Posts by Keir Leslie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Does saying that you have already voted a particular way (“I voted Green”) constitute an attempt to influence another’s vote (eg: “you should vote Green”)?
I should suspect so, if it was made by a candidate at an election. Certainly I wouldn’t say it.
And I should say that when I say `influence voters’ I am being imprecise and wrong. The rules for interference (s197(1)(a)) are different from the rules for publishing (s197(1)(g)). Strictly, the parallel prohibition is s197(1)(g)(i), and then there is a more stringent (g)(iii) that forbids the publication of party names. However, there’s a defence around news that mitigates the harshness of that part.
So even if Hughes wasn’t caught by (i), he’d be caught by (iii), which isn’t parallel to the s197(1)(a) rule.
But really, the broad category of actions `talking to strangers about how to vote’ is prohibited on election day, and has been for a very long time.
-
I mean, when Gareth Hughes says he wants to say `I party voted Green today', he knows that it would be an offence for him to say that to a group of voters, right? It isn't like the rules here are new.
(It actually worries me that Hughes doesn't know that --- what do the Greens get up to on Election Day?)
-
Your Twitter stream doesn’t have to be a “political page” for you to be seen to attempt to influence others’ votes on the day. It’s a breach if you post a Facebook status that reads “Woo! Everybody vote for Winston today!” It’s publishing.
Yeah, just like if I say on the way into the polling booth `vote Winston'. But if your twitter stream doesn't attempt to influence voters, you are almost certainly in the clear. If your facebook status doesn't attempt to influence voters, you are almost certainly in the clear*.
The relevant law is section 197 of the Electoral Act. (And people should read the Act, and not just rely on the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission can't decide what the Act means. It just decides what it thinks the Act means.) It isn't aimed at people talking about their dogs. It is aimed at people who try and influence voters.
* the one dodgy issue, as I see it, is the comments thing. What if some schmuck puts something illegal on your page? Well, really, I dunno. But I doubt that a court would punish you for that; it seems contrary to the intent of the law. (Unless you were, say, a political party. When they might take a different view. And so that's who the EC are telling to play it safe.)
-
But is it reasonable to expect people to disable comments that have no connection to the election at all?
No, and they don't expect you to; the disabling comments thing is aimed at political pages. I think people are taking the advisory way out of context.
-
Realistically, isn't the Electoral Commission’s advice aimed at parties, candidates, and the news media? Obviously the law is the law for everyone, but the tenor seems to be aimed at political parties and the like.
-
Most Urdu speakers, I assume, would speak enough of one of Hindi*, Punjabi, Farsi, or English, to make it unlikely there are a great deal of Urdu speakers who can't access that information. So I suspect they do it by `languages with least overlap', but then they may just do it by most speakers, or possibly just by the age-old heuristic, who complains? I too am quite interested.
* I dunno how well most Urdu readers can read Hindi.
-
You can't say the tone on the ground in Wigram wasn't, er, somewhat more pragmatic in 2008.
I wouldn't know --- I wasn't there yet! But yeah, there was a fair bit of pragmatism (to put it mildly) floating around Wigram, and the mayoral election certainly showed that Labour's quite happy to work with Jim.
-
No but they were able to rely on Anderton on the left of them in much the same way as National has relied on ACT.
I don't think that this is true, to be honest. Until 2002, Labour & Anderton were elctorally competitive. Since '02, Labour haven't tried very hard to unseat Jim, but then I think that would have been impossible. Labour have never gifted Jim a seat the way National have Act, and in fact pointedly didn't keep the Alliance alive in '02.
-
I fail to see how comparing the maintaince of a pseudo-party for politicial advantage to Berlusconi's maintainance of a pseudo-party for political advantage is in any way a bad comparison. It seems quite a good one.
Obviously the two things are not precisely the same; that is why it is a comparison.
-
Actually, I don't know why Labour and National don't do this even more, if they're going to be so bloody cheeky about using this to their advantage.
Er, I hate to say it, but as far as I can tell Labour aren't running any pseudo-parties, and haven't, ever.