. . .“I think it makes a lot more sense to know when the date is and it makes a lot more sense to have it for four years,” he says.
But Mr Key would need either 75 percent support from MPs or the majority in a referendum. . .
It would probably be easier to get the majority vote in parliament but it should be possible to persuade the public of the benefits.
The main argument against a longer term is that it would reduce the damage that could be inflicted by a bad government.
But we rarely have a one-term government so in effect have at least a six-year term interrupted by an election.
A four-year term would save money for taxpayers, parties and candidates, with three elections in 12 years instead of four.
It would also reduce the frustration and disruption of a shorter election cycle.
Everything goes on hold in election year, there’s a hiatus as ministers get to grips with their portfolios, then there’s change and action for about 18 months before it’s election year and everything goes on hold again.
Another year between elections would improve efficiency, save money and give voters a better idea of whether new policies were working before they chose to stick with a government, or not.
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 7th, 2013 at 8:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.