Up Front: Reviewing the Election
101 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Paul Campbell, in reply to
So with compulsory voting, you force the non-voters to attend the ballot and at least go through the motions of expressing a preference.
What is this meant to achieve? How is it different from declaring that the non-voters voted in the same proportion as the voters, and hence we have an imaginary 100% turnout.
It’s not removing disengagement, it’s just renaming it.
I think it depends - how many of those who don't vote don't vote because they really don't want to as opposed to those who just had something better to that day, but would have expressed a genuine preference should they have found themselves in a voting booth?
There are some New Zealanders who are under a real obligation to vote - my wife, who recently took NZ citizenship (after over 40 years), swore an oath to "fulfil her duties as a New Zealand citizen" which explicitly included voting
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
I took that oath, but consider that in a society governed by laws, the only duties of a citizen (which are much the same as the duties of someone passing through the Auckland transit lounge for 3 hours) are to obey those laws.
If there isn't a law making you vote, it's your choice to do so.
-
izogi, in reply to
Is there evidence that it does more than add noise to the result?
In my limited experience of an Australian local election I cast a donkey vote ranking thirty-something candidates, which felt stupid and destructive to their election (because adding noise is all it does) but after a few hours of headaches trying to read candidate blurbs and understand local issues for a region I barely lived in and failing dismally to care, I just didn't feel I had an option.
At the time I went to pains to search the rules about the legality of submitting spoiled ballots. I may well have missed something, but I think I went above and beyond what could be reasonably expected of most voters, and all I could find were overboard official statements explaining how to vote correctly and the penalty for not doing so, but nothing to say whether it was legal to cast a vote that was invalid.
-
Moz, in reply to
The reason the NZLP should have access to electoral roll data is that voter contact by political parties is a key driver of voter turnout, and voter engagement with the electoral system. And there's a similar argument for non-party groups that want to use the data for civic engagement purposes... I don't see why any private individual should be able to access the Roll other than for limited purposes of public scrutiny.
It might be better, then, to allow the comission to forward mail on behalf. That avoids the "I hate Kair Lesley" interest group from legitimately getting the roll specifically so they can get your address, while also allowing anyone with the money to pay for printing and postage to send stuff to you. I suspect you would need to provide everything electronically, but it shouldn't need to be prohibitive.
Especially with the various spamming services NZPost provides it's not actually that difficult to do geographically targeted mailouts without ever knowing the actual names. I do letterboxing most elections on that basis as a volunteer.
-
There is a reasonable moral argument for not voting. "Democracy" is a process which enables a plurality of the population to use violence (the power of the state comes down ultimately to a monopoly of violence) to coerce a minority to comply with its wishes. If one doesn't wish to condone that, then not voting is a reasonable response.
(Yes, I am an anarchist. One day, you might be one too).
-
Moz, in reply to
Australian local election I cast a donkey vote... At the time I went to pains to search the rules about the legality of submitting spoiled ballots.
FWIW my understanding is that you're required to be marked off on the roll as having obtained a ballot, and you're strongly encouraged to deposit that in the ballot boxes (if for no other reason than not doing not makes life hard for the returning officers). Marking the ballot is optional, and I've never heard of a case where it was felt necesary to track back from a ballot to a voter, let alone prosecute them for simply making an invalid vote. Even "*** you all bunch of ****" just gets dropped in the "invalid" pile and everyone moves on.
The statutue may not be that explicit, and they likely do that as much to encourage voting as anything, but the practice is very much "get your name ticked off, the end". Well, and "please don't take that with you, we have to account for every ballot".
I've never found it especially difficult to decide how to vote for, but I am a lazy person and decided a long time ago that I have fairly set preferences. The various religious law and libertarians get dumped randomly at the bottom of the list, then anyone else I think would be worse than the Liberals, then anyone I haven't heard of, then the Liberals, then Labour, then either The Greens or minor parties that I particularly like, or vice versa depending on how annoyed I am with The Greens at the time. In Oz they get funding per first preference vote, so I'll deny them that if I'm grumpy with them. Within that fixed preference, it's just a matter of how much I want to research minor parties and whether I can be bothered ranking them.
-
Moz, in reply to
If one doesn't wish to condone that, then not voting is a reasonable response.
Yeah, nah. Not voting is expressing consent to the current arrangement.
This is currently obvious in the USA with their "black lives don't really matter that much" campaign, where white people continue to demonstrate that they're committed to their current position by refusing en masse to vote for change. When surveyed about half are happy with the racial bias of law enforcement. But even the one who are not, are unwilling to vote to change it. They could, but they don't.
Same applies here. We have a system for changing the way we're governed, and you're refusing to use it. That's not a strong stance that you don't like the system, that's accepting that the system we have is not worth the effort of changing.
-
As far as direct mail goes, (a) modern campaigns can be very very targetted, and often use demographic, geographic, and other data in ways it would be extremely hard if not impossible to replicate through an NZPost interface, and (b) it would be prohibitively expensive to use NZPost to print, sort and send mail compared to the current system of volunteer sorting and deliveries. So in practice the parties that could afford would buy private databases and use them (as they do in America) and parties that couldn't would struggle.
Similarly, it is in principle possible to do door-to-door canvassing absent a database of voters, but it means you can't do enrolment work (because you can't tell who's enrolled or not) and if you wanted to do anything with the information gathered, you'd end up creating your own database as you went - at which point, again, some parties would buy commercially and others would struggle.
Finally, it would be very hard to campaign in the Māori seats absent accurate roll data.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
What would happen if we dropped the voting age to, say, 14?
Voter turnout would drop markedly.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
Higher voter turnout, like what it does achieve in Australia, over and over and over.
It's supposed to achieve a parliament that is fully representative of the people, whether they wanted to vote or not.
-
NBH, in reply to
Voter turnout would drop markedly.
If you're basing that on the existing low participation rate of 'young people', I don't think you can make that statement with such certainty. One of the elements of the habituation argument for lowering the voting age is that because - as izogi notes above - kids at school exist in a totalising institution that would presumably be strongly pushing the 'you should vote' message, they will be much more likely to vote than those who aren't. It's entirely possible that we'd see a large influx of people with voting habits more like the over-60s than the age group immediately above them.
-
Moz, in reply to
As far as direct mail goes,
Keir, if you're answering my comment I started from wanting a solution to "only people willing to have their address published can vote". As Emma alluded, not everyone who wants to keep their address private is willing (or able) to jump through legal hoops to get on the secret roll. Without an answer to that, my belief is that allowing people to vote is more important than letting organisations spam them. So saying "that makes spamming harder" is irrelevant.
-
Given that contact and engagement via political parties is a driver of voter turnout I do think we should make it easy for parties to communicate with voters if we are serious about increasing turnout and engagement.
It’s also not the case that if you stop people accessing roll data they’ll no longer have access to that kind of data. It will just cost more and be less accurate, which will primarily hurt small and left wing parties.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Voter turnout would drop markedly
If you mean turnout as a percentage of those eligible would drop then ...
Bollocks. Pure baseless speculation. 14-18 yr olds are often remarkably opinionated, usually also ill-informed, but that's not their fault. You simply have no valid data on which to base that statement.
If you mean the total number of voters would drop you are simply wrong.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Same applies here. We have a system for changing the way we’re governed
Actually I'd argue that at the moment we don't. Much as I loathe the money grubbing venal National party and their campaign to make their mates rich I cannot see any real difference in the Labour party.
Until we get to a state where neither of those parties can dominate we have no system for change.
-
-
Moz, in reply to
Until we get to a state where neither of those parties can dominate we have no system for change.
I think it's important to distinguish between "most voters accept the current system" and "we can't change the system". We have the former right now, and as with the "black lives don't matter" case, in NZ the "oh if only it was worth voting for a minor party" majority have the power to change the system but don't want to. But until you're willing to make like the IRA, sorry Sinn Fein, and stand for election and win, any claim that " we can't change the system" is just empty posturing.
Sure, the "Moz as Dictator-for-life" party is unlikely to get the landslide win it'd need to carry out its only policy, but there's nothing stopping it from trying. Most democracies have the "flaw" that you're allowed to run with the explicit intention of changing the law, including the law(s) that set up the system of government.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
You simply have no valid data on which to base that statement.
That's true, but there's also no data against it. So I guess an argument based on other data we do have is all there is, and most of the evidence out there is that very young people are politically disengaged. If you extrapolate beyond the data that are there, you'd have to say that they'd be most like the nearest age group, the 18-25 year olds and they're very much disengaged. So I think Graeme is likely to be right. And clearly he meant as a percentage - teenage kids voting isn't suddenly going to stop anyone else doing it.
But we can't put any real certainty on all of this.
I think there's pretty sound reasons not to let them vote, quite aside from whether they would show up. 14 year olds are legally children. They have far lesser responsibilities than adults. On average they have very rudimentary knowledge about a whole lot of very important things. And their dependence on their parents and the school system makes them prey to a lot of pressure. They might not know, nor have the skills to find out, that the secret ballot means that their parent's can't easily force them to vote one way or another.
On the flipside, knowledge has never been a requirement in the voting system and they do have interests that are not well represented.
The main argument against it really a slippery slope. You'd probably have to admit that there is some age at which getting the vote is farcical. So the question is where you draw the line and why. I think "official" adulthood is a perfectly reasonable compromise.
-
izogi, in reply to
I think there’s pretty sound reasons not to let them vote, quite aside from whether they would show up. 14 year olds are legally children. They have far lesser responsibilities than adults.
As in my earlier comment (but which was not well phrased), what about in some kind of segregated parliamentary system that’s tied to the real one?
Let younger people vote for representatives. Those reps get speaking time in parliament. They get allowances for travelling and meeting people to understand issues. They get some reasonable amount of access to the rest of the system, including people with influence. They get a position to push for publicity of issues which concern youth. They can take part in relevant select committees or whatever else with agreement of others in parliament, and communicate what’s happeniing back to those they represent. This time, however, it’s directly on behalf of youth, instead of being from MPs who were voted for by their parents, if those parents bothered to vote at all.
Maybe youth representatives don’t have full, or any, voting rights on legislation, if that’s a concern, unless the rest of parliament decides to ask them to vote. As people then grow up into mature, responsible adults as determined by their age, they can elect representatives who do have voting rights, through the same polling booths and the same process.
I don’t know exactly how it could or should work but I think that encouraging young people to take an active interest in politics and actually vote for someone, if targeting people in school is the path to encouraging people to retain an interest, would be more effective if those young people can then take part in something which actually has some relevance.
School should be a great place to offer civics education and get people interested in how the government works and how they can influence it. Yet presently, many people will have spent multiple years completely outside school before they have even their first opportunity to cast a vote. Sometimes longer if they’ve left school early. Start it at 14 or thereabouts, get them on the electoral roll early, and everyone gets to cast at least one vote while they’re still at school, or not far gone from it, unless they choose not to.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
So now, if you’re overseas and not voting from somewhere like the Embassy in London, you can download a ballot paper, print it out, fill it in, scan it, and upload it.
They’ve omitted to mention the potentially preclusive step between ‘fill it in’ and ‘upload it’, namely getting the document witnessed. This was the reason I was unable to vote in 2014. This step could be as easy as taking the papers into the embassy for a signature or as difficult as having to pay to first have the papers translated, finding a JoP or equivalent, making an appointment and then travelling an unspecified distance to have those papers witnessed. It's all a bit easier said than done.
In the report 267 sounds promising:
In 2014, the numbers of overseas votes increased by 86.7% to 40,132 (21,496 in 2011).
But scrolling down to 272:
There were 52,226 enrolled voters with an overseas address on election day. About 40% of these electors voted.
That’s significant and fairly pathetic when taking into account that about a million New Zealanders live abroad.
with 70,000 overdue student loan borrowers, being required to divulge their current postal address is going to be problematic, it’s unnecessary. Moreover the requirement that the voting papers themselves must be witnessed and signed is going to cause unnecessary difficulty. Most odd about the enrollment process was that at no point was the applicant required to provide a scan of the passport photo page, the passport on its own should suffice for identification, given the advanced state of visual recognition technology.
The Commission has identified some minor improvements that could be made to clarify the address details that overseas voters need to provide on the declaration form prescribed in the Electoral Regulations 1996.
Given the poor showing as presented in 272, I’d have assumed that the commission could do a little better with respect to overseas voters. For clarification, I’m strongly in favour of the introduction of compulsory voting for voters *based in New Zealand*.
-
Moz, in reply to
I think "official" adulthood is a perfectly reasonable compromise.
Great. Now please identify that age.
Is it 10, the age of criminal responsibility? 16, the age at which you can consent to sex? 18, the age at which you can drink? 21, the traditional "age of majority"? 25, the age of financial independence? 35, the age at which our brains mature? or perhaps 5, the age at which we're expected to be cable of understanding conplex social situations and behaving appropriately (viz, attend school)?
-
Moz, in reply to
what about in some kind of segregated parliamentary system that’s tied to the real one? Let younger people vote for representatives. Those reps get speaking time in parliament...{but no vote}
That sounds great. I'm all for it. But I don't think it goes far enough, we should do the same for Maori. And women. And old people. And convicts. And those overseas. And disabled people. And QUILTBAGS (probably several categories would be required). And probably other groups I haven't thought of yet. But the main thing is that we introduce arbitrary qualifications for "real parliamentarians" that disqualify as many people as possible from actual participation in democracy while making a lot of noise about how they're privileged and special.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I think there’s pretty sound reasons not to let them vote, quite aside from whether they would show up. 14 year olds are legally children. They have far lesser responsibilities than adults. On average they have very rudimentary knowledge about a whole lot of very important things. And their dependence on their parents and the school system makes them prey to a lot of pressure. They might not know, nor have the skills to find out, that the secret ballot means that their parent’s can’t easily force them to vote one way or another.
All of those apply as equally to the 18-25 age group and can be backed up with studies of brain development. So while we're playing the slippery slope game lets remove their right to vote.
Personally my experience of 14-18 yr olds is that they are far less cynical and actually more engaged than the 18-25s. my guess is that it is precisely because they have less knowledge that they take it more seriously.
You could also make the argument that since they will have to live longer with the mistakes of the govt then they should have more right to vote rather than less.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
They’ve omitted to mention the potentially preclusive step between ‘fill it in’ and ‘upload it’, namely getting the document witnessed.
They really did. Mark, I've been told the Justice and Electoral Select Committee is still taking submissions on the election process, even though their deadline has officially passed. I'm sure the experience of overseas voters is something they should be hearing.
To now hugely tangent, I have a suspicion I can't really back up that maybe the Easy Vote card is contributing to a drop in turnout, because people think they need it to vote, and if they never received it or they lost it, they can't vote. People are perceiving it as voter ID. We had people come in without it on the off-chance that they could vote if they produced a driver's licence or similar ID. It's like we're confusing people by making the process too simple.
-
izogi, in reply to
Gee, Moz. It's just a compromise over not being able to vote at all, as happens presently, before people grow up and have the same rights for voting as everyone other resident. The point is to have something that might help to foster engagement earlier while people are still under the influence of school, to remove an isolating gap between when people leave school and when they're eventually expected to consider what's happening and vote. Ie. Encourage people into a habit early, in response to Emma's assertion (paragraph 4) that young non-voters remain non-voters as they get older.
Aside from people who have already missed out because they're no longer in school, that's no more exclusive than what we have already. Everyone graduates to a real vote for a real system when they get older.
Maybe it's totally appropriate to let kids vote directly into the current system. That's another issue again, and it can work then great. But if it isn't then I think there's merit in at least having something.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.