Posts by Phil Lyth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: 14 Pages of Democracy, in reply to Jeremy Eade,
Can’t remember precisely but research by Vowles Boston and others after past elections suggests quite a high proportion of voters decide on the day and even at the polling booh. 10% – 20%? That would be far in excess of 100.
-
Legal Beagle: 14 Pages of Democracy, in reply to nzlemming,
Briefings to Incoming Ministers
I've spoken to a person in the PM's office. NZ can expect proactive release of the briefings in the New Year.
To my mind, they'd be mad to not take advantage of the slow news weeks mid-Jan to early-Februrary, but we'll see.
-
Legal Beagle: 14 Pages of Democracy, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
folks in hospital on E-Day
An aside: there were polling places in most if not all hospitals on polling day.
-
Legal Beagle: 14 Pages of Democracy, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
And National puts adverts in the paper with phone numbers for people to ring for takeaway votes. The point is?
-
Legal Beagle: 14 Pages of Democracy, in reply to nzlemming,
Briefings to Incoming Ministers pop up yet? They had all been released by 17 December last time and were trumpeted by each minister as they came out, but nary a word this time.
Last time the Ministers were sworn in on 19 November: this year it was 14 December.
I've made a phone call and will report. There is usually a coordinated programme to release the BIMs.
-
Legal Beagle: 14 Pages of Democracy, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
Whats to stop a party (blue or red take your pick) arranging this to their advantage
Please be explicit about what you are suggesting.
I think you do not have a solid argument to suggest wrongdoing. As I noted above, any would-be fraudster is stymied by not knowing who has not (and is not) going to vote.
So any party is not going to collect takeaway votes unless an elector has asked. And if that elector has asked they either (a) know they filled the vote out themself or (b) trust the party's person. Had I asked for a takeaway vote to be collected and the party's person never came back, I'd be screaming from the rooftops.
As an aside, parties' person handling takeaway votes have to be approved in advance by the returning officer IIRC.
-
The votes that interest me are the so called "take-away votes" real room for skulduggery there
In theory perhaps, but in practice I believe the system is robust.
I picked up a takeaway vote on the day for my wife, who was unable to walk any distance. I had to identify myself, my qualification to be able to get a takeaway vote, sign for it. Then at home Selena had to complete the special vote declaration, I witnessed it, she voted, and sealed the vote in the correct compartment. We went through a helpful checklist which came with the voting package.
The real protection, with ordinary votes as with specials and takeaways, is the diversity of opportunities to vote. A would-be fraudster has no way of knowing who has not voted (or is going to do so before 7pm.) And even so, as has been noted I think on the earlier thread, the effort needed is far greater than the reward.
-
I am grateful to Judge Adams for the detail he has gone into in his decisions. Very very useful.
Will be reading and inwardly digesting over the next day.
-
Legal Beagle: 14 Pages of Democracy, in reply to Maud Cahill,
Maud, if you made an 'advance vote' in 2008 and 2011, then in 2008 you had to make a declaration, but not so in 2011.
An advance vote was as of right in 2011.
Somewhat different from a special declaration vote.
-
Graeme, the Stuff story attributed direct and indirect quotes to an Electoral Commission person:
However, the Electoral Commission said the court would also be guided by the need to observe real justice.
"The question would be whether the court was prepared to make additional orders relating to the allocation of list seats when the act makes provision for the allocation of list seats to be challenged by way of a petition to the Court of Appeal," a spokeswoman said.
My view is that the Act only gives the High Court to make orders in relation to the one seat in Parliament about which the petition is lodged. I don't think it has ever been suggested that there is any power to make consequential variations to list seats.
Your views?