Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: The flag referendum:…, in reply to william blake,
Nah. We really don't do that. Swear at the flag, maybe.
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Alfie,
Regarding TPPA and climate change, would the decisions have been worse?
-
Legal Beagle: The flag referendum:…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
akin to the laws of [...] Mornington Crescent – [...] internally consistent and testable,
You've clearly never played Mornington Crescent.
-
Legal Beagle: The flag referendum:…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
N.B. the Canadian flag design passes that test now only because it has been progressively simplified over time.
-
Legal Beagle: The flag referendum:…, in reply to Sacha,
Note also the wildly misleading spin of the panel’s page: “Your chance to decide”. We never got a chance to decide: not from the full range of submissions, and not even from among their strapped-chicken shitty shortlist of 40.
-
Legal Beagle: The flag referendum:…, in reply to Ross Mason,
Alas, “informal votes” cannot win, because it isn't a flag choice, so isn't within the scope of the referendum question. As the elections.org site puts it:
The flag that receives the most votes in this final referendum will be the official flag of New Zealand.
(Also "informal votes" is not really a single category, as there are many different ways of expressing an informal vote … even if most of them should be interpreted as “stick it up ya jacksy”.)
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to BenWilson,
spending hours on the internet saying so
*sigh* so true, that.
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to BenWilson,
That list of “ors” you give was exactly the point I was making about ambiguity.
Non-votes conflate at least two distinguishable types of disengagement:
“not bothered either way” (=> “toss it in the bin”)
and
“don’t bother me with this crap” (=> “ring up and complain”).What worries me is that in this case, the level of disengagement may actually influence the decision. Sleepwalking to a change of flag on a low turnout seems the worst possible outcome from this mess, because it commits us to the expense of rebranding on the basis of support from a minority of the population, and (as Graeme Edgeler suggests) it may further postpone any chance to revisit the design more meaningfully.
-
Had we undertaken a different public process for choosing an alternative flag to run against the 1902 flag, I think it’s highly likely the alternative flag being offered in this referendum would have been Kyle Lockwood’s design
Probably so – but it would have been running against a wider range of alternative designs, rather than just the ferns (in which label I include the koru) the panel initially selected. The selection would not have been so obviously manipulated to lead to Key’s prior expressed personal preference. The selection of a Lockwood fern against genuine alternatives would have had some meaning.
And of course, the order of referendum questions makes a difference too. Choosing a new flag without first deciding we’re going to change from the old one asks a hypothetical question, which generally gives unreliable results.
-
Hard News: The flagging referendum, in reply to Mr Mark,
Interesting subgroup comparison by age: younger respondents (under 30y.o.) are more likely to favour keeping the current flag, whereas older respondents (over 55y.o) are relatively more likely to favour change (but even so, still show a higher absolute level of support for NOT changing). That generational trend goes against expectations that the young should be less conservative – and, considering who will have to live longest with the outcome, is a further argument against change.