Polity: Buying a fight with democracy
45 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Republican politics being what they are, one could posit that reducing electoral fraud could actually benefit the left?
It could, if there was any significant fraud to remove. If not, then it's hard not to see the point of it being two particularly right wing tendencies. Firstly, increasing barriers to voting that are very much skewed towards their own demographic, at a time when their majority is extremely tight. Secondly, it's collecting information on people unnecessarily, in a process that we generally like to think should be entirely free from the fear of coercion. I find the second the more pernicious of the two reasons, personally. It's probably not all going into a database so that random data spooks can fish for troublemakers. Probably. Not yet. But if they don't collect it in the first place, then "probably" becomes "certainly". I prefer certainly, in this case.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I guess in these days when a small number of Party votes might tip a threshold, or result in MPs having been allocated differently between parties, maybe fraud could be identified as having made a significant difference
0.004% of the votes cast in 2014 (2,416,479) is 9,666. Had they all been cast for a single party (the anecdotal claims about massive fraud by the YounGnats, for example) it would not have affected the outcome except if it was all in a small number of seats and in favour of a single MP; 43 seats were won with a majority of 9,664 votes (Northcote) or fewer. And that wouldn’t have changed the overall result because MMP.
No party’s vote was so close to tipping over into a higher threshold, as far as I can tell, as to have been changed by so few votes. It wouldn’t have got CCCP over the 5% line, and they were the only party within cooee of getting there.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
0.004% of the votes cast in 2014 (2,416,479) is 9,666.
Actually, it is 96.66. Which makes your "no impact" argument about 100 times stronger.
-
Ianmac, in reply to
Actually, it is 96.66.
And I believe some of the "fraudulent" turn out to be accidental errors. Like a wrong line ruled by the poll clerk, or occasionally those with similar names doubling up.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Particularly in light of them probably being randomly distributed around the nation, so we're talking about roughly 1.5 votes per electorate. The limit case of them all trying to swing one outcome together is interesting, since even then it could hardly have achieved anything. But the likely actual case of them being independent shows just how much of a fraud problem we don't have. Once in all of NZ history an electorate was won by a single vote. In that case, and every close count, for that matter, they then pick through the voters with a fine tooth comb looking for ineligible voters. We've already got a system in place for this shit.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
0.004% of the votes cast in 2014 (2,416,479) is 9,666.
Actually, it is 96.66. Which makes your “no impact” argument about 100 times stronger.
I have no idea how I managed to bugger that up (probably did *00.4 instead of *.004), but yes, that really wouldn't have affected anything. No race was that close.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I think you wanted * 0.00004. It was a percentage…so *0.004*0.01
No race was that close.
Occasionally one is. But in that case, they go through the votes carefully anyway.
-
izogi, in reply to
Actually, it is 96.66. Which makes your “no impact” argument about 100 times stronger.
Yes exactly. It'd be necessary to have an election in which the list MP allocation was already very close to a margin somewhere, or maybe a very close electorate seat , and then some reasonable evidence that there could have been enough fraud in the particular count which mattered to have made a difference. And by then, maybe then it's considered significant enough as to require another election, or partial election, to get a more trusted result.
And if we keep wasting time and resources re-running elections, which doesn't seem to have been required to date, maybe there's some justification for taking additional pre-emptive steps for ensuring that voters are legally able to vote before they vote. But only if.
-
“proper scrutiny”
The only thing that needs any scrutiny, proper or otherwise, is the moral compass of those who think they are at the top of this screwed up pyramid we call "society".
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
Is there a place where I can see the official submissions besides the media links from Rob's post?
The 214 submissions to the Justice & Electoral inquiry are here
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Is there a place where I can see the official submissions besides the media links from Rob's post?
Yes.
Click through the link on the to the evidence on this page for the select committee inquiry into the 2014 general election.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
We do not have the same social structure as the US. We do not have the same large communities equivalent to the black and Hispanic communities in the US that can and have been targeted by the Republicans. We do not have the local political structures that allow counties to create electoral laws designed specifically to target specific (poor) voters.
All true. But we do have a bid for exactly the same measure – pointless voter ID demands, unjustified by evidence and likely to suppress the vote to some degree – that is exactly the main problem as in the US. In both countries, there is no meaningful voter fraud. On that basis, I don't think a comparison is unwarranted.
-
Kiwiiano, in reply to
And put the enrolling booth in an unlit basement with no stairs behind a door labelled "Beware of the Tiger".
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
But we do have a bid for exactly the same measure
And had Rob focused on the issue in New Zealand highlighting the almost complete absence of voter fraud and the insignificant effect of the fraud that has occurred the post would have been just as useful.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I think you wanted * 0.00004. It was a percentage…so *0.004*0.01
That'll be it. Mid-afternoon brain-fade.
No race was that close.
Occasionally one is. But in that case, they go through the votes carefully anyway.
Going back to 1996 (earliest complete data set) we have had precisely three instances where the winning margin was < 97:
- Tauranga in 1999, with a margin of 63 to Winnie
- Christchurch Central in 2011, with a margin of 47 to Nicky Wagner
- Waitakere in 2011, with a margin of 9 to Pull-ya BenefitSo very, very occasionally indeed.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
So very, very occasionally indeed.
Yup. Although when a big recount happens involving courts and farting around challenging the rights of voters, then it's likely that a greater number would end up being discounted than what is picked up in the general statistical analysis of voter qualification. When it matters, they check carefully. When it's thousands of votes between them, there's just no point.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
Going back to 1996 (earliest complete data set) we have had precisely three instances where the winning margin was < 97:
Those results are, however, at the *electorate* level. The number of fraud cases is around 100 at the *nationwide* level in NZ. That means you're actually looking for electorate-level rates where the margin is less than [nationwide fraud] / [number of electorates], which is ~100 / 71, which is less than 2. Not many of them.
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
We do not have the same social structure as the US. We do not have the same large communities equivalent to the black and Hispanic communities in the US that can and have been targeted by the Republicans.
The rate of invalid votes in South Auckland and Maori electorates at the 2014 election was around 3-to-4% of the total votes cast in those seats. In South Island rural seats it was as low as 0.007%. That's with the current very liberal ballot access laws in place - even our current minimal requirements to enrol have a disproportionate impact on certain ethnic/socio-economic groups.
Now, change those laws to say no advance voting unless on the printed electoral roll and no voting at all unless you have ID/swear a statutory declaration and you will increase that discrepancy in valid voting rates even more. That will have a particular political effect - it will result in less South Auckland/Maori votes relative to those cast in (say) South Island rural electorates. And you don't have to have a PhD in Political Sorcery to know who that favours.
So Rob's linkage of National's proposals to Republican tactics in the USA is entirely fair and apt. Just as in the places it has been first used, it's a "solution" to a problem that simply does not exist that is adopted in order to achieve other partisan political ends.
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
Your comparison between The National party and the extreme behaviour of the Republicans, and more specifically the extreme right wing Republicans ...
It isn't just "the extreme right wing Republicans" who support Voter ID laws: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/12/where-does-the-republican-party-stand-on-voter-id/
-
This crossed my reading list and I thought it might be of interest, even though we don't use electronic voting machines
http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article27951310.html
Post your response…
This topic is closed.