but it's interesting. Not sure how applicable it is to NZ though, although Borders is under administration in NZ and everyones complaining about vouchers losing their value.

http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/copyright-strikes-borders-au-angus-and-robertson/

Updated: Elections in Tunisia and Egypt

AFP report Reuters Interview Constitution CNN report

[UPDATE: Tunisia had their first ever free elections on October 23, 2011. This was 10 months after the beginning of the revolution and 9 months after the departure of the former dictator. Elections in Egypt start on 28/11/11, 10 months after the beginning of their revolution and 9½ months after the departure of the former dictator - and just 2 days after NZ's own election. | 01/11/11]

It has been a month now since Ben Ali was removed and escaped, with the Tunisian constitution requiring "the obligation to call for elections within 45 to 60 days".

There is still no date for an election, though there is a "proposal" to have an election in mid July - 4 months late, and some want to extend it even further. In the meantime, the caretaker government is still keeping a tight grip on the judiciary, which wants to be independent, and the main labour union is still calling the situation "explosive."

Meanwhile in Egypt, there still not been so much as a mention of planning elections, but only a request that the people respect the police again. Thousands of Egyptians were in a still electric Tahrir Square yesterday, vowing to stay there until, as one protester put it, "Egypt is ruled by a civil government, not a military one."

Many people have been celebrating "victory" in Egypt recently, but this victory is still many months away, and even then it is not guaranteed. This is not the time for people in those countries to go home or become complacent.