Yes, but we don't govern by what the experts say. We govern by what the current party thinks their base wants. It is all based on feeling and not knowledge.
Personally not a fan of the idea. The carrot of the current approach of a 2x3 year term, where they only get the extra 3 years if they have done enough for a mellowpuff is a good check.
/edit - having said that a 2020 poll said that 61% were in favour so there you go.
I am generally a fan because it does allow for less time and money spent on elections but I do see the value in a shorter term. I don't quite get the whole thing about having 3 year terms if the select committee isn't set up a certain way though. Very confusing.
This lowers the opportunity cost of having elections and gives a government more capability for implementing stuff and seeing a result within the same term.
It's a good thing IMHO. But no longer than four years.
I'd rather have laws have protections than four year terms. When the law is written there should be specified language saying it can't be repealed until after X is measured and found to be not compliant with expected outcomes.
I think I would rather a mechanism to allow longer term projects and policies, without needing to worry so much about the incoming government cancelling or repealing them.
Even a one-term grace period might be sufficient.
But, probably rife with problems Ive not considered.
12 Comments
Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz · 6 pts · 1y
This has been recommended multiple times by multiple different enquiries etc, it's about time someone actually got it done.
Putting it to a referendum, and the additional checks and balances, sound like some very reasonable extra precautions.
absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz · 4 pts · 1y
Yes, but we don't govern by what the experts say. We govern by what the current party thinks their base wants. It is all based on feeling and not knowledge.
Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 1y
To a point, but this time we are actually doing what the experts advise.
absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz · 3 pts · 1y
Not necessarily.....the public could still torpedo this!
Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 1y
That's the joy of a democracy, the people get what they want, even if it's a terrible idea.
Although this does have a lot of public support, so I think it will pass.
BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 1y
Why is 4 better than 3. Why not 5 or 6 or 10?
_ed@lemmy.nz · 4 pts · 1y
Personally not a fan of the idea. The carrot of the current approach of a 2x3 year term, where they only get the extra 3 years if they have done enough for a mellowpuff is a good check.
/edit - having said that a 2020 poll said that 61% were in favour so there you go.
Dave@lemmy.nz · 4 pts · 1y
I am generally a fan because it does allow for less time and money spent on elections but I do see the value in a shorter term. I don't quite get the whole thing about having 3 year terms if the select committee isn't set up a certain way though. Very confusing.
Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz · 3 pts · 1y
It kinda feels like we're perpetually either having an election, or just had an election at the moment. I'm kinda over it.
deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz · 2 pts · 1y
This lowers the opportunity cost of having elections and gives a government more capability for implementing stuff and seeing a result within the same term.
It's a good thing IMHO. But no longer than four years.
BalpeenHammer@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 1y
I'd rather have laws have protections than four year terms. When the law is written there should be specified language saying it can't be repealed until after X is measured and found to be not compliant with expected outcomes.
RecallMadness@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 1y
I think I would rather a mechanism to allow longer term projects and policies, without needing to worry so much about the incoming government cancelling or repealing them.
Even a one-term grace period might be sufficient.
But, probably rife with problems Ive not considered.
_ed@lemmy.nz · 1 pts · 1y