Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #7: Supplementary Member? https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/ en-us Copyright (c) 2026 Public Address Graeme Edgeler https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236776#post236776 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236776#post236776 Can I just double check that this means that if someone uses something other than a tick to indicate a preference that their vote is still valid?

A vote is valid and will count if, in the opinion of the returning officer, the voter's intention is clearly indicated.

Tick. Cross.…

]]> Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:35:01 +1300 JLM https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236723#post236723 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236723#post236723 1. It has been the practice in New Zealand for a substantial length of time that our electoral laws do whatever they can to ensure that people's votes count. If the voter's intention is clear their vote counts as far as possible. e.g. if you leave blank or void the… ]]> Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:13:01 +1300 tussock https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236718#post236718 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236718#post236718 Why didn't we get preferential voting for the preferential side of this?

You know

FPP 4
PV 2
SM 3
STV 1

And then a Condorcet count of it, or at least PV? Why a plurality vote to ask if we want a preferential system? As you said, we've already…

]]> Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:10:16 +1300 Graeme Edgeler https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236663#post236663 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236663#post236663 However, in your last fact-check you were also guilty of (to an extent) misrepresenting the difference between the Royal Commission recommendations of MMP and what MMP looked like when it was implemented. I thought you made the minor differences seem huge and either dismissed or didn't discuss the huge number… ]]> Sat, 12 Nov 2011 16:11:58 +1300 tussock https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236656#post236656 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236656#post236656 Surely saying it's an insufficient step, fails to solve the problem at hand, and is merely palliative toward proportionality is about as disdainful of a dismissal as you'd ever see from a royal commission?

They didn't reject it out of hand as a fundamentally flawed system like cumulative or points…

]]> Sat, 12 Nov 2011 15:24:02 +1300 gavin long https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236637#post236637 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236637#post236637 Sat, 12 Nov 2011 11:27:18 +1300 Graeme Edgeler https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236594#post236594 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236594#post236594 Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:13:52 +1300 Public Address https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236593#post236593 https://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/legal-beagle-referendum-fact-check-7-supplementary/?p=236593#post236593 Discussion from blog post.

]]> Fri, 11 Nov 2011 19:13:52 +1300