FPP sucks, yes
My hobby horse has probably had enough of being chased around the paddock by my bugbear now, so time to shut them both up.
It almost seems that one should in part choose residence based on electorate. Choose a safe seat based on affiliation or a marginal if undecided. Otherwise just feel a bit angry twice a decade
Right at the moment we've got an alliance of parties orienting themselves specifically (and explicitly) with regard to a demographic of notorious non-voters, and in doing so they're tailoring both their message and its medium.
Isn't that democracy in action? Hasn't collective non-voting in that respect therefore inspired a political response? Aren't those non-voters now at least getting the chance of seeing candidates who might actually appeal to them -- something that wouldn't have occurred if they'd all simply obeyed the dictates of the righteous and paternalistic, swallowed down their gag reflex and cast a dutiful vote for the least bad option available?
(Unsurprisingly, the result is that legions of anti-democrats (most notably, of course, those holding or seeking to hold political power) are in a shit-spin over it, showing their true colours as they maintain that only particular forms of political discourse are legitimate.)
The You must vote message is so complacent and arrogant and self-important, it really makes me want to hurl.
The You lose your right to complain argument is so stupid that anyone making it loses their right to have opinions.
No disparagement intended re James Hurman's related post, btw. It most certainly is a good thing to have an understanding of constitutional principles. But that doesn't mean that if you feel alienated from the political culture you shouldn't express that in the only available way.
The You lose your right to complain argument is so stupid that anyone making it loses their right to have opinions.
No, it has a certain validity. When people don't vote out of laziness or apathy, I have no problem with them being told not to complain. If you've got the motivation to whinge, you've got the motivation to get yourself to a polling station and cast a vote. What annoys me about the "you lose your right to complain argument" is that it denies people the right to abstain as a conscious decision.
showing their true colours as they maintain that only particular forms of political discourse are legitimate.)
Yeah, I've been enjoying watching from this distance as Kim Dotcom shakes things up like a court jester gone feral.
What annoys me about the “you lose your right to complain argument” is that it denies people the right to abstain as a conscious decision.
If one wishes to abstain as a conscious decision, then you should turn up, get your voting papers, and use them to not vote. That way your abstention will be counted.
Are such papers, whether they're spoilt or left blank, actually counted? Do they have any effect on the outcome?
It would be nice to think an electorate could elect "Nobody" if a plurality of the voters thought all the candidates were rubbish, and have that electorate's seat sit pointedly empty in Parliament for a full term. And have that empty seat recorded as an "abstention" every time Parliament votes, and yet still require the government to win a full majority, and not just a majority of those seats not empty, to pass any legislation.
ETA: I would also like electorates have a right of recall and electorate MPs as independents rather than party members, but it's a minimum of 8 months until I'll be able to register on the electoral roll again, so this is about as much influence as I could possibly have on these things right now.
'No Confidence' used to poll well in certain student association elections.
Yeah, I’ve been enjoying watching from this distance as Kim Dotcom shakes things up like a court jester gone feral.
As in a Beppe Grillo kind of feral?
Are such papers, whether they’re spoilt or left blank, actually counted? Do they have any effect on the outcome?
Yes, and no. So any paper whose voting intent can't be easily distinguished for any reason is put in a pile during first count, on election night, and the number of papers in that pile tallied, because the overall count of papers has to agree. But no distinction is made at any point as to whether that paper has been deliberately spoiled to make a political statement, or stuffed up because someone ticked two boxes, or drawn all over in crayon by a bored child.
Likewise, the percentage of people who don't vote is also counted, and is being used as a number of significance this time around. But in both cases, there is absolutely no way to determine whether the action is out of apathy, ignorance, bloody-mindedness, or whatever. As a political statement... I absolutely support anyone's right to choose not to vote for any reason. But as a political statement, it's a very quiet and muddy one.
find something to vote for rather than against
Turning around the confrontational political system in New Zealand will make the biggest difference to our society. Compromise and negotiation to reach a common understanding.
Isn’t that democracy in action? Hasn’t collective non-voting in that respect therefore inspired a political response?
That's actually a pretty interesting argument. But not every election will be like this one, where the centre-left's search for voters is being aided by a pissed-off millionaire is donating money and charisma to a party/coalition avowedly targeting non-voters of more than one sort.
And Labour's recent outreach is going pretty much to people who do vote -- free GP visits for children whose parents vote, and for older people, who definitely vote. The Greens have long endured a situation where they have the nominal support of young people, only to have the buggers not turn up on the day.
You need a certain confluence of events for non-voting to look like a strategy.
I had a habit of doing specials , when I was voting Greens. It made my vote more noticeable.
How much does it cost to run as an independent? If you wanted to have someone to vote for, and didn't like any of the candidates, could you run as an independent without any aim of attracting other votes, and vote for yourself? Or would that be an expensive exercise?
According to The Electoral Act 1993 (and subsequent amendments) :
144 Deposit by candidate
(1) Every constituency candidate, or some person on the constituency candidate’s behalf, shall deposit with the Returning Officer the sum of $300 not later than noon on nomination day.
(2) The deposit shall be paid in the form of money, a bank draft, or a bank cheque.
(3) The deposit of an unsuccessful candidate is forfeit and must be paid into the Crown Bank Account if the candidate receives in total less than 5% of the total number of votes received by constituency candidates in the district.
(4) In every other case, the deposit of a constituency candidate must be returned to the person who paid it, but only after the Electoral Commission has received a duly completed return under section 210 in respect of that candidate.
So it costs you $300, unless you manage to get 5% of the valid votes.
It would be an interesting experiment if one had a spare $300 to nominate oneself, spend no other money, seek no publicity, vote for yourself, and see how many other votes you end up with.
The lowest numbers of votes received in the 2011 election were for an Independent candidate in Wellington Central, and a Communist League candidate in Mt Roskill, each with 32 votes, but the Wellington Central candidate "wins" because there were more electorate votes cast there, so her 0.08% of the electorate vote is less than the 0.1% the Mt Roskill candidate got.
Based on the average number of electorate votes cast, you'd be looking at needing to get in the region of 1630 votes to get your deposit back. I think that would be unlikely without some actual campaigning of some sort. But if you can afford to pay $300 for the luxury of voting for someone whose opinions exactly match yours, it's an option!
Back in the day civil servants got 2 weeks off if they ran for parliament - $300 for 2 weeks off is a great deal - I remember us all planning on changing our names to "Rob Muldoon" and running in Tamaki
When people don’t vote out of laziness or apathy, I have no problem with them being told not to complain. .... the right to abstain as a conscious decision.
Apathy is a perfectly reasonable response to an uninspiring political culture.
So it's ok if it's "a conscious decision" but not if it's just basic malaise? Again, apparently one's state of mind dictates whether or not one is a legitimate participant in society.
But as a political statement, it’s a very quiet and muddy one.
So is your precious vote.
I mean, you may have weighed up all the policy statements of the parties, analysed the likely alliances, considered the polls and perfected an algorithm to help you to optimise your ability to influence the country's likelihood to move in a direction that you favour.
But the votes you cast reflect all that no more or less than your neighbour's votes reflect his conviction that "Winston keeps them honest" or whatever other inanity he might subscribe to.
That's the infuriating beauty of it. And I suspect that a lot of the pro-voting rhetoric reflects an obstinate refusal to notice that ridiculous 3-yearly bathos, where months of close attention comes down to this absurd, trifling, seemingly inconsequential little act.
But not every election will be like this one, where the centre-left’s search for voters is being aided by a pissed-off millionaire is donating money and charisma to a party/coalition avowedly targeting non-voters of more than one sort....You need a certain confluence of events for non-voting to look like a strategy.
No, you just need people who are prepared to make shit happen. It's not like a particular niche opened up in an otherwise replete political ecosystem, allowing InternetMana to sneak in. What happened was some people actually used their brains and imaginations and figured out that it's actually possible to shake shit up.
Sure, Dotcom's money and (in)fame has obviously helped, but still, he chose to do that. Other people have money and fame and influence, but it's seldom put towards political ends. Or they don't know how to connect with people. (Of course, we've yet to see whether InternetMana can actually affect voting demographics, but I'm impressed by the effort.)
Anyway, I wasn't saying that non-voting is a strategy; I was saying that it's a legitimate form of participation, and that it can be politically consequential. Surely, if you're not voting, someone should be seeking your vote. It's just a reflection of the moribund nature of our politics that it seems alarming to everyone when that actually happens.
it can be politically consequential
Just like the last election. If only all those people who stayed home had wanted the government we got, your theory might hold more water.
Not that I’m insisting everyone should have to vote or that our options for political involvement stop there. Perhaps it’s best to work on some local community action instead? Maybe they have enough on their plate with daily life and politics is just not a priority? Anyway, I’d rather people made an informed choice for themselves rather than felt like they weren’t up to voting, or couldn’t see the point of it - or believed that not voting has the same effect as voting does.
a Communist League candidate
Was the vote split due to better resourced Communist Union and Communist Soccer candidates standing?
...nominate oneself, spend no other money, seek no publicity, vote for yourself, and see how many other votes you end up with.
As a control to The Goldsmith Experiment?