Legal Beagle: Tastes like democracy
77 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Marks on paper, sure. Let me tell you all about the last elections here in Bonny Scotland. They were for the Edinburgh Parliament under an MMP system and local elections under a different PR system. So multiple ballot papers, problem 1.
Then there was the counting, this was to be done by automatic machines. Best of both worlds you see. It has been decided that we will never actually know the outcome of the parliamentary election as it was voted on. However we are going to go with what resulted because rerunning the election was apparently not an option...
There was a huge amount of spoiled ballots, up to 25% in some electorates but we don't know if they were deliberately spoiled, spoiled due to confusion caused by the multiple ballots or the machines couldn't read/parse them (our equivalent of hanging chads). Then there were the problems with communicating the results over the 'net to the counting centres... Some machines subsequently lost/forgot/mangled the stored counts as they were not designed for storage... It was very bad karma.
And down South of the Border there have been prosecutions over the postal voting they use in local elections. There was genuine and systematic fraud including intimidation and local bigwigs getting people to hand over their ballot papers. Very bad karma there too. Give me a polling booth every time.
Also the fact that the vote here is on a Thursday does not mean the feeling is equivalent to voting on a Saturday in NZ. My wife and I usually get up and vote first thing for eg. Also it might be good for the kids and the teachers, but what about us parents? elections mean someone has to take time off work to look after the sprog monsters. Elections here thus eat into holiday entitlements. We may get 30 working days here but they get eaten into by things like this.
My first vote was a special in North Dunedin in 1984 when we gave Muldoon a record kicking. Now that was an election to cut your teeth on! Later we moved into Michael Cullen's constituency and voted down by the beach, just along from our house. We took the kids, chatted to the elderly people who lived in the sheltered housing around the community hall and it was a very nice, relaxed piece of civic duty. I too have make the trek to NZ House in London to vote too and that is nice in a different way, though not if you are homesick.
I agree with Russel, voting by hand and counting by hand, nothing is broken so don't try and fix it. We don't have to use technology just because it's there. Just because I have a car doesn't mean I have to drive 400m to the shops. I can walk too. My wife has a digital camera (broken the CCD is toast). I have a Canon A1, currently loaded with slide film (Velvia 100 since you ask). When I send it for processing they scan it to CD in 5 different resolutions. So I get slides AND digital copies. I am also still in that space where I consider whether a shot is worth shooting or not. Now why would I want a digital just because I can?
Ditto electronic elections
-
Also, it's not just councils. It's councils, DHBs, and probably one or two other bodies. Before you know it we're like the Yanks, where voter turnout is abysmal because nobody wants to wade through a 10-page voting sheet while standing at a polling booth.
General elections are of sufficient importance to justify their own day, IMO, and I think many people who know of the idiocy of American elections would agree.General elections are of sufficient importance to justify their own day, IMO, and I think many people who know of the idiocy of American elections would agree.
One might think a nation where Winston Peters lives and prospers doesn't really get to call anyone's elections "idiotic". :) And it's only fair to point out that New Zealand is not a federal republic, where (on the federal level alone) you have a bicameral legislature and independent executive branch. I also have my doubts that we're ever going to end up electing whole swathes of our judiciary, senior law enforcement and what here would be roughly equivalent to senior civil servants.
-
Love your work!
I think it's important that there is a bit of effort required. I ritually have voted in every election (in the three countries I've lived in). Never miss one. Even if I just spoil my paper (which I used to in the UK - bloody FPP!)
It's not just about numbers - it's about real participation.
-
I love voting. I also love the enforced silence on polling day. I was involved in a fairly protracted debate about this on a forum elsewhere last time around, I think with people who were concerned about it infringing on their 'freedom of speech'. I like that idea that it is a better form of free speech. Only when we are very quiet can we hear the voices of the weakest. I'm sure someone else has already thought up that argument, but I liked it.
-
where (on the federal level alone) you have a bicameral legislature and independent executive branch.
That's three people to elect: President, Senator, Congress critter. Drop that back a layer, and it's another three. Entirely manageable with paper and hand counting.
I also have my doubts that we're ever going to end up electing whole swathes of our judiciary, senior law enforcement and what here would be roughly equivalent to senior civil servants.
And thank goodness for that. Elected judiciaries are a scary concept, and there are plenty of stories about the shit that elected sheriffs get up to. Hell, look at Arpaio in Arizona, who keeps getting elected because he does things that are popular despite the fact that he costs millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements.
If they want to elect ever layer of 'crat, that's their lookout. Doesn't make them any less ludicrous.
-
"I also love the enforced silence on polling day."
Gotta agree there.They take down their signs the day before and it's over bar the shouting (later that night).
Also the one day every three years when the community cares about the elderly and lends a hand to include them in our world.
-
And thank goodness for that. Elected judiciaries are a scary concept, and there are plenty of stories about the shit that elected sheriffs get up to...
ITA, Matthew. Even if there are moments when I look at some of our resident Court Jesters and alleged leadership in the Police and think "slam-dunk argument in favour of random workplace drug testing", I don't think the alternative is that flash either. My point, and one I didn't make as well as I could have, is that it's very easy to take cheap jabs at American elections and government. God knows there's no shortage of material. But it helps to keep in mind that (to put it rather simplistically) New Zealand's constitutional arrangements evolved out of the Westminster system. The United States, quite consciously, took on the punk mantra of "rip it up and start again". For all its flaws, absurdities, ambiguities and (sometimes) outright horrors, you've got to admire an ever-changing laboratory of democracy that hasn't quite imploded over two and a quarter centuries.
-
Condiments are served.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10519656
And yet no-one has been made to account.
-
That's three people to elect: President, Senator, Congress critter. Drop that back a layer, and it's another three. Entirely manageable with paper and hand counting.
It's only every 12 years that you'll elect all three of president, senator, congress in one polling booth. Congress are every two years, president every four years, senator every six years (god knows why there isn't more consistency, but there isn't).
So a 12 year electoral cycle looks like this:
2 Congress
4 Congress, President
6 Congress, Senate
8 Congress, President
10 Congress
12 Congress, Senate, PresidentI know they elector Governors at the same time as Federal positions, I presume state senates and congresses as well, so theoretically you could be ticking 6 different positions, ignoring the dog catchers, building supervisors, etc etc.
-
Kyle - you've forgotten that there are two senators.
-
... and here's someone who vaguely knows what he's talking about discussing one aspect of the electronic thing...
-
Kyle - you've forgotten that there are two senators.
Oh sorry yes, and the terms don't match up you're correct. Ignore my timetable then.
-
slarty: that stimulated me to realise what bothers me about these kinds of discussion.
People propose electronic or online voting systems and presume that security problems are just another technical issue that will be ironed out. The allure of automation persuades people to gloss over the difficulties, and turn to the practicalities of legislation, rolling out a new system, voter behaviour, and so on.
But all the evidence we have of how things have worked out in the real world is that security is not a problem like other problems, and is not easily solved. It's one of those things that's easy in theory -- Matthew could probably outline a secure scheme in a couple of paragraphs -- but hard in practise.
Whenever I hear these proposals, I think of the Simpsons "monorail" episode.
-
I agree - like I said, I like the ritual of it. The machinery is an irrelevance.
I reckon that such a basic process doesn't need to get fancy. Let's face it, the only reason some people like the machines is because you get a faster result... and what, precisely is the benefit? The media like it, the candidates are put out of their misery a bit quicker.
But in the end the actual "handover" isn't any faster. We're only talking a day or two. Perhaps we should just consider that to be part of the theatre of the whole thing.
Then when you add in the risk associated with more "sophisticated" techniques... well, it's probably not just that it's not worth it, but is actively damaging to the integrity o the process.
-
PS. Mr Poole, fancy a competition? You design it, I'll break it :)
-
You design it, I'll break it
Aahh - software testing at its most elegant...
-
3410,
From the Guardian:
London mayoral election: doubts over 41,000 votes counted by machine -
I'll start with a disclaimer: I've been advocating for e-democracy (a part of which is e-voting) since 1999. I was part of a group which brought Steven Clift to NZ that year. And I was Director of the NZ Electronic Electoral Trial - a JV between the Campaign for Digital Democracy (Calif.), Victoria University and my political consulting firm.
As a result I could easily write several thousand words on the topic (and will, if submissions are called upon a Bill to introduce it). But I won't burden you with my rhetoric here. Instead I'll urge you to read Steven's e-book and to Google and read the vast amount of critical thought given to the issue by Professor Stephen Coleman.
It's taking an almost physical effort of will to withhold those 3000 words, so I'll simply conclude by saying that this isn't a discussion we should fail to have simply because we're attached to the (albeit pleasurable and imbued with meaning) ritual of turning up to the polling booth, or fears of elite haxzors (no doubt employed by Crosby Textor;-) ) hijacking our elections.
-
So what constitutes insider trading?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10519884
-
A simple electoral system:
- get rid of electorate MPs
- vote every on an open party list basis for MPs, councillors, DHB members and dog wardens
- either vote on the simple ballot, e.g: "National" or "Green"
or on a ballot where you list every candidate in order, should you know who they are.
- the math gets done and people get elected -
we're attached to the (albeit pleasurable and imbued with meaning) ritual of turning up to the polling booth, or fears of elite haxzors
It's neither of those for me. It's not wanting somebody to be able to say to a voter: show me how you voted and I'll fix you a state house / permanent residence / not beat you up.
-
show me how you voted
Just as well you are not blind, Rich. That's exactly how it stands for them now - minus the offers/threats, hopefully...
-
How hard would it be to automatically produce braille voting papers, which the voter could punch with a stylus? They could be folded and placed in a ballot box just as well as ordinary papers. They would actually be harder to snoop than ordinary papers.
That seems like a much smaller problem to solve than implementing a full online vote system.
-
(By small I mean technical difficulty, not importance of course).
-
I tend to agree, Stephen. It's one example, but not many people use braille out of the number who face barriers to voting within the current set-up. I know the Electoral Office have been improving the range of other options like early voting and suchlike. If they can address the security concerns that people have so eloquently raised here, then online voting may cost-effectively remove many barriers to everyone exercising their vote. Nice to be having the conversation, anyway.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.