This is simply a fantasy.
Absolutely. Even if your personation gang were very well informed as to people's non-voting plans, they still might be wrong maybe 10% of the time, so would show as double votes. Since there are very few double votes detected, there is very little personation.
(Personation was a huge problem in places like the 19th century US, where the system lacked checks and there was a large pool of indigents happy to sell their votes, plus an electoral system organised by the people doing the vote buying.
I think our current system strikes a sensible balance between security and ease of voting. In the UK, you can only make a regular vote at one allocated polling place, which is somewhat inconvenient).
Also, if I was worried about anything, it would be registrations. Somebody could in theory get an electoral roll , match it with a list of eligible voters culled from Internal Affairs or NZIS (which would need corruption in one of those, but not at a very high level), and then file fake registrations using names that haven't registered. You'd need a large number of addresses to use, but I suppose you could use random ones.
This would be easier with online voting, and in turn require a higher level of verification of identity, making registration and voting harder. Another good argument against online voting.
Electoral rolls are scrutinised to identify voters who have voted more than once, and to compile a list of all people who have voted (the Master Roll).
So any double votes would be detected at that stage, and any attempts at personation would inevitably result in double votes (where the perpetrators thought somebody wasn't voting, but they did).
All those people will have made a conscious decision at some point to be on the Maori roll - so why do that and then not vote?
Lots of black stickers to peel off.
And very much illegal. The rules for handling the ballot papers are quite strict, you can't get hold of them without a court order (or, as Emma said, corrupting the electoral commission) and they are destroyed after six months.
On the other hand, I've never worked in an IT shop where there weren't large numbers of people with at least read access to sensitive data and equally, very few with (working) safeguards to stop you walking out of the door with a phone or memory stick full of goodies. (Actually, this place is about the only one. Copper lined rooms with datalocks).
Who's to say that your dominant male isn't already collecting the entire family's EasyVote cards and tripping around a few polling booths with his mates?
Well, if you did that and the polling official or scrutineer (that's one reason they call the names out as you vote) recognised the gender or even age discrepancy, you'd wind up in trouble.
Personation has become quite unusual - I don't recall hearing of a case. Vote harvesting, unfortunately, is definitely a thing.
The privacy of the polling booth is essential to a secret ballot, and electoral staff enforce it
Also, if the norm for voting is in-person at a polling booth, then it's close to mandatory privacy, which you can't opt out of.
Junta is simply the Spanish word for council. See "La Junta de Andalucía" which is the perfectly vote-o-cratic devolved government of Andalucia.
I wonder if the Guardian will be offering NZ coverage and commentary on election day, being outside the jurisdiction and that.
Awesome, even if it also eats my riposte?
Brilliant. Can I have a copy.