Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to Bart Janssen,
And then there's the media phone-in/online audience opinion polls, with no attempt at random or representative sampling. Those would be "entertainment only" ... if they were entertaining rather than just infuriating.
-
Hard News: Metiria's Problem, in reply to simon g,
More seriously, we really are voting for possible coalitions rather than for single parties this time. Contra MSM messaging that a Green vote could be "wasted", I would argue that if you want to have a Labour-Green coalition government, then that is more likely to happen if you vote Green than if you vote Labour. Similarly, if you want to have a Labour-Green-Maori coalition, then that is more likely if you vote Maori (since that partnership would work better if Marama Fox is brought in from the list).
Meanwhile, Winston's refusal to commit leaves voters unable to vote directly for a National-NZF or Labour-NZF coalition should they want either of those options. To the extent that Winston has a track record, it's supporting the single largest party, so those who do want such an outcome are safer voting for National or for Labour, respectively. -
Hard News: Where are all the polls at?, in reply to izogi,
The percentages are just for the first-ranked issue for each respondent, hence the 100% total. That's a very blunt-instrument metric, because of course for most respondents many of the other listed issues would also have been "important", and in some cases combinations of second- and third-ranked issues might actually have outweighed the first-ranked response.
-
Up Front: The Surprisingly Sincere Up…, in reply to FletcherB,
Approaching an individual and asking how they voted would still seem prohibited by section 203 on infringement of secrecy. See especially 203(2)(b)
No person, except for some purpose authorised by law, shall […] attempt to obtain in a polling place information as to the candidate for whom or the party for which a voter in the polling place is about to vote or has voted
It may be that a properly anonymised survey, conducted at some distance from the polling station, could be “authorised”, but that is not explicitly stated.
-
I can report that the advance-vote polling station I used in Blenheim was more wheelchair-friendly, with level ground-floor access through wide sliding doors (though I suspect the space available to get in and out of the booths might be slightly too narrow for easy manoeuvring). Certainly an improvement on last election's venue, which was a considerable distance out from the town centre. One niggle: the address given on elections.org.nz is slightly out. The map location is correct, but the address number given is actually for the building over the road. In practice the signage is visible enough to redirect those who go to the wrong building.
-
Up Front: The Surprisingly Sincere Up…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Surprisingly, yes, that doesn’t seem directly excluded by the relevant section 80(1)(a) which disqualifies from voting
a New Zealand citizen who […] is outside New Zealand and has not been in New Zealand within the last 3 years
with some exemptions for people in certain specified types of overseas service, and their families.
To be registered to vote in a particular electorate, you should have resided continuously for 1 month in that electorate; but as far as I can tell, that requirement doesn’t need to have been met within the last 3 years. -
197 (1)(c) would seem to preclude the publication of the results of any exit poll before the close of polls, by means of
any statement having direct or indirect reference to the poll by means of any loudspeaker or public address apparatus or cinematograph or television apparatus
; but just in case there’s any doubt, 197 (1)(e) expressly forbids conducting such a poll:
at any time on polling day before the close of the poll, conducts a public opinion poll in relation to the election
[ETA: gah, too slow]
-
Have to admit, the "EasyVote card" reference is strange to me. How long has that been a thing? I don't remember getting one last time, and certainly won't receive one before voting this time. (I will be casting an advance vote before returning to Japan.) If it isn't actually needed for voting, what is its purpose?
-
Bigger picture: once again, National is involved in victim-bashing — in this case, victims of National’s own policy settings making more conventional employment less available and less attractive (e.g. 90-day trials, exceptions to minimum wage…), making education or upskilling harder to access, and making accommodation unaffordable for relatively unskilled young adults, and perverting the welfare system to prioritize cutting benefits over providing meaningful assistance into employment. Surprise, some of those worst affected by this negligent government are gang members. (Which still does not establish that most drugs are supplied by gangs! Rather, gangs are just a conveniently visible “other” minority, from within that marginalized subset of NZ, for bullies like Bennett to attack.)
-
Hard News: Drugs and human rights, in reply to ,
“the gangs” grand plan is actually hand to mouth
Mostly true. Levitt & Dubner, in Freakonomics Ch.3 “Why Do Drug Dealers Still Live With Their Moms?”, show that gang-related drug trade tends to operate as a pyramid scheme, with most gang members involved barely subsisting, while profits are mostly diverted to the top of the hierarchy. Possibly NZ gangs are more egalitarian than those in Chicago, but even so, the income is not going to support lavish lifestyles for all involved.