Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
What more would anyone like them to have done in this case?
Well, given a court just found a case to answer, they could have just dug out and presented the evidence?
-
Here's a San Fran ballot:
http://www.sfelections.org/sample_ballots/2013_11/SB_BT01.pdfNote they use three-choice STV (I think) rather than exhaustive STV.
-
Hard News: The non-binary council, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Well, they can do their research, or just rank Green/Labour/others. Or we go to a list based system that makes voting simpler.
Other countries do proportional representation voting in polling booths, you know.
-
Hard News: The non-binary council, in reply to Kumara Republic,
The GLC was abolished because in the prevailing demographics of 1986, it would always be solidly Labour, whereas many of the boroughs were solid or winnably Tory.
You can view the super-city as an attempt to pull the same trick in reverse, gluing vast swathes of National-voting countryside onto Auckland in an effort to cement a solid right-wing hegemony. It didn't work, not least because the yokels were pissed off at the anschluss.
The NZ approach, as in Canterbury was simply to abolish the inconveniently lefty council and appoint commissioners over the wishes of the voters.
-
Brown just needs to dig his heels in and refuse to resign. He can't be removed unless convicted of an offence carrying two years in jail, unless Key wants to sack the entire council. He isn't the candidate of a party, so they can't force him out and he isn't required to have the confidence of council. Them's the rules.
-
Hard News: The non-binary council, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
I'm talking about online voting vs ballot box voting.
In a polling place, it's illegal to watch somebody vote and the officials are there to stop this from happening.
That's the gold standard. We should be moving from postal voting to in person voting, not from postal to online. And we certainly shouldn't consider online or postal voting as an acceptable means of conducting parliamentary elections (except, as now, when a voter is genuinely unable to vote in person).
-
Hard News: The non-binary council, in reply to Heather Gaye,
The negation test for platitudes: if the inverse of a phrase is ridiculous, it's a platitude:
"I want to make Auckland a world-class city" => "I want to make Auckland an unregarded backwater"
"I want to make the neigbourhood safer and more pleasant" => "I want to make the neighbourhood unpleasant and dangerous"etc
-
Hard News: The non-binary council, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Also, for general elections at least, requires a court order within the period (1 year?) before the papers are destroyed.
-
Incidentally, I wonder if there has been any research done matching postal ballot papers from the same household and doing handwriting analysis to see what percentage of ballot papers get filled out by one person?
Would this be legal, if done with due anonymity?
-
Hard News: The non-binary council, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
How on earth can you verify that nobody else saw the user vote?
That's the crux of it, and good enough reason not to ahead, even if all the other problems are solved.
We get reasonable turnouts in general elections. If we made registration more automatic, we'd get better turnouts, especially in the 18-21 age group of first time voters who move often.
Why not just align council elections with national ones and have another few pages on the ballot paper?