Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: Semi-Random election law thoughts

izogi

Tue, 08 May 2012 23:46:44 +1200

Point taken. So does this then mean section 166 is then unnecessary because people who vote multiple times will inevitably be caught, convicted, punished as appropriate and have their votes reversed, anyway? If that's the case, why give scrutineers the ability to legally intimidate voters at all? Particularly if something…

Matthew Poole

Tue, 08 May 2012 19:09:00 +1200

Do They [want maximum voting participation]?

The Electoral Commission certainly do. Whether that extends to our elected overlords is a completely different question.

Islander

Tue, 08 May 2012 18:58:50 +1200

Do They?

Chris Waugh

Tue, 08 May 2012 18:29:34 +1200

The Commission’s rationale that removing the logos of unregistered parties would simplify the information provided to voters on the voting paper is unconvincing.

Extremely unconvincing. Surely the commission should be encouraging the use of logos by both parties (registered or otherwise) and independent candidates for electorates as an aid to…

Brendon Steen

Tue, 08 May 2012 17:41:04 +1200

Izogi,

Voting is not anonymous. It's time-consuming, but votes can be traced if necessary. That's why the rolls are compared after the election, so that dual-votes can be disregarded and referred to the police.

Every ballot paper has a number (covered by a black sticker). The voter's place on the…

Ross Mason

Tue, 08 May 2012 17:12:27 +1200

•63 cases of dual voting/personation

Wow. The gummint should do something about this. If ever there was a case to have everyone implanted with an electronic ID system then I don't know nuffink.

Fancy, 63 cases! Appalling. It's more than the eleven boat/group people who have triggered a certain piece…

izogi

Tue, 08 May 2012 14:33:25 +1200

I know that if a scrutineer was to ever exercise their rights under s 166 of the Electoral Act in respect of my vote, I’d want to know what party they represented in order to ensure that party never got my vote ever again.

Wow. I didn't know about [[http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/whole.html#DLM309826|that…

Graeme Edgeler

Tue, 08 May 2012 14:28:22 +1200

I may be misreading, but it looks to me that the Electoral Commission is recommending the removal, not just of the right for scrutineers to wear rosettes, but also for anyone. Which would also extend to people doing turn out on election day, presumably.

Yes. They are suggesting precisely that.…

Matthew Poole

Tue, 08 May 2012 13:49:36 +1200

As I said on the Book of Face about today's Herald article that Steve linked, other than, possibly, armed insurrection against the state, I don't think that there should be any matter taken more seriously by the Police than attacks on the integrity of our electoral system. After all, without…

Keir Leslie

Tue, 08 May 2012 12:27:08 +1200

In general I disagree with the…

Steve Barnes

Tue, 08 May 2012 11:39:19 +1200

From Today’s Herald…
Last election, there were 24 referrals to the police and 62 complaints about dual voting. Only one of the investigations into those referrals has so far been completed: the Electoral Commission’s belief that Prime Minister John Key’s hour-long stint hosting on RadioLive was an election programme…

Michael Homer

Tue, 08 May 2012 11:11:50 +1200

Being picky, I'm not sure what this is trying to say:
I arrived at the proposal to have the matter referred to the Court of Appeal arose because of that Court’s powers in respect of election petitions respecting the allocation of list seats.
It looks like two sentences mashed together…

Graeme Edgeler

Tue, 08 May 2012 07:17:13 +1200

It seems that (after a week :-) the NZ Herald has discovered the Electoral Commission's report too.

Public Address

Tue, 08 May 2012 07:17:13 +1200

Discussion from blog post.