Hard News: If you can't say something nice ...
337 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 Newer→ Last
-
But practically, do you really think Labour really wants to expend the considerable time and money required (and risk a public backlash)
not unless there's evidence of a flaw in our system, and if it actually got someone into parliament.
it's the public backlash part I have a problem with. If there's reasonable cause the public should embrace it and if it proves to be erroneous then the public should rejoice in the knowledge that they have a solid system that gives accurate results.
We spend heaps of money on far less important things than an accurate election. -
Craig: I don't really care what it would do for Labour in the eyes of National party voters, and neither do they. I'd be quite happy for the Greens or anyone else to call for it though.
And if they don't think O'Connor's presence in the house is well and truly desirable, they shouldn't have had him on the list in the first place.
It's just, when the margin for error is that tight, anything under one in a thousand really, the recount should happen as a matter of normality, if for no other reason than proving our faith in the whole process. It's unlikely to be this close again for a very long time. -
losing a race by a thousandth of a second is still a loss.
Nah, it's a statistical dead heat, 'cos the timekeeping for most races isn't that accurate.
I basically agree with tussock that recounts should be automatic if
(i) there is reason not to trust the result (and if we accept that there is some possibility of error, and the margin is smaller than the possible error, then that is sufficient reason),
but for voters, especially in NZ where we tend to value function over form, there is another potentially important condition:
(ii) a difference in result would have some practical effect.
...And it's there that I think there might be a voter backlash in this case, as (obviously) Labour still loses, and the party balance of parliament is not materially changed, regardless of the result. -
Voter backlash? There's few things I know of that caused an immediate "backlash" in voting patterns in NZ. The booze and ciggy taxes imposed in '59, poor folk not liking the idea of a labour government taxing their few pleasures. Muldoon being blind drunk all the time. Shipley's benefit slashing to go with the happy fun time Employment Contracts.
But voters not liking a recount? People who vote not really wanting the votes counted in full? Surely that's just nonsense. Peters wasn't hurt for challenging the Tauronga election, but for looking dodgy in how he paid for the challenge, regardless of it not mattering in the slightest.
-
But voters not liking a recount?
Tussock: I think you're missing my point. As far as I'm aware, the only way Labour gets a complete recount is by the party secretary making seventy applications to the relevant District Courts to recount the party vote. Judicial recounts are not a trivial matter, and do you really think the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff are either incompetent or corrupt?
-
As far as I'm aware, the only way Labour gets a complete recount is by the party secretary making seventy applications to the relevant District Courts to recount the party vote. Judicial recounts are not a trivial matter, and do you really think the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff are either incompetent or corrupt?
You're all missing the point :-)
A recount of the party vote in an electorate may be made of a District Court Judge at the request of a party secretary (accompanied by a deposit of $1500).
A recount of electorate votes in an electorate may be made of a District Court Judge at the request of a candidate (accompanied by a deposit of $1000).
A recount of every party vote may be made of the Chief District Court Judge at the request of a party secretary (accompanied by a deposit of $90000).
[and the point you're all missing]
Yesterday was the last day to do it!
-
People who vote not really wanting the votes counted in full? Surely that's just nonsense.
to a sane and reasonable person you'd think so. but that didn't stop people using it as an excuse to put Bush into power for his first
Term, and it worked. "Don't upset the voters by insisting their votes be seen to be counted accurately". What a brilliant manipulation. -
People who vote not really wanting the votes counted in full?
I suspect that most NZers, like me, are confident that's already happened once, and think our system is fairly trustworthy, and doesn't need to be done again.
-
[and the point you're all missing]
Yesterday was the last day to do it!
In most forums, I suspect, one might say: no one likes a smart arse :>
This forum is quite different however, and I think we mostly do.
-
I suspect that most NZers, like me, are confident that's already happened once, and think our system is fairly trustworthy, and doesn't need to be done again.
true, but in this instance wasn't it the margin of error aspect of it.
surely if a bank can manage to make sure they never ever accidentally slip some extra cash into my account, we can have an election system that is accurate to the same level, and go out of our way to check it is so.with the out going govt I think they had a level of trust going for them, the incoming one, well, .... we'll wait and see, can't say I'm overwhelmed with feelings of confidence .....
with american politics, take your pick of reasons to doubt the fairness and accuracy of their system.
-
Graeme:
Thanks for digging a little deeper than my speed read of the relevant page on the Elections website. I guess Victoria Law School isn't a complete waste of carbon after all. :)
to a sane and reasonable person you'd think so. but that didn't stop people using it as an excuse to put Bush into power for his first
Rob: I'm a perfectly sane and reasonable person, but if I'm short ten bucks it won't magically appear if I count the contents of my wallet one more time.
with the out going govt I think they had a level of trust going for them, the incoming one, well, .... we'll wait and see, can't say I'm overwhelmed with feelings of confidence .....
*sigh* So, what are you getting at? National rigged the election, but didn't really do a terribly good job of it considering how close they came to losing a second MP on the party vote? Oy and vey...
-
I'm a perfectly sane and reasonable person,
sorry craig, I didn't mean to infer that you weren't.
crossing ghostbuster beams there.In the US election (bush part one) the argument that it was best not to upset the voters by extensive recounts was used successfully to stop recounts in progress. There's a good tv film about it called recount which I linked to above.
I'd hate to see that level of tactical politicking used here, and it most likely isn't but in the discussed case it was a margin of error thing so a recount at the single electorate level could have been worth it, not that it would have changed the balance of power.
and speaking of balance of power, why in a mmp system do we still have this war of opposing forces thing going on. why must labour and national never agree but every other party can team up as they see fit. Why don't we see the best person for the job fill the cabinet minister seat. or do thy have to keep up the pretense of conflict and competition for some reason.
National rigged the election,
not this one, but they did manage to pull of some serious magic with little to back it up. I'm more worried about the level of mentality of people who vote for a change without finding out what that change is going to be. members of my own family did it so its not like its some bunch of strangers who live across the field.
I don't mind that national got in, I mind that they did it for no apparent reason other than they put themselves up as the alternative without stating clearly how they were actually going to be better.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.