Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ha, that Sensible Sentencing Trust press release is hilarious. Hilariously depressing I suppose...
But aren't the Herald just LOVING this. It's getting 9/11 coverage with it's own section, minute-by-minute updates, "faces behind the protest" interest stories, multimedia.
It's surely not THAT big a deal? -
global happiness is rising at the same time as global drug consumption
Not to mention global warming.
YOU do the (ill-conceived and poorly constructed) math -
Kerry at this stage I guess I'm looking for ANY moves, not necessarily bold ones! I don't really believe our country is so bad that we particularly need radical moves at this stage.
I would like some simple, clear visions for each area laid out so that I can weigh up each approach against each other. As opposed to the seemingly ad-hoc approach Labour takes these days, and the undisclosed approach that National may or may not have. . I guess it's not just a lack of policy that irks me, but the lack of a vision/intent/guiding principles that would at least let me have a stab at what their policy response may be in a certain situation.
Actually, I might try to put together my preferred policy directions on paper in the next few days so as to be able to measure them up as policy does start to come out
-
So, you're not going to be voting at all then?
I'm unfortunately dallying with this idea at the moment - neither major party has laid out a plan for the next three years that inspires me (in fact it seems neither have laid one out AT ALL).
I'm not one for voting someone out, would much prefer to vote someone in, but haven't seen any party that deserves that yet. If I had to choose at the moment it would almost be the Greens - I admire they have a vision, and they largely stick to that vision (one upside of being a minor party in MMP perhaps?). The fact I disagree with large parts of their agenda rules that vote out unfortunately.
For those of us who aren't party members/wedded to a particular ideology/historical voters of a given group this election is shaping up to be a tough one. There is still no real reason to give any particular party your vote - it's becoming a decision-on-balance of who has the more reasons not to be there. -
Matthew, my concern around secrecy for internet is not so much in the "transmission" of the vote (I imagine that has technical solutions) but in someone watching you (and therefore possibly coercing you to) cast that vote on your screen - but this same concern applies for postal votes. My wife could have watched me tick the box on a paper ballot just as she could see me do it on a screen.
Interesting that votes can currently be traced back to a voter though? That's a MUCH bigger concern than mine...
-
Perhaps burying the Iran story is because they know it's saber rattling? I'm fairly certain that if the Israeli armed forces were actually "secretly" planning a strike, it wouldn't be all over the Associated Press. The rattling in itself is a bit of a story though I suppose...
-
Oh sure, pull the old it's in the Human Rights Act card why don't you... ;-]
OK, well doesn't that pretty much screw the concept? Although I suppose the definition of secret ballot would come into play (e.g. does it simply mean it can't be traced after it's made?)
I tried to have a look around the net for discussion points on this but it was all about technical implementation, rather than the nature of someone possibly watching you make the vote. I'm sure a company I was involved with a while ago piloted an internet solution for local body STV voting - given that is already a postal ballot it makes little difference. So what's the argument behind a central government vote being absolutely super secret while a local government one can be handled through the post?Interesting stuff.
-
Stephen re integrity of the system - my view is entirely predicated on a demonstratably secure process. This is a first principle - if it can't be met, whole thing gets binned.
-
I strongly suspect that you'd get much better turnout if the timeframe was limited
Agree with this - perhaps the vote should be "offered" on www.1-day.co.nz? =]
Re, secrecy - I can see the threats of coercion etc (although a polling booth hasn't done Zimbabwe much good on that front) but am yet to be convinced (please, give it a go!) that enforced secrecy is a critical ingredient of democratic elections?
-
The sense of democracy as a community undertaking would be lost if we were able to stagger the election over two weeks.
Yes it would be, but it's not necessarily a crucial ingredient of democracy. A nice ingredient, but not crucial.
I very much doubt there would be more than a minimal effect on voter turnout, and I wouldn't be surprised if the decline in civil society I think it would precipitate actually lead to decreased interest from the politically disinclined.
And this is what the trial would presumedly be about - is the turnout (perhaps the most important part of representative democracy?) that much improved that we wear the downsides?
But on the secret vote thing - again, it's a nice part of it all, but I don't believe it is so critical to democracy that it has to be enforced for every vote in an election. Covered booths with computers should be maintained to give a choice but not enforced.
And tempting as it may be, voting shouldn't be restricted to those "who can bother and don't value convenience over electoral importance" - it's for everyone, unfortunately including those whose drive to vote is overcome by the prospect of a 20min walk down the road.Personally I imagine the trial may not find enough of an increased turnout to warrant the change (although perhaps by 2017 we will), but to my mind the negatives are not so strong as to outweigh even a slight increase in participation and freedom to vote how you want.