Yes that'd be virtually impossible if you were to consider, for example, a person taking a video of themselves voting on their phone.
For comparison though I wonder if there does seem to be a shortcoming in existing electoral law around this.
Last election I recall the publicity around people photographing their completed ballot papers and posting to facebook, and being told they were breaking the law. From memory, though, the law which prevented it seemed to be more obscurely about forging or replicating ballot papers than about producing evidence of who you'd voted for. (I can't recall the reference. Maybe it was 201(1)(a) of the Electoral Act?) IMHO the latter is a much more significant issue in an election than taking a photo which couldn't be passed off as a genuine ballot paper anyway.
it's the interfaces between blockchains and the rest of the world that are messy
I suppose it's a similar thing with voting. (Sign of the audience: I also zeroed in on those few words before I scrolled down and saw so much talking about it.)
I can accept how blockchains have potential to solve some, maybe all, of the technical security issues of electronic voting. That's fine and there are plenty of voting-related applications. At the same time, though, I tend to think the much more interesting issues with electronic voting, and the issues which often get ignored by people who campaign for electronic voting, are the social aspects that occur on the other side of the interface -- between real people in the real world.
If the main benefit is supposed to be to let people vote without going to a public polling station (like voting with your phone or whatever) then how does one deal with the potential for all that voter manipulation that can occur in un-monitored places? (eg. An abusive spouse, or even just general peers, watching you cast your vote with the expectation that you'll vote as they do.) If a person's vote can be verified afterwards, as the linked article seems to boast about, then what's to stop someone else from offering an incentive, or threat, to those who can or cannot prove afterwards that they voted a certain way?
...and I notice that the Herald's new site annoyingly now has autoplay on videos, thanks for nothing NZME.
If you're using Chrome then I highly recommend AutoMute. (It's possible to white-list sites you visit lots and trust.) There are probably similar add-ins for other browsers.
That's why when it comes to governing others, we came up with them pesky checks and balances
Absolutely. What I'd really like to hear, but also really wanted to hear in 2014, is Labour's view on the current checks and balances, how they're failing (assuming it thinks they are) and what it intends to do to fix them.
At the risk of bringing up a tired question (sorry!), how do people think Labour is doing with its response to this, given it's the primary opposition party and the election's approaching?
I've just listened to Andrew Little's stint on Morning Report (from 6m30s), where he was given a good 5 minutes to talk about it. He made plenty of clear points about how bad this is for the government, said the usual stuff like how Todd Barclay should be resigning, and then told people they needed to seriously consider how much they could trust Bill English.... and by the way he didn't trust Bill English.
IMHO he's getting better at interviews, but what I didn't hear him talk about was how Labour would provide a better alternative. That seems significant to me because, especially after 2014, I don't really see how scandals like this have much effect in changing the government --- at least unless people can see a credible alternative. Check out how people are reacting in Gore -- they're just excusing the whole thing as typical of all politicians, and that it's okay because the Police decided they weren't interested. Everyone wants to excuse the behaviour so they can continue to vote for a National candidate with a clear conscience.
If they want to change the government, shouldn't opposition parties, Labour in particular, be out there telling people, both in that electorate and everywhere else, that they can provide Clutha-Southland with a much better candidate than Todd Barclay? In all of this coverage, I've seen zero mention of Cherie Chapman, let alone messages about how she has more integrity as an alternative to Todd Barclay. Shouldn't parties be explaining to voters how they're going to make it so their MPs and Ministers can't get away with the kind of stuff that Barclay's being accused of? What's the benefit of focusing so much on "government = bad" if you're not going to tell people how you're better?
Guyon Espiner even gave Andrew Little an opening, at the end, to comment on common views that all polticians are untrustworthy. I don't think Little really capitalised on it at all as an opportunity to spread a positive message about how Labour would ensure its own MPs and Ministers were held to a high standard. It's almost like he only expected to be talking about National, and wasn't expecting nor prepared to talk positively about the integrity of his own party.
Yes. But surely nearly everyone I listed has access to a highly skilled PR team, and these non-apologies must have been authored by more than just themselves, often after days or more to reflect and consider. It's hard to believe people and companies in these positions, sometimes the PR departments themselves, wouldn't be being guided by PR experts, yet it still results on non-apologies.
Especially in the political cases, it's like there's an innate fear of absolutely acknowledging having really done something wrong. As well as everything else, we really need a societal shift to acknowledge that mistakes sometimes happen, and to make it acceptable to apologise for things.
Sorry to detract even further from the original topic.
Thanks for a good summary.
Then came Nicky Wagner’s half arsed “apology”
This frustrates me to no end. With a speedy search, Countdown's done it. The NZ Herald's done it. Farmers has done it. Nuk Korako's done it. The Board Chair of Fenwick School has done it. The list goes on and on and on. Google. Stephen Fry. And on. And on.
Is there a terrible PR consultant out there who actively advises clients that even when there's obvious offence, they should act as if they still can't see it for certain? Is this a real strategy that "works" for someone's ulterior motive, or is it just PR blindness and incompetence?
Perhaps I'm preaching to the converted in this forum, but what's so hard about acknowledging that something actually did cause offence, and honestly saying sorry to those people who were offended? I guess that's why it's called a non-apology.
Like others here it’s been the pay TV model that killed it for me. I’ve never played the game but used to enjoy following the All Blacks matches, Super 12 and NPC. That habit died overnight when I shifted out of the parents’ house and had no desire to pay for television.
It almost seems like an anomaly that there’s so much free media coverage of the game that I now ignore because it means so little when there’s no practical avenue to actually watch it. For comparison I see my nephews growing up religiously around rugby: they have ubiquitous access to Sky TV thanks to living so close to the grandparents.
These days when I glimpse it I haven’t a clue what’s going on in the format of the Super Whatever league. If I see parts of the occasional game at any level then I might still loosely enjoy bits, but typically have no idea who the players are or what the stakes are in the same way as I used to. I no longer bother considering going to the occasional game as I did in the past. Usually the only indication I have that they’re even happening locally is the public transport alerts, on the day, about timetable changes.
Not that I mind. I have more time for other things and that’s probably for the best, but my introspective impression is that rugby culture in NZ, and perhaps its base, seriously changed from the moment it turned its premium matches into a privileged experience which people had to either pay for, or otherwise at least make an effort to leave their homes for.
Through some reminiscence I'm trying to be enthusiastic about the Lions tour which free media keeps telling me about, but realistically I just don't care.
The only gripe I would have with RNZ is that while the likes of The Panel do at least feature opinions stretching the length and breadth of New Zealand
It that what The Panel is meant to be for? I thought it was just a space for Jim Mora's friends to express opinions on topics they often know nothing about.
Granted they've made some changes, like the One Quick Question bit, where someone who can actually explain something is often called in.
But it seems also intransigent and unable to provide such an ‘elegant solution’ as creating a left party outside Labour that could express its own personality, yet work so closely with it when required.
It causes me to think plenty about how the likes of Douglas and Prebble infiltrated NZ Labour in the 80s, despite having polar opposite ideologies from typical Labour policies. They weren't exactly going to get anywhere under Muldoon, and joining Labour was the only realistic option for getting into parliament at all. Never say never, I suppose, but under MMP things seem to have completely changed. It's no longer a two party system and so it's feasible to get into parliament without joining the only other party that has any hope whatsoever of replacing the government.
Does the UK have any realistic appetite for reviewing its electoral system? Or is it highly content with what it has?