Legal Beagle: Voting in the Flag Referendum
152 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
I wrote “None of these flags” and also wrote under the Red Peaks abortion that “this is a stolen design”.
Whom do you think it is stolen from?
Are you also perturbed by the resemblance between the fern designs to the logos of the NZRU, Tourism NZ, Qualmark etc?
I'm not disagreeing with you that the whole process has been awful.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
perturbed by the resemblance between the fern designs to the logos
That's my problem, five logos.
We didn't get flags that embody New Zealand, we got logos designed by marketing wonks who think they will sell product.
Also, ferns are compound leaves that have alternate leaflets (science nerd).
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
That’s my problem, five logos.
Winston weighs in.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
the Mandelbrot brotherhood...
Also, ferns are compound leaves that have alternate leaflets
I'm with you Bart!
The 'cheesey' things they purport to be 'ferns' look more like combs or tombstones/surfboards... -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Winston weighs in.
I liked:
...more Prime Minstrel than Prime Minister.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
The ‘cheesey’ things they purport to be ‘ferns’ look more like combs or tombstones/surfboards…
Intermission…
Righto, as you were ;) -
Dive bomb that flag!
-
linger, in reply to
That would account for the white streak down the middle of the design.
-
izogi, in reply to
I don’t agree with Graeme though, invalid papers WILL be seen as a protest and the protest will be noted.
I think a problem, though, remains that it'll only be seen as a protest by people who choose to see it as a protest. Annette King will be out there screaming it's a protest by thousands of people who obviously think this whole flag thing is stupid, if for no other reason than because she was previously telling people to spoil their voting papers if they wanted to protest.
But votes remain anonymous. It's not even possible to verify who marked a voting paper let alone try to identify why they did it. Even if the odd person photographs their ballot paper, where's the evidence that it's the vote they mailed away? Even if it can be verified, does that mean thousands of other ballot papers were spoiled for the same reason? It's also risky to make assumptions on why people act/vote the way they do, especially if those assumptions are just based on "but everyone I know thinks this way and I can't think of other plausible reasons". But that won't stop people making whichever assumptions most suit their agenda.
Based on past performance, if there's a significant count of spoiled votes then the PM's office will spin up some excuse for it to not matter, just as Annette King et al will spin up reasons for it to matter. It'll be processed ad-nauseum by the apologists through the machine, just to provide an excuse for anyone who needs one. Maybe the referendum process could even be abolished if private polls tell the National Party elite that it's so unpopular, but it'll be attributed to something much more excuseable than a torrent of outraged people spoiling their voting papers in protest.
I'd agree with Emma's comment on page 1. Mark your ballot paper however you like, but if you want a real message to be heard then get out and say it. Tell people. Tell MPs. Tell Ministers. Tell media. Otherwise the "message" of a spoiled ballot paper will only be regurgitated by those with a pre-existing agenda, as they see fit. Ballot papers are inanimate objects disassociated from those who marked them. They're sealed away in a place where they can't be re-opened, by law, before being destroyed, except for strictly defined reasons. Even if you wrote your reason on it, ballot papers won't argue back when their meaning is mis-represented. -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
We know at least with THIS referendum that there is a conscious spoiling of the paper. Whether it's Annette Kings interpretation of that or the PM's we know some of the public are going to actively spoil their paper as a protest. Those who don't want to protest can vote or anyone can vote strategically (hypno flag) Generally though for just this one it is being assumed in general that it's a protest. National can spin all they like but they have already lost on this con. The public are aware.
-
izogi, in reply to
We know at least with THIS referendum that there is a conscious spoiling of the paper.
This is sort-of what I’m getting, at though. We know that some people are spoiling voting papers in protest. But that’s only one possible reason for a spoiled voting paper. In the end, it won’t be possible to look at the resulting number and know how many people spoiled their ballot for that reason nor any other reason.
Sure, people can spin the outcome whichever way, and they will, but ultimately it’s nowhere near as meaningful as having identifiable people clearly saying what they think.
-
Do you have to vote in the first referendum to vote in the second?
-
John Farrell, in reply to
I doubt it. How could the Electoral Commission know?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Do you have to vote in the first referendum to vote in the second?
You do not.
You can vote in either, neither or both referendums.
-
Can 2 voting papers go in the same envelope cos I lost mine?
-
linger, in reply to
Overseas voters have the option of uploading a scan of their response form to the elections.org.nz site. I note that, contrary to the listed browser requirements, the upload does not work under older versions of Safari such as 5.0.6 (still the most recent version for MacOS 10.5).
The site recommends that voters only upload their own response form, on the basis that you shouldn’t know how anyone else has voted; presumably the same consideration applies to putting multiple postal votes in the same envelope. Nevertheless, as long as the form codes are distinct, it seems the voting papers would both be counted.
-
The Herald’s not the only media group extracting taxpayer money to promote Key’s choice of flag. Now Stuff has got in on the act as well with a story pretending that kiwis are finally engaging with the deeply flawed process. The caption on the video provides the first clue.
We’ve worked with the Flag Consideration Project to see what the flag, both current and proposed looks like in everyday New Zealand
And the opening line aptly flags the ‘editorial’ attitude which follows.
With less than a month to go, it appears Kiwis are finally taking the flag debate seriously.
No shit, Sherlock? It's funny that all the polls show the opposite, but whatever. Right at the very bottom of the story there’s this little disclaimer.
Produced with the support of the New Zealand Flag Consideration Panel
“Support” indeed! How much did taxpayers contribute towards this pseudo-journalistic nonsense? Over at the Herald Brian Rudman takes a more realistic view of the process in Alternative flag selection a fiasco.
Leaving the design of our possible new national emblem to such an anti-intellectual process was odd. Government departments and private companies all spend a fortune on design consultants for new logos and branding.
Instead, the Government threw it open to the mob, leaving the short-listing to a Noah’s Ark crew of amateurs whose only point of similarity was their absence of design expertise. Little wonder the result is an underdog. One which, hopefully, will soon be put down.
Amen!
-
Practice saying it now...
"G'nite Johnboy"
can't wait... -
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
(Just saw this)
So, secure as a very insecure thing. Photoshop the details and you can vote as who you like. Ok, so they can consistency check the numbers - 5 digits means that 1:100000 papers would validate (assuming they don't also check the addresses).
While that might be a high work factor for fax, it's a pretty low work factor for uploaded documents from a botnet or whatever.
Next thing, they'll use this where it would be a problem, like local council elections.
-
Today's Tremain
-
Dissent in the ranks about the fleg? Significant that the Nat caucus has a leaker now.
-
More vexing vexillogicality…
Oh, hang on a minute mate…
http://wangarattachronicle.com.au/2016/01/22/is-it-time-for-new-australian-flag/
Deja Vu all over again, but in Australia:Among local politicians, Indi Greens candidate Jenny O’Connor was one of only two championing change, saying the Australian flag needed to be updated to reflect recent changes to our society.
“I don’t think the flag reflects the diversity of the Australian society,” Ms O’Connor told the Wangaratta Chronicle yesterday.
“I think we need to have a flag that is inclusive of everyone in Australia and not one that is Euro-centric with the union jack.
“Our flag is representative of its time but we have developed as a nation and we need to reflect that in our flag.”whoopsie:
Other than the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Tuvalu and Fiji are the only countries with a union jack on their design.
what about Hawaii ?
you know, John Key’s other home… -
strictly speaking Hawaii isn't a 'country' (though some still consider it illegally occupied territory)
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
strictly speaking Hawaii isn’t a ‘country’
Oh... that's true...
...it is a state of mind!
:- ) -
Another day and more pro-change propaganda appears on Stuff. They tell us that lots of famous kiwis all want a change of flag, and nobody… not even one token person… wants to keep the current flag.
While Stuff doesn’t have the "with assistance from the flag committee" disclaimer on this piece, one would have to assume from the lack of balance in the story that it’s indeed an ongoing paid promotion.
To me the biggest losers in this game are Fairfax. Any major news organisation prepared to sell its integrity so easily risks undermining its reputation as a credible news source.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.