Well, as one of the “entrepeneurial and tech sector” people, i’m certainly not going to be swayed on my vote by any pitch to my alleged “shared values”, because I don’t really have any. (We’ve had a “geek candidate” run for mayor in Wellington twice, and I’ve never voted for him, mostly because he shows no sign of understanding what council actually does or wanting to learn).
And aren't parties that do this failing to reach a whole sector of the population who don't go to church (80%?) or participate in any old-school community groups. (I might have a community, but they're widely distributed and heterogenous).
Exactly how does a career in sales and marketing qualify one as magically able to sort out a highly complex enterprise systems merger? It’s like expecting Jamie Oliver to be able to run Fonterra, because he knows about food (or conversely, Henry Van der Hayden to take over the chef’s job at Logan Brown).
Even if she was a technical expert at Xero, there’s a world of difference between developing a greenfield, SAAS, SME accounting system and integrating existing corporate legacy systems with a massive amount of baggage – which can’t just be hand-waved away because as we saw with Novapay, all the boring shit has to work or people don’t get paid (etc).
(See also http://theoatmeal.com/comics/computers)
I’m not sure why either Phil Goff (“Kiwi Chinese”) or Victoria Crone (“the entrepreneurial and tech sectors”) expect people to block vote according to an ethnic or professional affiliation.
How about appealing to individuals with policies that might fix stuff?
This sez that if you have a single candidate you dislike above all others, leaving them unranked or ranking them last is equivalent.
I’ll leave whether this extends to multiple disliked candidates as an exercise for the reader.
(Of course, one might feel better by not ranking X, but it won’t stop them winning any more effectively).
I'm not sure - it would seem hard to have done a manual count in the time available.
So maybe they could analyse unused preferences at no real cost. But it's not legislated for - I'm not sure if that would make it illegal for the Commission to perform that analysis - my guess, given the prescriptive nature of the process is that it would.
Google will give you the answers you seek, the process is in statute:
Unused preferences are not analysed and hence not recorded - obviously doing so would take time and not affect the actual result. The same process is used for other STV elections.
You could have made a submission advocating that additional analysis was done and published when the bill went to Select Committee.
Where does one order the free flags? I was going to get a few hundred and make 'art' with them..
Tap Gear: They could have a Stig type character disguised in a rabbit onesie who tests out various forms of espionage equipment each week. They could call him (or her) Bugs Bunny
They certainly did fight under the flag.
“But I think they actually [fought] for values and principles – human rights, women’s rights and democracies
Re-engineering history. With the exception of WW2, all NZ's wars have been primarily about advancing the interests of the ruling classes in Britain and/or America against those of other powers.
Colonialism is part of our history. You can investigate and narrate history, but you can't change it. It is what it is.
A standalone change to the flag is promoting an alternative narrative (of an "independent" New Zealand) that actually runs counter to the real direction of policy, for colonialism is very much alive in the 21st century. The TPP is giving the US control over much of New Zealand's laws, while overseas, the developed world is reasserting it's "right" to exercise governance over peoples deemed too savage to govern themselves.