New Zealand Herald Political Editor Audrey Young said late last night that she was confident she would lead the New Zealand Herald political team into the election on November 26.

She was responding to questions from ACT on Campus put to her after talk that the APN board could move to replace her with Derek Cheng, a current Herald press gallery reporter.

She has fallen well short in recent Neilsen Research polls of her targeted readership figures and appalled some readers recently by airing her own views on liberalising heroin laws.

"I've got no doubt that the APN board supports me,"' Audrey Young said.

The all-powerful APN board could stage a coup simply by changing the rankings of the press gallery list.

It is scheduled to meet next on October 15.

There is one certain question that will be addressed by the upcoming OUSA elections, and that is: who shall replace Logan Edgar? Edgar is a President who won office and then gave us the punchline to the joke that was his campaign of empty slogans and irrelevant promises. As if to put the messages I'm about to express to justice, media coverage and accounts of his actions lend to the impression that the seriousness that must come with the leadership of the OUSA is lost on him. For Edgar, it appears the association is nothing more than a dialysis machine to keep his fragile ego alive.

Though, and it might come as a surprise to Edgar, it is not all about him. The Executive have much to be grateful with the Edgar presidency; his immaturity has hidden the culpability of the Executive who must think he's easy prey. An overall view of this muddled situation is clear to see: the Executive maneuvers itself into a comfortable position and Edgar pretends to be a revolutionary hero while the history of our association burns.

Students who will make the effort to vote in future elections for the Executive and the President, and thus express their confidence in the future existence of our association, will have a major decision in front of them. Why? This will not be an ordinary election. We will not just be deciding who will represent us as a figurehead of this university's student body, we will also be deciding who will lead our association as it sails into stormy seas. Contributing to the storm, will be voluntary membership.

There have been many reasons given against voluntary membership, but none are all too hardy to stack up against it. Neither have those very reasons roused the silent majority the compulsionists thought were behind them. Let us not be fooled: the OUSA will be the victim but the villains won't be found on the front benches of Parliament - though no doubt they will be made to be scapegoats. It will be the student leaders who took advantage of compulsory membership's bounty of coerced wealth who should be blamed. It is compulsory membership which has made possible the wreckless spending, self-righteous attitudes and alienating partisanship the OUSA have been able to undertake with impunity. As a result, a vast amount of the student population at Otago no longer see the relevance of the OUSA. The OUSA, and student associations in general, have dispensed with their friends, and now when it needs friends most, none can be found.

It is important to understand what voluntary membership will mean for our association: it will be the transfer of power from the Executive to the students and nothing could be more frightening to those who derive power from the current arrangements. Voluntary membership is not a threat to the organisation of student bodies, just to those who abuse the trust of those bodies.

Apathy, voluntary membership and future viability are the issues that aspiring and incumbent leaders alike must take seriously in their campaigns in the next student elections. Ultimately, the political spectrum in the impending student election will not be between the left and the right; it will be between competent, proactive leadership at one end and mocking, self-serving leadership at the other. More importantly, the triumph of one over the other will be a telling referendum on the future of this student association.

If students want no more OUSA, they will either vote for Logan Edgar or his equivalent. If students love the OUSA, then those candidates who accept the principles of voluntary membership and display mature, competent leadership will continue the life of our association. You will know who to look for by how relevant the issues they represent are to the future of the OUSA and what you, as a member, want from it.

It is no easy task being at the top. It must be said that despite the product we get from our leaders, it takes admirable courage and dedication to go through with the job and to put one's reputation on the line. But our current leaders have been found wanting. No student election at Otago will ever be as important at this one. Logan Edgar has been elected and we have had a laugh and a giggle. But now its time to get to work and restore the OUSA to full health.

Prominent blogger Whaleoil calls List MPs “Scum”. This reflects a popular conception that electorate MPs are more legitimate as they are directly elected by electorates as opposed via party list. I explore this view, as well as offer my view on the role of our electoral system in democracy and whether we should retain MMP

Before I begin it is important to note these views are my own and do not represent ACT. I would however, like to think my views with respect democratic representation are aligned to many of the younger people within ACT.

This year in addition to our triennial vote for the people and parties we want to represent us, we get a chance to vote on the voting system itself. There is a referendum on whether we are happy with MMP. If we aren’t happy a follow up vote will be held to determine whether to replace MMP with an alternative. This is an important constitutional decision.

Predictably groups are lining up to either defend MMP, or to agitate for change. Putting aside the grumblings from people who are opposed to what they see as “gaming the system”, I would categorise these people into two groups: Those that want effective government and oppose MMP, and those that want effective representation and support MMP.

I fall into the later group. I do so because the point of democracy is not to deliver strong government – dictatorships can achieve that. The point of democracy is to ensure the voice of the people is heard (and not subsequently ignored through poor representation).

Proportional representation is important to ensure people are represented fairly. The more proportional a system, the fairer it is. For this reason I support removal of the entry threshold entirely – though the improvements that can be made to MMP are a different topic.

Many of the advocates of change – Prime Minister John Key among them – support a system called Supplementary Member (SM). SM has an element of proportionality in that some MPs are elected based on the proportion of votes a party receives. But, and this is an important distinction, the overall makeup of Parliament is not proportional to the percentage of votes a party wins. Proportionality is distorted by separately elected electorate MPs which are generally won by the two large parties. Of course this system would lead to fewer coalition arrangements which is the big appeal to those who favour strong government. It’s far easier to govern when you don’t need to consult with others – even if you only won 40% of the vote.

The effect of lower proportionality is to reduce the appropriate representation of those who may vote for smaller parties. They may have a place in Parliament under a system such as SM but they will not likely have influence that their percentage of votes suggests they should (in the form of house votes). Disenfranchising people in this way is not a price I am willing to pay for strong government.

A key gripe from people that oppose MMP is that it is difficult to vote out an unpopular MP. Sometimes MPs will lose electorate contests but return via their party list. This has happened 21 times since MMP was introduced. For need of a label, let’s call this “Return of the Unwanted MP” scenario. The typical remedy espoused is that those defeated in electorates should not be eligible to be elected as a list MP. I see a flaw in this concern and remedy.

It is true that an MP in this position, such as Jeanette Fitzsimmons in 2002, has been “rejected” in the geographically defined electorate they were standing in. However they have not been rejected by the more representative (and therefore more important) general electorate of New Zealand. Enough people voted for the Green party in 2002 in full knowledge that Fitzsimmons was on the Greens list.

Why should the Green voters across the country have been denied the representation of Fitzsimmons because voters in Coromandel did not share their views? List MPs help to ensure that communities of interest are represented. Not all communities of interest are lumped into relatively arbitrary geographic areas. The truth is that geographic electorates are a poor proxy for the views of the general electorate.

Fundamentally the problem with the belief that “Return of the Unwanted MP” scenario is a bad thing, lies in the idea that an election is an opportunity to vote out those we disagree with. Elections aren’t about voting against people or parties, but rather they’re about voting for people or parties you want. You vote against people and parties by voting for someone else. But to do that you need to be able to vote in that contest of course.

Ironically, electorate contests don’t allow this. By their very nature electorate contests are closed affairs – open only to those that live within their confines. However the elected representatives are by no means closed to the general populace. To illustrate this, I don’t like Jim Anderton as a politician or his policies. However I have never had the opportunity to vote for someone else in Wigram because I do not live there. That did not stop Jim Anderton being able to promote and implement policies as a minister that I disagreed with and that affected me. Shall I call him a Scum Electorate MP?

The point I make is that it will be inevitable that people are in Parliament that we do not want to be there. However, I believe it is fairer when they are there as a result of a contest we all have a part in. The party vote aspect of MMP is something we all get an equal say in. The results (putting to one side the threshold) deliver equal opportunity for representation. I believe MMP should be retained and will be voting for this. I hope you do too.