Really? Which particular ONCE did you have in mind?

Labour 1957 – 1960 ….. or ….. Labour 1972 – 1975?

So apples with apples, my premise stands, and a 4-year cycle will produce per year, closer to 3/4 of a 3-year-annual-unit, than any other simple fraction. Imho.

A 3 year cycle produces about 2.5 units of work. 4 year cycle in the USA produces just under 3 units because of the length of their election process. But their system is so screwed that it takes 2 years of compromise & dilution to get any major policy on the books. This is because its hard to have control of all 3 branches of govt.

I propose that that it does not follow that you get 4 units of political work from a four-year-cycle. I suggest that a four-year-cycle would produce (about) 3.2 units of political work. The change from 3-year to 4-year cycles will NOT produce a commensurate return. It will result in politicians doing in 4-years, no more than they currently do in 3-years.

Each year under 4-years, will produce approximately 3/4 of what we currently get each year, for approximately the same cost.

Thus we would be reducing dollar for dollar returns, while reducing our access to democracy. Not if I can help it.

Politicians are less driven by the 12-month calendar, than they are by the stage of the electoral cycle. Yes, there is an annual budget, but it is a given that the budget immediately after an election is a completely different beast from an election-year budget. Election-year budgets are when things happen.

I don’t want “things happening every 3 years”, to become the “same things happening every 4 years”.

And anyone who thinks that the prime consideration is that longer-term cycles will reduce election bribes, would presumably think that we really oughtn’t to have elections at all, because they produce more bad things than good. Don’t worry, there are many countries which are trying out this system so that we don’t have to. Let me try to persuade you that avoidance of election bribes is not one of the stronger points in these countries.

WineOh (68) Says:
February 8th, 2013 at 2:41 pm

I think the volume of promises are less important than the costs of them to the NZ tax payer. What is the cost to the government finances of the WFF and interest-free student loan schemes? What would the cost be of the proposed housing schemes. I believe its the big ticket items that seem to crop up in election years that dominate the marginal changes to our taxpayer finances. Compare the total amounts over the years spent on those two policies vs all treaty settlements combined, proposed asset sales, etc.

The length of term of Parliament should not be based on what political outcomes you want to achieve, nor will it achieve that in any case. Rightly or wrongly, we have WFF and interest free loans because people wanted them. These were not momentary wishes but something enough people believe in to deter the current government from getting rid of them.

Weihana, while the congressmen do indeed serve 2 year terms, their individual power is less than that of the state senators, who serve 4 year terms. A bill has to go through both houses before getting to the president, and compare the control that one congressman (woman) as one out of 435 has vs 1 in 100.

Indeed, but the more important point is that neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives nor the President has any power (in terms of creating legislation) without the consent of the others. Moreover, Congress and the President also have their power limited by a judiciary that rules on a supreme legal document.

I think the volume of promises are less important than the costs of them to the NZ tax payer. What is the cost to the government finances of the WFF and interest-free student loan schemes? What would the cost be of the proposed housing schemes. I believe its the big ticket items that seem to crop up in election years that dominate the marginal changes to our taxpayer finances. Compare the total amounts over the years spent on those two policies vs all treaty settlements combined, proposed asset sales, etc.

Weihana, while the congressmen do indeed serve 2 year terms, their individual power is less than that of the state senators, who serve 4 year terms. A bill has to go through both houses before getting to the president, and compare the control that one congressman (woman) as one out of 435 has vs 1 in 100.

“…the United States president serves for four years…”

Bad comparison. America’s “parliament” is the House of Representatives which is elected every 2 years. The US system is too different to make meaningful comparisons on this point.

gazzmaniac (1,454) Says:
February 8th, 2013 at 12:08 pm

It can take 18 to 24 months to even get laws introduced and passed,

How does it take two years to draft and introduce a law?

Well he said introduced and passed. First, generally no party legislates by itself unless it has a majority of Parliament so there must be negotiation between those who can musters a majority of Parliament. How do you know what a majority is until the election is decided?

Secondly, we do not elect a three year dictatorship. Parliament operates by a process. Select committees, public submissions, protests, media coverage etc. etc. This is how our democracy works and how it should work.

Moreover, the whole premise of allowing voters time to see if legislation works is a fallacy anyway in my view since whether or not something “works” is itself subjective. There’s no agreed measure of success and people often measure success in the way that confirms their preconception. Opponents of civil unions, for instance, will always see social degradation wherever they look and use that as a measure of failure. This notion of your average voter as some sort of impartial judge weighing the evidence and the arguments is fanciful.

Agreed.

“How does it take two years to draft and introduce a law? ”

Because many people are lazy. They surf the net, stuff around, talk about the weather etc . I’ve met so many lazy people in 20 years of working. And, I think the same applies to the legal profession. People are inherently lazy (excpet those that love what they are doing).

When people are motivated you can actually get a lot done in short time.

IFUME – I’m Fed Up with the Maorification of Everything

(a) a tenuous link to a totally unrelated “173 years of democracy”. In what way, did democracy start in 1840? Utter bullshit. Assuming we start from the Magna Carta, we’ve had about 800 years of almost continuous democracy.

(b) a tenuous link to a Constitutional Review that we have repeatedly told politicians over the decades that we DO NOT WANT.

(c) a frankly bullshit link to it being presented to us on Waitangi Day.

I’m Fed Up with the Maorification of Everything – I FUME

How the fuck can an MP who is in OPPOSITION present a bill to parliment ? If the bill is so IMPORTANT to be debated then the GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY would be having it as policy – or the opposition would be the FUCKEN GOVERNMENT!

Private members bills are not part of a TRUE democracy – they UNDERMINE the previous election RESULTS!

We should call for a PUBLIC referendum on private members bills!

It can take 18 to 24 months to even get laws introduced and passed, so there is little chance of being able to judge their impact within a three year cycle.

After the 2008 election, Parliament first met on 8 December, it had passed five bills in the first week. And nine by the end of March.

A lot of good policy is held back to the next election as an election winner, rather than waste good policy mid-term.
Connect the dots.
What a four-year term would mean is that a lot of good policy would be held back for a year longer.

Crap! Crap! Crap!

Labour had time to ‘fit in’ the prostitution bill!

National is now ‘fitting in’ the gay marriage bill!

Neither party went to the election with these policies – so where do they ‘find the time’ – arn’t their other policies MORE IMPORTANT?

They’re fuckin lying!
Given that government from both sides find time to ‘fit stuff in’ – we should then by default be having elections every 2nd yr!