... or the changed story of just giving his official title.
FFS. Tracy Watkins opinion piece on Stuff this morning :
It may not matter that National cannot be directly linked with most of the more sordid revelations...
But they are directly linked - that is why it's such a big deal.
... but it’s really nice not to be presumed to be a lying bad faith partisan hack
Except that, unfortunately, that is the impression that you are giving.
If you would like to dispell that impression, you could try agreeing that Laila Harre was not impugning the Electroral Commission, but was actually questioning whether Judith Collins was fit to be the Minister overseeing it.
I haven't seen anything much about the "Roast-buster-esque" behaviour exposed by Nicky's book, as shown here.
I hope this is followed up, as the NZ public's disgust at the Roast Busters was heartening, and it'd be good to see it applied to the appalling behaviour of these people in the National Party.
For those who haven't read it, I thoroughly recommend the article by Andrew Geddis about the book at pundit.
Better to think about it another way. If you don’t vote, then everyone who does vote makes up parliament for you. So effectively your vote will be split 40-something % National, 30ish% Labour, 12ish%Greens, etc.
That is a brilliant way to think about not voting. Props.
The fact that Ede and Slater exchanged messages expressing concern at being caught, is fairly strong evidence that they knew that they had accessed the data without authorisation. I hope they are prosecuted for it.
I really don’t need James landing in this thread and slagging off individuals and the site itself. He can stop that or be banned.
I actually thought James George was making reasonable points in a reasonable manner. His observations on Craig's behaviour appeared to be pertinent.
But perhaps his previous behaviour warranted your need to threaten to ban him.
Follow on thread is here
According to The Electoral Act 1993 (and subsequent amendments) :
144 Deposit by candidate
(1) Every constituency candidate, or some person on the constituency candidate’s behalf, shall deposit with the Returning Officer the sum of $300 not later than noon on nomination day.
(2) The deposit shall be paid in the form of money, a bank draft, or a bank cheque.
(3) The deposit of an unsuccessful candidate is forfeit and must be paid into the Crown Bank Account if the candidate receives in total less than 5% of the total number of votes received by constituency candidates in the district.
(4) In every other case, the deposit of a constituency candidate must be returned to the person who paid it, but only after the Electoral Commission has received a duly completed return under section 210 in respect of that candidate.
So it costs you $300, unless you manage to get 5% of the valid votes.
What annoys me about the “you lose your right to complain argument” is that it denies people the right to abstain as a conscious decision.
If one wishes to abstain as a conscious decision, then you should turn up, get your voting papers, and use them to not vote. That way your abstention will be counted.