how you see it as an ad
It doesn't fit with the rest of PA, it's actually jarringly different. It's all about a single person/company, and it's clearly written by a not-very-good marketing person. At best they normally write for a very different audience and they have done no research to see what PA is like so they've badly misread their audience (viz, they're not very good). The lack of a byline is very unusual here, but from the reception so far I think the author's decision to hide their identity was the right one.
Which is why the few who've responded have all assumed that Russell is being paid for publishing this. It's the most charitable explanation.
the over 500k adult expat NZers worldwide, about half of whom are not registered to vote.
How many of them are eligible, though? Is that 500k who could vote out of 1M total, or 500k total?
They have to have visited NZ in the last 3 years and I suspect a lot won't. There's the obvious bias there where green voters are much less likely to have flown (let alone internationally), and I'd guess the lower income voters likewise, which might make National a bigger beneficiary of that effect. But I'm going to guess both effects are dwarfed by simple "no reason to go back".
mission to increase the number of data insights actioned
In a 100% buzzword-compliant manner on a going-forward basis.
Is this sponsored content?
Rosemary, they could apply it to all sorts of things if they wanted to. Parliamentarians allowances, for example, with all those "and your spouse" things they slip in.
Why should the taxpayer fund both the family home and the Wellington flat, let alone flights between them, when other people are expected to move if they get a job in a far-away place? That seems like a really unreasonable suggestion to me, but it fits the National "families have to be forced to look after each other" philosophy. But not the "one rule for you" one, and I can guess which takes priority.
people in Labour would be happy to see the back of the Greens, even if it meant losing this election
I thought that's what Labour had been doing for the last few elections? Deciding that their internal politics are more important than anything else pretty much sums them up.
The Conversation has a topical article on voting restrictions, based on a study into support for explicitly including young people in government decision-making. Although given the popularity of sham "community consultation" perhaps that would just make younger people more cynical, sooner?
The Electoral Commission does a review of every election
I should do that, it's not as though one more submission will unduly tax me. But just to be clear, the second quote you replied to was Jeremy not me.
If you wanted to make a point, finding a mute person would be the way to go. Or just developing a sore throat on the day, since I suspect a doctor's certificate wouldn't be enough to make your late vote valid. But I also expect that the staff are not going to be dicks about the rule.
Ooh, I wonder if this will also help remove the mentally infirm? "state your full name" ... "Mary Anne-Marie, oh, I mean Anne Marie, Sarah" "sorry Ma'am, I have Mary Sarah Anne-Marie here, you're not eligible to vote". If they're not doing that what exactly is the point of the recitation?
As soon as it becomes possible to bring away evidence of a vote, it becomes possible to compel someone to produce that evidence.
That. Making it bluntly illegal would be very useful. I'm not sure of the penalty though, coercion makes that decision pretty fraught.
possibly get rid of registering at all so people can just turn up and vote.
That's surprisingly practical in Aotearoa because of the comparatively liberal voting restrictions and the largely computerised systems we have for tracking people. Emma already mentioned the tablet, for example. It would be almost trivial if we had an Estonian-style national ID card (perhaps not exactly like theirs though). Personally I'd like to see it just because I like voting to be as widespread as possible.
For those excited by the prospect of voting on basic human rights, we West Islanders find out today whether the Australian Bureau of Statistics will get to carry out a postal opinion poll on whether teh gayz should get to marry. The government can't organise an actual vote, or even promise that it would respect one if we had one. Try not to pity us too obviously.
it must not include numbers or symbols
They're really asking for pedantry there, IMO. I'm kinda wondering if you could register 💩 as the name of a political party instead. Or more to my taste, "😍🚲❣ Party"