Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 12:01PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

This is the same behaviour as people who hawk unsavoury products on the Internet and may well be illegal under the anti spam law passed a few years ago.

Nope.

Our anti-spam law only covers commercial electronic messages. Political speech (and all other non-commercial speech) is exempt.

Posted at 12:02PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

I can't resist point out his mildly terrifying ad. Apparently it's for real.

Posted at 12:05PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Is Graeme Hunt cockney rhyming slang?

Posted at 12:07PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

I got spammed by, of all people, the US Republican Party a few years back.

Posted at 12:15PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Mr Shirtcliffe should really be more careful about what he does with his email address. Somebody might do something unscrupulous with it for kicks.

Posted at 12:16PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

I think Mr Shirtcliffe was probably a real estate agent in a previous life.

Posted at 12:20PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Mssrs. Hunt and Shirtcliffe must be finding the current British FPP election an absolute nightmare.

All MMP supporters have to do is point at the outcome of that democratic farce - no matter who actually wins - and the argument is over.

Posted at 12:21PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Mr Shirtcliffe should really be more careful about what he does with his email address. Somebody might do something unscrupulous with it for kicks.

And those phone numbers. People can be really evil.

Posted at 12:36PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

turnout under MMP elections is consistently lower than under first-past-the-post polls.

Is that true?

Posted at 12:44PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Is that true?

no

Though apart from the first MMP election, the four following have all been a lower turnout than the last five FPP elections. But generally more than the 1978 one (adjusted up to 79% in note 9).

Stating that this is because of MMP rather than, y'know a billion other reasons that people might be less likely to vote is pretty misleading.

Posted at 12:45PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

1975 wasn't so great for turnout either.

Posted at 12:49PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

By the way, feel free to show your support for MMP with this Facebook group. It's a bit sad that Rick Giles' powerful argument has a bigger group than the retaining of our electoral system.

Posted at 1:21PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

And while obviously more is generally better, NZ turnout is pretty good compared to some countries.

And any argument which says "a move from a system where a large proportion of the population knew that it didn't matter which box they ticked, their vote wouldn't lead to anyone getting elected TO a system where the vast majority of electors help put a person in parliament has led to a decrease in turnout" would need some pretty strong statistical evidence to be taken seriously.

Posted at 1:44PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Is Graeme Hunt cockney rhyming slang?

It was his brother Mike.

I think we can give Peter the ShortShrift can't we?

Posted at 1:49PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

As an antispam professional, I must advise against responding with the "not interested" email he is trying to solicit. This is used as a tactic to confirm that your email address is active and being used by a human being. If you want to do something, submit it to your usual spam junking service, which might result in his mail being blocked for a lot of other people.

Posted at 2:49PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

If you want to do something, submit it to your usual spam junking service,

We actually have such a thing? Tell us more.

Posted at 2:50PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

I'm not interested in the group's campaign, however I don't see what the big deal is about- the message is not illegal in NZ:

http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Anti-Spam-Index
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0007/latest/DLM405134.html

Spamming/junk-mail was used by every major political party prior to the last election, albeit they filled our physical mail boxes with difficult-to-recycle plastic wraps and waxy or glossy paper/card. I would much rather them send me an email which I could instantly bin (along with the property press, and all those other weekly delights which line my recycling bin).

Posted at 2:51PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

I think your association of the phrase "taken seriously" with these tired fossils is optimistic at best

Posted at 3:13PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

And while obviously more is generally better, NZ turnout is pretty good compared to some countries.

Until you start looking at local body turnouts (because returning a postal ballot is so damn onerous), which is the point where Kiwis should really STFU before getting their sneer on at those stupid Yanks.

Posted at 3:20PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Was going to post this on the UK thread, but we seem to have got to Voter Turnout over here first.

Is the UK Electorate Disengaged?. Predictions of between 53% to 61% (as per last election). That seems to leave quite a bit of room for mobilising voters, but that horse has undoubtedly bolted. Interesting, but.

Posted at 3:34PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

We actually have such a thing? Tell us more.

Can't speak for anyone without hearing about their setup, but just about anyone who has any kind of antispam solution has a way of reporting it. Even my hotmail account has it. These things work better if more people use them - one person junking something is just noise, 100 people doing it is a trend, and triggers a lot of things - heuristic filters become more aggressive on the message. The IP address, or range of addresses may be blacklisted, or sender address or domain etc. This is completely independent of any laws about spam.

I'm not interested in the group's campaign, however I don't see what the big deal is about- the message is not illegal in NZ:

It's not a big deal. It's a minor annoyance, that is easily dealt with. It does say a lot about the nature of the sender, though. I thought the email response was spot on by saying the campaign is now tarred with the same brush as penis enlargement technology.

Posted at 5:36PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Speaking (elsewhere) about Jim Anderton, here is his blog post about Peter Shirtcliffe.

In other news, Jim Anderton has a blog.

Posted at 5:38PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Dig that funky navigation

Posted at 6:06PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

recordari spake:

Was going to post this on the UK thread, but we seem to have got to Voter Turnout over here first.

I must have missed that thread somewhere. Could someone point me to it? I've searched but could not see it...

Posted at 6:31PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Pass the crisps: UK Election watch.

It should perhaps come with a slight warning though. They have been discussing Charlie Brooker, and things have got a little divergent from the UK election.

Posted at 6:47PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Pass the crisps: UK Election watch.

Thank you very much for that.

Posted at 9:27PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

list MPs are despised

That's crap. The mainstream media *tells* us they're not elected properly as part of the whole background campaign against fair votes. In fact, to be a list MP, you need roughly 18,000 votes. Electorate MPs can get as few as 12,000 (Peter Dunne).

Of the nine or ten MPs I admire, all but one are on the list.

Posted at 9:40PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

It should perhaps come with a slight warning though. They have been discussing Charlie Brooker, and things have got a little divergent from the UK election.

Now that everyone's had a turn at taking offence, we've been able to move on. The UKIP leader's election-day plane crash is the topic of the moment.

Posted at 9:48PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

If you want to do something, submit it to your usual spam junking service, which might result in his mail being blocked for a lot of other people.

Even though I lament yet another address-harvesting right-winger sending out this sort of clumsy unsolicited email, and even though I think the letter is mendacious, I wouldn't be comfortable with that politically.

Posted at 9:58PM on 6 May 10. Permalink.

Now that everyone's had a turn at taking offence

Hey, I tried to ignore it. But agree that given it wasn't your words, the reaction was a little OTT. But that's what you get when quoting Twitter ;-)