Legal Beagle: If we only had time
155 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
"or that it's okay to try and scuttle it by moving it to next year."
because thats a bad time for childbeating discussion, it's not child beating discussion weather.
-
Blam. The whole thing has partisan politics written all over it now - reinforcing my view that it shouldn't be muddling up a general election ballot paper.
Good God yes.
Because we know, don't we, that people just can't cope with partisan politics happening during election campaigns. They're just not used to it.
-
Kyle: here.
...
Its from the Chief Electoral Office, dated March, and seems to say exactly what the Pm says it does.And if this had been released a couple of months ago when the decision was presumable made, without the PM using it as some sort of "Gotcha" we might have avoided all of this...
-
And if this had been released a couple of months ago when the decision was presumable made, without the PM using it as some sort of "Gotcha" we might have avoided all of this...
Indeed. But that would have required someone to be proactive about the release of official information, which I just don't think they're used to.
-
How many causes could you feasibly get 300,000 signatures for?Alright we'll spend taxpayers money on rediscussing and voting on this but it shouldn't dominate our election.
Who "our" kemosabe? As I said, I'd be quite happy to see the CIR Act repealed, but until then... For all Idiot/Savant's snark about 'Family Fist', how about we just cut the bullshit and say the blindingly obvious -- Helen Clark doesn't want this issue on the radar during a campaign that, if the polls hold, is going to be ugly enough.
Call me a cynic if you must, but if Clark saw any political advantage in this then any logistical concerns would be dismissed as airily as caveats around the EFB. While I'm glad I/S lives in some utopian paradise, I'm sure the rest of have come across circumstances where "impractical" can mean "I just can't be bothered, so sod off" as often as "I cannae the laws of physics, Jim".
-
Craig: When given a choice between the views of the Chief Electoral Office and faith-based conspiracy loonies on what is and isn't possible, please forgive me for choosing the former.
-
Craig: When given a choice between the views of the Chief Electoral Office and faith-based conspiracy loonies on what is and isn't possible, please forgive me for choosing the former.
Idiot/Savant: I take the advice of the Chief Electoral Office very seriously -- certainly more seriously than the Prime Minister has on occasion over the last three years or so. And if that "faith-based conspiracy loonies" crack was aimed in my direction, I won't respond in kind.
-
"Helen Clark doesn't want this issue on the radar during a campaign that, if the polls hold, is going to be ugly enough."
Sometimes man i really think you're just cheering the team. This issue by definition of it's importance enough to raise a referendum is now on the political radar (media shows) but something as important as child abuse needs its own isolated time, it's a biggie, smacking kids is a biggie.
-
"And no-one said the referendum should be "buried." Just put it at a suitable time."
absolutely if something is so topical it requires a referendum that debate deserves to be isolated for thorough re-discussion not yanked into the forefront of a hugely complex election discussion.Oh Puh-lease. Anyone with any experience in politics (Union, PTA, Local Govt, whatever) knows darn well that the first line of defence (if you think you can't defeat the proposal before you immediately) is to delay the vote. Insist it needs 'more discussion' and move to have the matter 'tabled'. That's exactly what's happening here.
How many causes could you feasibly get 300,000 signatures for?Alright we'll spend taxpayers money on rediscussing and voting on this but it shouldn't dominate our election.
Well duh. Not many if the number of CIR we've had so far is any indication. And that's one of my points. Even tho' I don't agree with the proposition, those behind it have jumped thru the appropriate hoops so I think it only fair they get their referendum now. And as a taxpayer I believe it must be more cost effective to run it with the General Election.
The whole thing has partisan politics written all over it now - reinforcing my view that it shouldn't be muddling up a general election ballot paper.
'Partisan'? Sheesh. That can apply to anyone seeking a CIR. Are you seriously suggesting this is a Trojan Horse for the National Party? They're leading in the polls, they don't need it. By moving to delay the CIR Clarke is playing into their hands anyway, isn't she? She's guaranteed it will be an election issue.
Its from the Chief Electoral Office, dated March, and seems to say exactly what the Pm says it does.
It defies basic maths to suggest that it will cost the same to run a stand-alone CIR as it would to have the CIR voting slip handed to people at the same time they are handed their voting slips at the General Election. And if doesn't then Key is right, our bureacracy really does need a rocket up it's butt.
because thats a bad time for childbeating discussion
What saddens/annoys me about this thread is the presumption that if the CIR is held 'they' will win and therefore (because we don't like 'them') we should delay the CIR so we can have more time to convince the masses we are right. The fact is that National are likely to win the next election and likely to get thru whatever they want. So surely it's better to have the CIR sooner rather than later so National's hands are tied when they take power? Because I don't think 'the masses' will support this proposition.
-
'we should delay the CIR so we can have more time to convince the masses we are right.'
SO discussion is a bad thing , it's violence buddy, it deserves discussion.
-
something as important as child abuse needs its own isolated time, it's a biggie, smacking kids is a biggie.
More or less important than voting in a Government? Again I say: do people seriously believe 'we the people' can't deal with two big issues at once? If not then we need to review who gets the right to vote.
-
It defies basic maths to suggest that it will cost the same to run a stand-alone CIR as it would to have the CIR voting slip handed to people at the same time they are handed their voting slips at the General Election. And if doesn't then Key is right, our bureacracy really does need a rocket up it's butt.
It is worth bearing in mind that the one election in which there was also a CIR ballot was a shambles in which the votes took far too long to be counted and everybody complained.
-
I take the advice of the Chief Electoral Office very seriously -- certainly more seriously than the Prime Minister has on occasion over the last three years or so.
No doubt you'll be reassured by the fact that she's taking it so seriously now.
It defies basic maths to suggest that it will cost the same to run a stand-alone CIR as it would to have the CIR voting slip handed to people at the same time they are handed their voting slips at the General Election.
If you read the document that I/S linked to, you'll see that money isn't a prime factor. Where it's mentioned the primary concern is that they don't have any money for it at all, so would have to bid for additional money between budgets.
It also points out that the Postal CIR laws were introduced as a result of the 1999 election where they were held together. Good to be reminded by those who know.
-
A S,
It is worth bearing in mind that the one election in which there was also a CIR ballot was a shambles in which the votes took far too long to be counted and everybody complained.
I remember that election. In the fallout from it all, was it the CIR that held things up, or was it all just a bit of a cockup by the organisers?
I also remember the complaints, but the cause of the delay and the response to the problems are kind of lost in the mists of history... Is anyone elses memory less hazy than mine on this?
-
Nick,
You've made some fair points but you characterise the argument for separating CIRs from elections as being somehow disingenuous. As if, advocating for their separation either (a) about avoiding any reconsideration of the amendment or (b) insults public intelligence.
I don't think that's reasonable.
My view is that would prefer general elections remain just that: exclusively focused on electing the government on the basis of a broad range of policies.
If the cost of holding a CIR doesn't vary significantly according to the timing, and they remain non-binding, what possible advantage is there to combining them? Public convenience? Is that it? CIRs are not the only way issues get political attention - the Bradford amendment is evidence of precisely this.
-
A S,
If you read the document that I/S linked to, you'll see that money isn't a prime factor. Where it's mentioned the primary concern is that they don't have any money for it at all, so would have to bid for additional money between budgets.
I don't think the funding is really a problem if the will is there. All it takes to get some extra dosh lined up is ten minutes around the cabinet table on a monday morning. If the will isn't there, then it will indeed take a lot longer....
-
"My view is that would prefer general elections remain just that: exclusively focused on electing the government on the basis of a broad range of policies. "
well put, and Nick we are the masses.
-
The last time we had a CIR there was indeed delays in finding out the election result... and as already mentioned by another poster earlier in this thread, there was an enquiry/commision or report, and it was concluded this could avoided simply by not counting the CIR until after the election results were known. Tricky huh?
Also... as to a delay or with the general election...
(ignoring if it's logistically possible or not)
Some say its for more discussion... to keep the issues separate...
Some suggest it might garner a different result?
Here's my hypothesis...
If it's held at the general... the vast majority of the people who turn up to vote will also vote in the CIR...
I'm not really sure if the petitioners are representative of a majority, or if the public at large are more liberal than some seem to think.... in my mind it could go either way... but if 70-80% of the electorate vote (is that how much turnout we got in 2005?), and most of them vote in the CIR.... there's a good chance either way that the result might actually represent a real majority of all registered electors... or at least if the sample is large enough it might be presumed to be more representative than any opinion poll ever conducted (apart from actual parlimentary elections).
I think the main purpose of delaying is not to change to actual % outcome.... its simply to reduce the number of people who can be bothered to vote, and thus make it easier (politically) to ignore the result...
If the referendum is delayed, I doubt there'll be 1 million votes... maybe not half a mill?
I know our referenda are not binding.... but politically it's far easier to ignore a 'loss" if you can paint the people who bothered to vote as some jumped up over-excited minority...
Whichever way the result goes.... a 20/80 result of a small vote just doesnt mean anything compared to a 60/40 one that actually represents a huge portion of the electorate...
-
I'm an absolutist here: hitting smaller younger people is wrong.
(Exemption: bullies. Not normally born so, but sometimes are made so.
But - you dont hit them - you work them hard.
What is the difference between 'work them hard' and 'hit' them?
Answer; control food/heat/comfort; make a bully work for what it desires.)Pyschopaths? Only one answer I'm afraid. Kill it.
Does this seem an extreme excursion from the discussion?
Nope.
Democracy assumes all voters are equally well informed and able to access alternative opinions and exercise freely the vote of a mature adult.
Yeah. Right.
-
Sometimes man i really think you're just cheering the team.
And sometimes, Jeremy, I resist the urge to give snide comments like that the slap they deserve. Aren't you a lucky bugger that this is one of them?
It is worth bearing in mind that the one election in which there was also a CIR ballot was a shambles in which the votes took far too long to be counted and everybody complained.
And I rather think "everyone" would have had little sympathy to the idea that MMP is also highly confusing to many voters, and two ballots have some complexities for staff.
So, let's do away with MMP. And on the local body level, let's abolish STV (which has been a nightmare for Wellington in particular), wards and district health boards.
Damn, why don't we go the whole hog and screw elections entirely. Enlightened military dictatorship and/or choosing legislators in a triennial Lotto draw would be cheaper, easier and less painful.
Sorry for bringing the snark here Russell, but if our electoral agencies aren't properly staffed and resourced for contingencies like (say) a snap election, the possibility of a Government losing a vote of confidence or even a valid CIR let's ask some bloody hard question why that's the case. But it would be nice if someone bothered asking the question in the first place.
More or less important than voting in a Government? Again I say: do people seriously believe 'we the people' can't deal with two big issues at once? If not then we need to review who gets the right to vote.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. But I'd certainly be thinking very hard about my voting patterns and media consumption when it comes to people whose patrician disdain for the great unwashed is that naked.
-
I don't think the funding is really a problem if the will is there. All it takes to get some extra dosh lined up is ten minutes around the cabinet table on a monday morning.
It's that easy for the Chief Electoral Office to get extra funds? Really? I find that rather hard to believe. There's a reason that the Budget is handled in legislation.
-
It's that easy for the Chief Electoral Office to get extra funds? Really? I find that rather hard to believe. There's a reason that the Budget is handled in legislation.
Fair comment, Matthew. Which is why I'm wondering why the CEO doesn't believe there's adequate resourcing to handle a CIR being part of the election ballot. I wasn't being entirely snarky above -- I actually think it's important our electoral agencies be properly resourced to do the very important job they're required to do by law. If that's not the case (and we do actually have an extensive review of the conduct of local and general elections every cycle), then we should be asking some tough questions of both Parliament and Cabinet.
And just as a sidebar, if a side-effect of a more representative electoral system, increased participation and having a framework for registration and voting that isn't designed to make it as difficult as possible is that votes actually take a wee bit longer to count...
Well, I can live with that. Really.
-
Which is why I'm wondering why the CEO doesn't believe there's adequate resourcing to handle a CIR being part of the election ballot.
This is covered in that document. More booths, more staff, more counters. I didn't read it closely, but it seemed to be saying that the postal ballot law was passed so that we didn't have them at the same time as an election again - ie, that doing so was a bad idea, no matter what the timing, money etc.
I would have presumed that they could have just counted the CIR the next day, but apparently the law states that preliminary results must be out that night, which I guess means about half again as many vote counters to count the referendum.
-
It is worth bearing in mind that the one election in which there was also a CIR ballot was a shambles in which the votes took far too long to be counted and everybody complained.
Its worth bearing n mind that the Chief Electoral Office didn't organise it properly. Its worth bearing in mind that the Government is responsible for funding the Chief Electoral Office, and its worth remembering that the Chief Electoral Officer recommended a postal ballot in MARCH was because he didn't want to do an electoral referendum because he thought it would be too much hard work.
In other words, he couldn't be arsed even asking for funding to work a little harder. Parekura Horomia all over again.
Parliament could, if it so chooses, vote on a resolution requiring the voting period for a postal ballot to close on Election Day.
-
Section 194(a) in the Crimes Act outlaws assulat on children. Section 59 offered a legal defence of reasonable force for purposes of correction. That Section was used to defend lip-swelling, eye-blckening, ear-drum-popping assaults on childrn by their parents. Assault on Children was never "legal".
Post your response…
This topic is closed.