Hard News: Crashing the party before it starts
103 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Hebe, in reply to
A different issue, surely.
I would imagine the electoral law drafters would have thought of election year.
-
For the NZ Herald article...
The Electoral Commission confirmed that it had provided advice to Mr Dotcom.
So it seems that the Electoral Commission are the source of the legal advice?
I'm guessing it went like this:
- Party yay
- Whaleoiil leak with free wifi detail
- "Free wifi is a bribe"
- "If free wifi is a bribe, what about a massive party for 25,000 people?"
- "Shit." -
Andre Alessi, in reply to
Will those 15,000 young people vote at all? If Kim had 15,000 old people turning up, that would signal large-scale change
It's a function of the industry I work in that I meet dozens of young, straight, pākehā men who can best be described as "cyberlibertarians" (as Craig describes above.) They're not, strictly speaking, politically apathetic, but they don't vote currently because they don't care much about (for example) marriage equality, but they do care about civil liberties, narrowly defined as anything that would affect people like themselves. (That's how they see it, anyway.) They could easily get behind this party.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I would imagine the electoral law drafters would have thought of election year.
Me too, but given some of the laws that have made it through our parliament, I'm not certain...
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
A good reason to keep/extend ballot box voting.
One of many good reasons to keep ballot box voting. We (collectively, as a species) seem to have forgotten that technology is not the answer to everything and some things actually don't need to be fixed.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
The clause in question is almost identical to English law dating from the early 19th Century. The UK doesn't really have "election year" - elections are even more at the whim of the PM than here and have been held anything from six months to 4.5 years after the last one (with a hard limit of 5 years).
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
So it seems that the Electoral Commission are the source of the legal advice?
I’m guessing it went like this:
- Party yay
- Whaleoiil leak with free wifi detail
- “Free wifi is a bribe”
- “If free wifi is a bribe, what about a massive party for 25,000 people?”
- “Shit.”Exactly.
-
George Darroch, in reply to
If the Party Party is “treating”, where does that leave the Picnic for the Planet organised by the Green Party soon?
I imagine that the Electoral Commission will continue consider that an event which is primarily political in nature, and which features entertainment as a minor part, is a political event, whereas an event which is primarily entertainment and which has politics as a minor part might be considered to be a gift. The Greens have charged entry to musical events for this reason (though they have had a dual purpose in being fundraisers, justifying a higher ticket price).
Even were KDC to offer tickets at a low price, it would be possible to argue that they were not being offered at or near their commercial value (if we presume that David Dallas and others are worth paying money for - a not unreasonable assumption).
-
To be an illegal practice, there has to be an element of corruption.
Traditional party rallies are seen as legal, because the purpose is to promote the party and its policies through a fun event.
Bribery or treating would seem to require some sort of explicit or tacit understanding that services are being provided in return for a person's vote. I guess this can fall short of swapping a photocopy of a postal ballot for a manila envelope stuffed with cash, but there must be some sort of actual or attempted corrupt bargain, surely?
It's hard not to think that shere's a subjective standard being applied here: "legitimate" established parties are allowed fund raising rallies, while a new single issue party run by an indicted "Bond villain" doesn't get cut that slack?
-
Yeah, I can't see how the Greens picnic obviously differs from Dotcom's party.
Worth noting fundraisers are obviously legal 'cause you aren't giving anything away --- the reverse in fact.
-
Radio NZ's story:
Dotcom warned over party plan
The Electoral Commission says it warned internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom that his birthday and album release party could break electoral law.
On Thursday afternoon, Mr Dotcom cancelled the free party for about 25,000 people scheduled for Auckland's Vector Arena on Monday.
The birthday bash was originally intended to include details about his planned political party, the Internet Party, which will contest this year's general election.
However on Wednesday, Mr Dotcom tweeted that those details would be released on a separate day at another event.The Electoral Commission says it emailed Mr Dotcom's legal representative that night, saying despite attempts to distance the event from his political movement, Monday's party could still be seen to be influencing voters.
The commission warned it could expose those promoting and attending it to the risk of prosecution.
It strikes me that the "those attending" warning is really ill-advised.
But mostly: I don't think the Electoral Commission would have bothered here had not Bomber's dumb free wi-fi plan come to light. He's quite the political strategist.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Auckland is not the key to this election
being the largest concentration of voters (and non-voters) it's likely to feature heavily.
-
Sacha, in reply to
free party for about 25,000 people scheduled for Auckland's Vector Arena
and good luck with that, given the venue's capacity
-
Has a political party ever bought banner ads on a website in NZ? I don't recall ever seeing it, but is that because it could be illegal or is just thought not to work?
-
Political parties definitely buy facebook ads & they are certainly not illegal.
-
This whole thing plays into Dotcom's image and how it will play against his presumed target base though huh. "We just wanted to throw you all a giant party but The Man shut us down"...
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
But when you look at an ad supported web page, the deal is that you get free information/entertainment/whatever in return for your eyeballs on the ad.
How's that different to a sponsored WiFi service?
-
Hebe, in reply to
It’s a function of the industry I work in that I meet dozens of young, straight, pākehā men who can best be described as “cyberlibertarians” (as Craig describes above.) They’re not, strictly speaking, politically apathetic
I know some down here, and you describe them well. Personally, I find them overwhelmingly self-centred in their lives and outlook and I guess their voting patterns would reflect that. They are, when moved, ferociously focused. I could see Kim Dotcom appealing to them, but are they really numerous enough to put his party over 5 per cent?
-
Keir Leslie, in reply to
Hmm. There's an intermediary between the party and the voter, and there's a different paradigm we put that case into (i.e advertising.) But I agree it's not super clear where the boundary is --- the Greens give out packets of seeds, and invite you to see Minuit: is that illegal? Why not?
-
Sacha, in reply to
the Greens give out packets of seeds, and invite you to see Minuit: is that illegal? Why not?
poem in that
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
But mostly: I don't think the Electoral Commission would have bothered here had not Bomber's dumb free wi-fi plan come to light. He's quite the political strategist.
I guess this is what not paying him $8,000 a month gets you.
-
izogi, in reply to
Will those 15,000 young people vote at all?
Possibly not, but they might all sign a petition stating that they should be allowed to vote online.
Come to think of it, has anyone seen any hints of what the Internet Party’s policy (if any) might actually be towards Online Voting, given the degree of internet actually involved? It’s not something I’ve ever been able to associate as compatible with a free and fair election, at least in terms of things like guaranteed anonymity and less likelihood of coercion at the time of voting. (Most of it isn't too different from postal voting in many respects, but we don't use postal voting in national elections.)
-
jb, in reply to
Dangerous to extrapolate local/state election results to a national level. The Pirate Party achieved 2% in the 2012 Federal election and has slipped to those numbers in 2 recent state elections from 13% in May 2012. It's currently not registering AT ALL, having been bunched together with the fringe parties under "Miscellaneous"
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Has a political party ever bought banner ads on a website in NZ?
I've definitely seen it. United Future bought some ad space (and a blog post) on Kiwiblog last year. And I'm sure other parties have bought internet ads as well.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Come to think of it, has anyone seen any hints of what the Internet Party’s policy (if any) might actually be towards Online Voting, given the degree of internet actually involved?
Whatever it is, it's not going to affect this election.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.