Posts by izogi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to BenWilson,
If you vote, almost by definition you have an interest.
Not necessarily. The main premise of the Expat Party, which didn’t manage to register for this election, was a single issue thing to utilise seats in New Zealand’s parliament for lobbying the Australian government to improve conditions of kiwis in Australia. (It looks like they've now added a slightly larger manifesto to their website.) I think it’s a good thing for the NZ government to look out for kiwis overseas within reason, but it’s an example of how overseas NZ citizens could be motivated to vote on NZ’s parliament with little or no interest in what’s actually happening in NZ.
Based on the last election, it’d take about 100,000+ votes to start threatening the current 5% threshold. From recent overseas voting numbers (closeer to 20-30k), that’s not presently realistic without substantial support for an issue within NZ.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Paul Campbell,
My kids have US citizenship and are second class NZ citizens (by descent rather than birth, so they don’t have the right to pass the citizenship on to their kids if they are born overseas, despite having lived in NZ for over a decade
I'm guessing you know more than I do about this, but have they considered asking for a Special Provision for their children as noted on this page, which is supposedly available if they can demonstrate their children have an ongoing link with NZ? I'm curious to know what type of demonstration & evidence the NZ government requires.
If the children don't have an ongoing link and interest in NZ, then hopefully it's not an issue.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Amy Gale,
I would say it’s more strict than voting locally
Sorry, I was obviously reading what you wrote yet thinking something else. It does sound slightly more strict.
Last time I voted was at the overseas post in Melbourne. I don’t remember the exact process, but I’d probably had to sign a statuatory declaration as to who I was, and I expect the person there was authorised to act as a witness of me signing it. There’s no reason I can think of that someone couldn’t simply have lied about who they were, though.
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Jake Starrow,
Greens are making the odd overture aimed at John Key, giving the impression that they could work with the Nats on certain issues
They already do, don't they? (Home insulation being a flagship one, until National canned it.) It's not exactly a natural alliance, but behind the brick wall of the National Party's frontage, there are various factions which are at least capable of discussing detail on some of what the GP champions. That's how the Nats have sub-groups like the BlueGreens.
A difficulty with National as a party, where voters are concerned, is that it's a very blunt thing to vote for in an MMP system. Deals between factions happen on the far side of the wall instead of where voters can influence them. Obviously some see that as a feature, though.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Amy Gale,
Yeah I mailed mine and the ID requirements amounted to “have someone trustworthy agree that you’re you, and by ‘trustworthy’ we mean an official, a New Zealander, or someone who knows you”.
Is this very different from voting locally? S167 of the Electoral Act basically says that the issuing officer just has to verbally ask for details, which from memory is what happens. Not that it makes it any harder to lie, but I NZ typically appears to prioritise trusting of voters over adding his particular barrier to casting a vote. Maybe that would change if there were widespread evidence of problems.
A catch is that S166 of the Electoral Act enables the issuing officer (also if required by scrutineers) to explicitly ask a person if they are who they're saying they are, which will then require the person to answer in writing and sign it, or face a fine and be prevented from voting.
I don't know how frequently this actually happens, if at all. (Anyone here with experience care to comment?) Is there any practical way to even apply it overseas, especially considering NZ doesn't even have legal jurisdiction in other countries? It has to occur before the person votes, so presumably it's not enough to verify an identity by the time votes are being counted, unless there's something elsewhere in the Act.
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Vonnie,
Honestly, it would be better for everyone’s health if we were to focus on the positive and what could/should be, rather than what shouldn’t be, otherwise we just feed the negativity.
Really? Let’s check an example: Please explain how ignoring this will be better for the health of all those cleaning workers who were cheated out their union agreement to be paid reasonably, thanks to character assasinations and secret attack lobbying of Collins and Bridges to kill Rule 67, carried out by Carrick Graham and Cameron Slater, [allegedly] at the secret behest of and with funding from Grant McLauchlan of Crest Commercial Cleaning.
Beyond this I, for one, would like to see an executive branch of the government that can be held to account, at the very least for adhering to the law let alone established guidance protocols (like the Cabinet Manual) for its conduct, without relying on politically motivated oversight that’s riddled with conflicts of interest.
What’s so non-positive about that?
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Moz,
I’m just whining because I like voting
Yeah, sorry for going on a bit of a rant, too, in hindsight. I get that some people are still very connected and simply can’t get home. I always felt very connected during my time in Australia. The Aussies have a 6 year limit for being outside Australia from what I’ve read, and maybe the NZ limit could be extended slightly without it being an issue. Looking at the numbers I don’t think overseas votes greatly influence a result anyway. They can easily tip the balance, just as a few voters in one electorate can, but not without there already having been a movement within New Zealand.
I definitely do like the idea of requiring people to demonstrate that they actually have a direct interest in NZ before being allowed to vote, though. I guess it’s something about knowing that the people doing the voting are having to take responsibility for living in the midst of what they’ve voted for if they’re also going to claim the benefits, if any.
-
Most depressing of all is that “the public doesn’t care” has become the accepted analysis—certainly by the major newspaper chains.
I guess that's the most likely conclusion to broadcast when a seemingly large amount of election coverage is focused on repeating smug sound-bites, run alongside continuous horse race commentary about who's supposedly in front on any given day. :(
For whatever reason people complained this scandal was eclipsing coverage of policy.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Moz,
The Oztrayns are actually pretty good about not fining people who are not in the country.
When I returned to NZ (and without much interest in voting in the Federal thing), I was very quick to locate and send back the form to be officially exempted by being overseas. It was a long time (months) before I received any acknowledgement that it’d been processed, though.
I’m simultaneously in awe of NZ for allowing almost any legal resident to vote, and annoyed that I have to actually visit the country in order to vote. I am interested and want to vote, but not so much that I’m willing to fly over just for the privilege.
I’m not really bothered by the three year rule, personally. To me it’s just a different way of setting constitutional priorities for how the government’s chosen. If some places focus on citizens choosing the government, New Zealand focuses on people who specifically live in the country being the ones to choose the government, even if they’re not citizens. If a citizen overseas wants to have a say, then I don’t think it’s such a bad thing to expect them to get back within an electoral cycle to demonstrate they’re interested in the country and aware of current local issues which the election will affect.
People in New Zealand have to live with the government that’s elected, yet without the 3 year rule there could be up to 600,000 people who aren’t actually living in the country being given an abillity in deciding the fate of locals.... and while I sympathise with the driving forces behind something like the Expat Party, it also looked to me like it was basically a one-issue party that was interested in attracting votes from people who didn't necessarily have much recent interest NZ at all, yet (without that rule) could take up valuable seats in NZ's parliament to achieve its goals.
It’s not the only way to design a democratic system, but I don’t think there’s anything especially wrong with it.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Moz,
It’s definitely legal (AEC offenses list), and if you read the law even more carefully you actually are only required to turn up, get marked off, accept the voting papers and put something into the ballot box.
I’ll take your word for it, and it's possible that the law itself might say something different. This specific election was a Victoria Local Council Election, and the official guidance which I can find right now definitely says both that voting is compulsory, and also that to vote correctly "you must number every box on the ballot paper in the order of your choice" .. exception, in some cases, being if you’re given a short-cut method of deferring to the rankings supplied by your favourite candidate. I guess there’s also no specific statement that you have to vote “correctly”, only that you have to vote.