Hard News: What to Do?
315 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
Of course, that should be "sleep furiously'--which I should go and do a bit of!
-
I thought the "religeous right" were against any form of prenatal correction.
-
re the 'furious sleep' reference. I am trying to track down a documentary of this name, about a mid-Wales farming community.
Wasn't that 'furious sheep'?
-
My son hit me last night. Is that paternal correction?
-
Why can't referenda be 'properly multichoice' - you know, 4 or more options? Having a simple yes/no response means that even a monkey can get it right half of the time.
(Sorry - I'm marking exams)
-
There have been so very few CIRs that an unusually low turnout or high informal votes would be hard to assess. There's a good article which includes a list of all attempted and successful CIRs here.
This does appear to be one of the stupidest questions, even worse than the victim support/hard labour one. A lot of the ones in the 90s were doomed to failure for various reasons, but at least they were mostly straightforward questions.
Perhaps there could be a notification process, whereby if someone opposes a petition, they could ask the Clerk to reword it, and have the question resolved to one which both parties can live with.
Putting the financial costs on the petitioners would only mean that only petitioners with significant financial backing could generate a CIR. You'd add astroturfing to all the other problems with CIRs.
-
Great, so with the very best of intentions you're legitimating a process that is fundamentally ridiculous?
You're assuming that either not participating, or spoiling your ballot will have any positive effect.
Someone please tell me any time that anyone has paid any significant attention to the number of invalid ballots returned for anything, ever, in New Zealand. Never?
Unless someone's going to organise a really good campaign to get a couple of hundred thousand of these ballots returned with messages on them, then this will be exactly the same - complete waste of postage, and nothing else.
There no doubt will be some attention paid to the turnout, but Craig, you've already said that you'll be offering a public mea culpa for for doing that previously.
By all means, throw the ballot in the bin if you think a yes or no vote isn't significant. Lobby to have the CIR amended or repealed. Why waste anyone's time by sending back the paper without voting either way?
-
any time that anyone has paid any significant attention to the number of invalid ballots returned for anything
Kyle, the Jedi census write-in response is possibly the closest. But that had tremendous pop cultural backing going for it (picture a three-decade, multi-billion dollar marketing campaign). And a slot marked "Other" to fill in, rather than a closed ballot form.
-
NBH,
In the same vein as Sacha's example, the "write down your ethnicity as New Zealander" campaign at the last Census was probably the biggest example of public attention being paid to what was essentially a protest/spoil your ballot option.
-
The only vote that “matters” in this is the “No” vote. That’s the Family First / Simon Barnett / Nanny state is upon us brigade.
The “Yes” vote is for those who passionately supported the original amendment, the spoiled vote is for those who also side with the “Yes” vote but think that silly CIRs also need shutting up, and those who don’t bother voting (the largest sector I’d guess) are those who think “yes” but basically can’t be bothered.
-
I believe smack might have a part in Panteral correction.
Disclaimer: I am not, nor have I ever been, a Pantera fan.
-
Actually, NBH is right - and it's a more successful example too, leading to ethnicity measurement being officially reviewed again and a whole lot of our compatriots not knowing the difference between nationality and ethnicity. Hobson would be proud.
-
I think that I heard during Question Time today that the wording could be altered if the Ref Organisers were willing. Tail end with something about a consultation with the Clerk? Anyone out there?
-
Wikipedia says yes.
Well it certainly contributed to their eventual breakup. I assume by "Panteral correction" you mean "causing Pantera to cease producing music"?
That's the problem with this referendum. The question is too multi-faceted.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a Pantera fan.
It doesn't matter whether or not you love Pantera. Just know that they love you.
-
Not after it's been accepted and published, I shouldn't think. However, there's probably leeway before the Clerk accepts it to negotiate with the petitioner if there's doubt as to the meaning of the question. Not in this case though. We've just got campaigners who want the rest of the country to endorse their erroneous belief that smacking is 'good parental correction' or that doing so will have you up on assault charges.
-
re the 'furious sleep' reference.......
Actually, I was referencing Chomsky on meaningless phrases - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
-
My fear with this concept is that even if the number was high enough to register it might be seen as an act against CIR per se not a comment with regard to the issue posed.
Well, I am against CIRs per se, so that works for me.
I am against violence to children, supporting that principle is more important to me than expressing my distaste for the way the question is phrased.
Fair enough. If that's your stance, then by all mean vote 'Yes'. But I'm concerned that even so the yes-votes will be so outweighed by the no-votes that it'll be ineffective, and all you will have done is lend credence to the process. Hope I'm wrong.
-
Which is when? The last couple of weeks the time slot has been occupied by an oxygen gobbling sports broadcaster...
Ah yes... Radio Live have moved Public Address Radio from five to seven, same day. Always nice when they make some effort to publicise their schedule changes, isn't it?
Yup, seems like the best option to me. It feels like a case where silence (including spoiled ballots) will be interpreted as apathay.
At the risk of sounding like an effete snob, there are some people in this world whose inperpretations of my actions aren't worth a tuppence toss. :)
-
Actually, NBH is right - and it's a more successful example too, leading to ethnicity measurement being officially reviewed again and a whole lot of our compatriots not knowing the difference between nationality and ethnicity.
I suspect it was not knowing the difference that lead to a lot of people supporting that cause. That was such a puerile campaign.
-
I suspect the outcome of the referendum is moot because Govt. and opposition have already stated their position that the law will not change and, as well we all know, these referendums are non binding.
However, can we trust slippery John and his merry followers?.I still think a Yes vote is worthwhile, after all, the No voters we are talking about are the "Silent Majority" eh?.
-
If you're Pakeha, it's all too easy to think that there is no difference. I saw some unpublished analysis that showed a very high correlation between answering "New Zealander" and experiencing redness of the neck.
-
Given the logical and linguistic inanities of the question, I can understand the desire not to give oxygen to the morons who came up with that oxymoron. However, while a "yes" vote seems nonsensical if you believe that a smack is by definition not part of good parenting, consider working backwards from the opposite:
- voting "no" means that "a smack as part of good parental correction" should not be an offence;
- which means that "a smack as part of good parental correction" is okay;
- which would require "a smack as part of good parental correction" to be a logically valid concept.Hence, while voting "yes" may seem like buying into the stupidity, it can also be seen as a stern statement against the very premise. I wish one didn't have to perform such acrobatics to feel comfortable with voting yes, but anything else (including abstaining and spoiling) risks a win for the smack-happy fundies.
-
Kyle, the Jedi census write-in response is possibly the closest. But that had tremendous pop cultural backing going for it (picture a three-decade, multi-billion dollar marketing campaign). And a slot marked "Other" to fill in, rather than a closed ballot form.
That's not a valid comparison.
Filling in the other box on the census form with 'Jedi' or 'New Zealander' is compliance, because there's an 'other' box there.
Which is very different from spoiling the ballot/form (of which I don't think we have any examples of having any effect).
-
He is seldom my favourite journalist but Sean Plonker redeemed himself on Morning Report this morning by giving Larry Baldick a right bollocking.
(Note: deliberate mis-spelling this time)One swallow does not a summer etc.
In 1995, there was a referndum in Quebec on whether it should separate from Canada. The question didn't say "Wanna be our own country mes amis?" but actually said:
"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995? Yes/No."
I voted oui on this. :) Just to be difficult and because I got pissed off with the ROCs (Rest of Canadians) who flew into Montreal to hold parades.
-
a whole lot of our compatriots not knowing the difference between nationality and ethnicity
I thought the major problem was our Government not wanting to ask a question about race.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.