POST-ELECTION ROUND-UP?: After an exhaustive few weeks of furious campaigning the election is over. Now, we sort through the results to look at what the hell happened and what the next three years will look like. What do the results mean for National, Labour, the Greens, ACT, United Future and New Zealand First? Speaking of New Zealand First—who predicted 8 MPs? Who made it in on the list? Who lost out? What coalition deals will we see? What will be the bottom line for these parties?
GET OUT THE VOTE: A million registered voters stayed out of the voting booths. Why? Who did it hurt the most? How can we get people more excited about their civic duty? And do we need to be doing more to get people to the polls? Is it time to make voting compulsory?
LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 30th of November. Our Panel: Green Party MP-Elect Holly Walker, Labour MP-Elect David Shearer, National MP-Elect Chris Tremain, and United Future Leader Peter Dunne.
POST-ELECTION ROUND-UP?
Is it time to make voting compulsory? No.
>Is it time to make voting compulsory?
I’d agree to it, but it’s not going to be a popular idea in NZ. National don’t want it, their constituency has good showing.
Far better is to give people something to vote for, then they might. It doesn’t have to be Labour, many are Labour sympathetic without wanting to vote Labour, and would certainly feel more inclined to vote for their choice, if Labour made it plain they would work with that choice.
We’ve had high turnouts without compulsory voting for years. What’s changed is that people feel no one represents them, or that the people who do have no chance of power, when the Left is dominated by the aged who won’t listen beyond their generational thinking patterns. If you force them into booths, they’ll just donkey vote, or random vote. That’s what the disaffected do in Australia.
Or maybe to go to 4 year terms to avoid the 6 year terms of now in that it is 2X3 =6years.
As a wild random thought, instead of threatening people with fines for not voting, they could be given $10 to vote. Then it wouldn’t need to be compulsory. If they wanted to register no vote, they could just donkey vote, all that we can insist on is that they turn up.
We pay people for jury service. We pay civil servants. If voting is a civic duty, couldn’t it also be a paid duty? That would get kids in there.
Severe penalties would be levied for ripping it off, of course. As they already are.
Sorry, can’t make voting compulsory…its not democratic. We will as a nation have those who are and feel privileged enough to not vote. They are the same apathetic part of the electorate who (misguidedly) believe by not voting they are exercising their democratic rights.
The bigger issue here for Labour is: Which part of the electorate (target audience) were they appealing too for votes with the policies put out?…CGT – never a goer in these times, continually carping, harassing and belittling those “rich prick haves” who make a financial difference – dumb –it’s why Labour never had the money in the coffers to fight this election (and I challenge anyone to show me the money), the list…this is the biggest rubbish rort in the system…Labour’s lost amazing talent because of this (Carmel Sepuloni, Kelvin Davis, Stuart Nash)Good on Damien O’Connor for calling this BS they way he did and speaking the truth — he’s back — that’s proof in the pudding.
Get rid of the some of the hangers-on from the Helen Clark era in the backroom…most are incompetent.
Me, I gotta think if I want to stand for this party in 2014, or join Winston’s hillbillies.
If someone is so disinterested that they can’t be bothered to do something as simple as going to a local location and putting two ticks on a piece a paper once every three years do we really want to encourage them to take part? How simple does it need to be?
If they’re not takikng part already they’re either postively abstaining (in which case we should respect their right to do so) or likely to be the most ill informed within the population (in which case why should we be going over the top to get them to express any opinion).
New Zealand must be one of the easiest places in the world to register and then to cast a vote, so if people can’t even be bothered to do this then I think we should just let them go.
The only reason I assume that anyone would be interested in forcing these people to the polls is because it’s more likely to benefit them than the other lot.
If people don’t vote because they’re alienated and know little of what’s going on then do we really want to force them to have a say? It seems akin to encouraging those who are the least equiped to be parents to reproduce, and the result could be just as undesirable. Surely it’s a better strategy to try to educate them so that they choose to be a good citizen and to cast their vote as a byproduct of this.
>If someone is so disinterested that they can’t be bothered to do something as simple as going to a local location and putting two ticks on a piece a paper once every three years do we really want to encourage them to take part?
Is that a serious question? If you really want them to vote for you, yes you do really want them to vote.
>It seems akin to encouraging those who are the least equiped to be parents to reproduce, and the result could be just as undesirable.
Yes, I thought you might be coming from a voter eugenic standpoint. Sir, I abhor your way of thinking.
>Sorry, can’t make voting compulsory…its not democratic.
Australia is officially a democracy. If people want to abstain, they can donkey vote.
You can’t refuse jury service just because you feel too lazy, or you disagree with the whole idea of juries. What’s really different about voting, if it’s a civic duty? How is it really any different from the duty to pay taxes, which is thousands of times more onerous a chore.
Those reasons aside, compulsory voting isn’t going to happen here. This is an academic discussion. NZers are brainwashed about that aspect of their system being the only way of conceiving of democracy.
Then do this by education and persuasion rather than by turning the current non-voters (who tend to be the least well informed) merely into ballot fodder (unless you believe that’s all they’re good for).
So you don’t accept that we have a problem with unsuitable people being encouraged to parent? And you don’t think that it would be a negative thing to force people who are uninformed about and disinterested in politics to vote?
>So you don’t accept that we have a problem with unsuitable people being encouraged to parent?
I certainly don’t accept that. It’s a creepy idea, to be saying what human beings are unsuitable, purely from their economic position. I don’t like the idea of social profiling for reproductive suitability one little bit.
>Then do this by education and persuasion rather than by turning the current non-voters (who tend to be the least well informed) merely into ballot fodder (unless you believe that’s all they’re good for).
I don’t accept the non-voters are the least well informed. There are many types of people who don’t vote. One is the very well informed who feel no one stands for them. Another are the “rational voter paradox” types, who feel that voting is good, and they would, but their 1 in 40,000 + 1 in 3 million say isn’t really worth the time spent walking to the station. They actually have a point. Then there’s people who actually fear authority, and steer clear of anything so square as voting, even though they probably have an opinion. Then there’s people whose cult or spouse won’t let them vote. Then there’s people who work on the weekend and can’t get the time. Then there’s people who just forget. Then there’s ignorant people.
Then there are the hundreds of thousands of absolute morons who do vote. When asked *anything* about the policy of the party they voted for they have no better than a 50:50 chance of getting it right, but they vote because they’ve had the idea drilled into them by their tribe that it’s so important.
If this is what you mean by “education and persuasion” then I think simple coercion would be more honest.
Education is the only thing that will allow people to make informed choices, without being bamboozled by media/political manipulation.
I recall my political education at school: I suspect a teacher took time out from the syllabus to ask the class if they knew the difference between ‘left’ and ‘right’ in parliament. A boy from a ‘good background’ piped up and that was the end of it. Have things improved since I was at school?
In my schooling it was important that I memorize the periodic table in chemistry, of which I have never used, however no mention of any aspect of the democratic process, (of which there are many) and of which knowledge I require every three years. Lack of information is unacceptable for true democracy to occur.
Not everyone has politically oriented parents. I realize how very hard it would be to convey political education in a non biassed way in school, however the subject should not be ignored due to the difficulty; information is pivotal to democracy!!
If every NZ citizen were introduced to our democratic system/s and the history behind it’s development it would not only make it more likely that we all make more informed choices, it would also protect people against mass hypnotism/media hype, and I believe it would raise interest in voting too.
Political theory is fascinating and introduces one to the amazing figures and movements in history; that many brilliant minds have really thought about things. It is a very relevant subject for a variety of reasons, teaching people the existence of social conscience, the effect values have and that there is a rich tradition and history in thinking; a science to it and we can all develop and benefit from this ability.
Cheers
I think the low voter turnout was positive. It means less people care about the sodid world of politics and bothered to vote for some power mongering self-aggrandising clown with their meaningless sloganeering and demagoguery. But that’s just me.
And do you think it is a particularly good idea to coerce people just so they can deface a form or simply put a blank piece of paper into a box? Because it would be what more “democratic”?
Or religion. Remember we have the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights Act which are supposed to guarantee us certain freedoms including religious freedom. Even in Australia with their illiberal system religion is a valid reason for avoiding any consequences for not voting. Would you abrogate such basic rights for compulsory voting or as in Australia allow people not to vote for religious reasons? Would you then think it okay to allow those for religious reason who find it immoral to vote not to, but those who aren’t religious and see voting as immoral to be coerced into doing so?
Not that I think voting is “good”, but yes we do have a point. A logically sound and valid point. Do you think it’s a particularly good idea to coerce people into voting when there is only a vanishing small probability of their vote actually influencing the outcome of the election?
Would you abide fines for those who refuse to vote? What about for those who refuse to pay a fine do you think prison is acceptable? The state is an institution of mass coercion. When the state enforces such a law as requiring people to vote it is done with the threat of violence. Even if all we see is the letter, the court appearance, the fine, the implicit threat of violence is always there. You admit readily it is simple coercion. Do you really think it is moral to threaten people with violence simply in order to vote?
Personally I think it is immoral to coerce people into voting and I would be even less inclined to vote if it were compulsory.
>And do you think it is a particularly good idea to coerce people just so they can deface a form or simply put a blank piece of paper into a box? Because it would be what more “democratic”?
Yes. I do, and it would.
>Would you abrogate such basic rights for compulsory voting or as in Australia allow people not to vote for religious reasons?
The Ozzie model makes some sense. If people go to the trouble to formally opt out, it seems OK to me. I think it should be more trouble than just voting, though, so that we can be sure it’s heartfelt.
>Would you then think it okay to allow those for religious reason who find it immoral to vote not to, but those who aren’t religious and see voting as immoral to be coerced into doing so?
No, they should be allowed to go to the same trouble. So long as the process takes a few hours, and involves them being told clearly what it is that they are giving away, much like a marriage, then anyone should be allowed. That would sort out the stupid and the lazy from people who had reasons that ran very deep. It would also make it plain that donkey voting would actually be the easier path, so they’d be constantly encouraged every year to participate again.
I knew people in Oz who really enjoyed their donkey vote – they’d spend the time in the booth writing exactly what they thought about the system onto the ballot paper.
>Not that I think voting is “good”, but yes we do have a point. A logically sound and valid point.
Indeed, it’s irrefutable if there really is no cost or reward directly from voting, and you rate your say so low. These are the very people compulsory voting works on best, because having realized there is a cost (a fine) for not voting, they vote, and they do it honestly.
>Would you abide fines for those who refuse to vote?
Yup
>What about for those who refuse to pay a fine do you think prison is acceptable?
No, I’d think a bailiff taking something of theirs to sell would be sufficient, just as it is for small unpaid fines for offences of every type. This isn’t a matter for me to decide, the judicial system handles it already. In essence, it’s a very, very small offense.
>The state is an institution of mass coercion. When the state enforces such a law as requiring people to vote it is done with the threat of violence. Even if all we see is the letter, the court appearance, the fine, the implicit threat of violence is always there. You admit readily it is simple coercion. Do you really think it is moral to threaten people with violence simply in order to vote?
Your argument applies to everything that is compulsory in our system. It is compulsory to pay tax, to drive on the left, to keep to speed limits, to not smoke indoors, to not use offensive language at people. So, yes, ultimately if I believe in a justice system that can punish people at all, I do believe that voting is important enough to warrant that. I am not an anarchist, if that’s what you’re asking.
>Personally I think it is immoral to coerce people into voting and I would be even less inclined to vote if it were compulsory.
You’d get fined. That view would cost you a small amount of money every three years, or a small amount of time (and money) formalizing it in perpetuity. You’d get over it.
I’m not deeply committed to this idea. But I don’t think it’s the end of society either. It’s a slightly different idea about civic duty, implemented slightly differently, has worked for decades in Australia and has some real merits when it comes to public participation in a democratic system. To suggest it is “immoral” is an extreme position. It’s no more immoral than being compelled to be a witness in a court. It costs a tiny amount of effort to vote.
Writing a letter telling a lie such as I was not here, I was ill or my religion forbids it as many Australians do is probably no more onerous than going to vote. Such absurd pretense is a product of a forced voting system. I believe it’s the case that (correct me if I’m wrong) that those who do not register to vote, though in breech of the law, are rarely if ever chased up to register, but those who are registered are fined if they don’t vote. Whatever the case such a system is bound to result in absurdity as people are unwilling to strongly enforce a law they know to be unjust and ends up being halfheartedly enforced and a system of knowing pretense and insincerity develops as it has in Australia. Moreover confusion around the law is abound even amongst Judges charged with enforcing it.
Here’s an interesting article by some Australian academics with some of the absurdities of the system highlighted aptly titled “It’s an evil thing to oblige people to vote”
What are your ideas to make it more onerous and make it take “a few hours”?
They’re not giving away anything if they would otherwise choose not to vote. In fact something is being forced upon them (it’s more like a forced marriage).
There are people who enjoy sadomasochistic sex, but that doesn’t make it right to force it upon others. You don’t find it at all absurd that a system coerces them to vote even if they are just going to cast a donkey vote rather than just letting them stay home?
By slightly differently you mean via an implicit threat of violence. No weasel words necessary as it seems you are quite reconciled with your authoritarianism.
What value would be sufficient? And what if they refused to have their possessions taken from them are you quite alright with an armed raid on their home simply because they refuse to vote?
It’s not about whether you believe in a justice system that can punish people at all it is if you think it is just to punish people for not voting (I think it would be an injustice).
I wouldn’t pay the fine on this issue I feel strongly enough that I would take a principled stand against it. There is much indignity I would acquiesce to, but being forced to vote is so abhorrent it is too much of an affront to take lying down. Thank you for generosity though. It’s nice to know that there are people out there who wish to see me and others like threatened with violence.
Far too much is being made of this! The Election result and the Polls were so consistent, that I would think the poll was a reasonably random sample of those with electoral preferences.
Labour leaning voters may have stayed away as some kind of protest. National leaning voters may have stayed away seeing a cake walk. Green leaning voters may have stayed away, seeing support was well above the threshhold.
I don’t see any good argument for frog-marching the apathetic or uninformed into a voting booth. There is a world wide trend for lower turnout. We need to accept that there are a large number of people who are indifferent to politics, more interested in the real world perhaps?
I know someone who would vote for National even if as she put it “Santa Claus was their leader”. The true I am sure will be of some labour voters, my point, is how is that more informed than those OG supposes don’t vote at all?
>Writing a letter telling a lie such as I was not here, I was ill or my religion forbids it as many Australians do is probably no more onerous than going to vote.
Not if you’re going to donkey vote. You don’t have to even think about it, just turn up, get your ballot, and post it blank. That’s not against the law.
I’d be in favour of a no-vote option, to clearly distinguish the accidental from the deliberate, thus getting very good information every election about the true level of anti-participation.
>What are your ideas to make it more onerous and make it take “a few hours”?
You’d have to muck around filling out some paperwork, presenting your identification, getting a lecture on what you are giving away, preferably having an honest discussion about it first. Then when you remained totally committed, you’d get your name on the exceptions list, and possible a certificate you could show people, including a judge, if there was ever a paperwork stuff up and you got accidentally fined.
In short, administrative shit roughly on par with a marriage.
>They’re not giving away anything if they would otherwise choose not to vote.
This is a minor detail, but it could perhaps actually take away their right to vote, which they would have to go through a similarly time wasting process to get back. Not sure about that.
>You don’t find it at all absurd that a system coerces them to vote even if they are just going to cast a donkey vote rather than just letting them stay home?
Nope. Having come in, as the Australian system shows, most people do cast real votes. They’re resigned to the duty, and fulfill it. The donkey voters are either accidental or people who genuinely hate the whole election system.
In NZ, not everyone who doesn’t vote is actually against the system. Most that I know are simply too lazy.
>By slightly differently you mean via an implicit threat of violence. No weasel words necessary as it seems you are quite reconciled with your authoritarianism.
What-ever. Yes, violence is implied in exactly the same way it is for EVERY RULE IN SOCIETY. It would never come to actual violence unless you quite deliberately sought it out. The penalty is a fine. You can argue your slippery slope from getting a parking fine to your eventual death in an armed shootout with police through systematically pitting yourself against every level of authority that comes to collect that money. Or you can do what every does. Pay for the ticket or accept the fine (eventually).
>What value would be sufficient?
Gut feel – $100. That’s enough even for lazy middle class people to care about, without really stupidly punitive. If you are far too poor to pay it, you can go to court and apply to pay it off over time. Or, you could just go to the goddamned polling both like everyone else had to.
>It’s not about whether you believe in a justice system that can punish people at all it is if you think it is just to punish people for not voting (I think it would be an injustice).
Yes, I believe that either a small punishment for not voting is quite a good way to get a high voter turnout, delivering a much higher level of certainty about the true opinion of the populace than what we got on Saturday night. There’s a lot more at stake than some extraordinarily pumped-up sense of the right to absolute freedom, in a society in which such freedom doesn’t exist for so many things that actually count.
>I wouldn’t pay the fine on this issue I feel strongly enough that I would take a principled stand against it.
You’ve got too much time on your hands. There’s actually real social ills your could put your energies into other than the right to avoid a walk to a polling booth once every 3 years. You’d have 4 completely separate ways of abstaining, 1. To “no vote”. 2. To donkey vote. 3. To not vote and pay the fine. 4. To apply for exemption on moral grounds.
If you want to die in a ditch because that’s not enough choice for your right to self-disenfranchisement, you’re a nut. I also doubt that it’s true. I know a lot of people who claimed the same level of moral objection to parking fines, but once the fines racked up high enough, and enough people were telling them they were being a dick, they paid the fines. Often, someone else paid it for them, like their parents, taking on the entire burden of their “principled stand”, without agreeing with any of it.
There are much worthier causes to martyr yourself over than a minor administrative foible that has quite high positive side effects.
Evan – I think you are right that a higher voter turnout probably wouldn’t significantly change the outcome of the election. The analysis in the article from Australia linked to above found that the result of the last four elections would have been the same whether voting was compulsory or voluntary. I recall on election night NZ First had 6.7% of the vote when only 2% of the vote had been counted. They ended up with 6.8%. Take this argument from economist MJ Perry Making The Case for Low Voter Turnout
You’ll never convince me with an economic argument about something a important as how we choose our leadership that makes the laws we live under, decides who we war with, who gets benefits and who starves. Democracy costs money.
Indeed, I’d actually prefer that voters got paid for showing, rather than punished for no-show. We pay jurors. Then it’s not compulsory. But it would be expensive.
It’s a simple argument based on simple statistics. I didn’t direct it to you I didn’t see you argue that a higher voter turnout would have changed the result significantly. That would be a pretty difficult argument to make. I wouldn’t expect a reasoned argument would convince a democratic ideologue of anything.
It’s precisely because we submit so much to democratic decision making that we should submit the process to scrutiny. We shouldn’t have unquestioning faith in democracy as if it were some holy mystical subject beyond the realm of reasoning.
>It’s a simple argument based on simple statistics.
Yes, it is very simple. Following it, democracy would be completely unnecessary, because opinion polls and focus groups could do the whole job. Which ignores one of the main points of democratic engagement, that it makes the populace think about their system, and to take responsibility for it. It promotes a strong civic society.
Yes, I’m a democratic ideologue of sorts. I would like more of it, far more engagement than what we got on Saturday. Democracy doesn’t begin and end with ticks on a ballot, but that is the bare minimum part of it. No ballot, no democracy.
This is an academic discussion. There is no chance that the NZ populace would change its mind on this. Like you, they’re brainwashed into conflating the administrative details of balloting to the highest levels of moral right and wrong. Usually, when that happens, the reasons are the weakest of all, the most abstract, the least sensible, the consideration of alternatives totally absent. I’m only defending that Australia is not a fascist state here, really, because they make people vote. Indeed, they have a reasonably healthy democracy, and a far stronger union movement than we have here. They’re more engaged, on average, than NZers. I think that’s healthy. It’s part of why neoliberalism got so little traction there, because that really is the politics of disengagement, followed by disempowerment. National, with criminals, has finally started making it the politics of disenfranchisement.
It took a hell of a long time to get the democracy we have. It’s a constant fight to get people involved in it. To let some economic statistician convince you to kiss it away is madness.
No one said they were.
What’s your evidence that they’re more involved? Is it that more of them vote because they’re compelled to – that would be circular. Explain why you think they’re more involved.
What do you mean neoliberalism got little traction there? They followed a similar path of reform under a Labor government as we did here under a Labour government – floating exchange rates, privatisations, lowered tariffs, financial deregulation, and so on. They have a very similar economy to ours and a similarly high level of economic freedom.
And I ‘m thankful for it.
We avoid promoting public education .
Partisan or party propaganda is on going. The daily use of dodgy statements, myths and lies from politicians and their companions has become the diet of the people.
Media ownership and management must have a part in this.
Discussion must not scare the voters so they remain talking about relatively inconsequential detail.
Big questions if asked are ignored and slated as controversial if pushed.
Voters are flying blind.
Did you notice John Keys remark when asked about debating face to face with Phil.
He said ‘I tried to ignore him” He knows well that the campaign has been continuous through managed press releases over years rather than weeks.
Test – ask a few members of the public how our “debt” is created. Follow that asking what are the options to the situation. The chances are they will regurgitate the propaganda from Key.
I don’t think voting should be compulsory. Not voting is a democratic choice.
I do think that education at schools really is lacking though. I think Economics as a subject (or something similar) should be compulsory in schools from Year 7 (Form 1) and all the way up.
These days, kids are in cellphone contracts in intermediate school, not to mention online gaming commerce, trademe, things like that. They need economic education from an early age.
“I think Economics as a subject (or something similar) should be compulsory in schools from Year 7 (Form 1) and all the way up.”
Bea,why? Or do you mean teach budgeting but why submit people to economics…contracts are about law more than the theory of economics.
“Would you then think it okay to allow those for religious reason who find it immoral to vote not to, but those who aren’t religious and see voting as immoral to be coerced into doing so?” Damn dude you are good!
“>Would you abide fines for those who refuse to vote?
Yup”
“>What about for those who refuse to pay a fine do you think prison is acceptable?
No, I’d think a bailiff taking something of theirs to sell would be sufficient, just as it is for small unpaid fines for offences of every type.”
>What’s your evidence that they’re more involved? Is it that more of them vote because they’re compelled to – that would be circular. Explain why you think they’re more involved.
That is indeed hard to quantify. It’s simply the impression I strongly picked up on when moving from one place to the other – I lived in Australia in the late 90s and was astonished at how much more politically switched on the average person you’d meet was, how much more likely they were to know what was going on, who stood for what, and what they themselves believed in, than I found in NZ. Do you have any of your own anecdata to contradict this?
>They have a very similar economy to ours and a similarly high level of economic freedom.
No, they don’t. There are some very important differences. Capital gains are taxed. Savings are enforced. They invest very strongly into infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure. Practically everyone owns stocks because of their savings scheme. Their mining sector is enormous. Their healthcare is very well funded, for me it was practically free, and I was a foreigner. They invest quite heavily in their military. Their education is far less costly to students.
There’s a reason they’ve been steadily pulling away from us economically. It’s not just exploitation of mineral wealth. It’s also because they have held out far longer against the forces of the 1%, and that has made a much broader slice of their society richer.
It’s really noticeable when you go there, and particularly if you have been going there for a long time, as I have, being married to an Ozzie I go there a lot. People are just better off – even the people that always cried poor at me when I was there on a high income have stopped doing it, because a high income here is an average income there.
Watched Back Benches last night. Clanger of the night: Nat. Party MP, Jo Goodhew referring to the “John Key Party”. What a mindless chump she is. Also, could someone please tell her to tone down the lipstick?
And someone from Labour might profitably tell some of their more spiteful supporters to tone down the vitriol, eh Anne…
Haven’t you got it yet? This sort of nastiness is part of the reason why people have deserted you.
@Anne maybe she should change her name to Jo Stronghue
John Key Party –
OG: You have a sense of humour so use it. You’ve taken a tongue in cheek quip and interpreted it as ‘vitriol’. What’s more you indulge in ‘quips’ aimed at individuals yourself. Pot, kettle etc.
Anyway it’s true. I’d tell my best friend…
Glad to see Spud saw the humour and responded in kind. Very good.
Anyways, Quoth-the-Raven (cool name, btw), I have to reiterate that compulsory voting isn’t hugely important to me. The thread called for a discussion on compulsory voting, I gave some arguments for it, in good faith – I would lean towards it if it ever actually came up, because there are merits to it. There are some arguments against it, too. You gave those. I didn’t find them especially compelling because they relied heavily on inflating one value (freedom) well beyond any other considerations, something that I don’t have too much time for, considering the minimal impact compulsory voting levies on people’s lives.
I’m glad to see you’re the resident fisker, that’s good for debate, and I appreciate the engagement. I don’t know you well, I expect you don’t know me. I’m certainly not aiming to make any kind of enemy out of you. See you round here sometime.
I do try to avoid gratuitous ad homs as I think it brings nothing to the site.
If you’re right I’ve not succeeded, and am quite willing to apologise to anyone who feels they’ve been savaged by me.
Compulsory voting would simply make the sample size 100%. Yet as someone has pointed out, a sample size of about 20,000 would produce an error of about 1% at most – and since that error would be random, it would not be too unfair in the event of a very close election.
The one that really gets me however is the EXTRAVAGANT referedum on MMP, when sampling of public opinion would have produced the result that we have. I have no idea what moved John Key and National to get activists on both sides pushing their case over this brief election campaign.
>Compulsory voting would simply make the sample size 100%. Yet as someone has pointed out, a sample size of about 20,000 would produce an error of about 1% at most – and since that error would be random, it would not be too unfair in the event of a very close election.
Not so sure of that. Most of the polls put National well above 50% party vote. Unless your sampling is compulsory, it’s not really apples with apples.
and am quite willing to apologise to anyone who feels they’ve been savaged by me.
Include the word ‘unfairly’ OG and apology accepted. You know, people who are not afraid to have a bit of a laugh at another’s expense (without undue malice of course) are usually able to laugh at themselves too.
Actually I did originally have ‘unfairly’ in the sentence but took it out before posting!
I thought that it looked like I was trying to have a bob each way and suggesting that whenever I have been guilty I was justified…
@ OG
We got there.
@ OG
We got there.
@Anne
Some quiet thoughts on why so many people didn’t vote:
How about we sack the Electoral Commission and its weird little orange man! Voting needs to be advertised ( a lot)with panache and style. Get history and drama and excitement into voting. After all the right to vote was not ‘given’ to us. It was fought for and won and damn hard too.
Set up a large number of voting places( get rid of the term polling ) where people are i.e shopping malls.
Get mobile voting places out and about in the last two weeks at sporting events, markets wherever.
And work at making it a less formal process. That can happen without compromising confidentiality.
I’ve worked in polling places for a number of elections and I was constantly surprised at how intimidated a lot of people are by the solid row of prim and proper looking officials. Even finding the right box to put the voting papers in was often a source of confusion and loss of face. And these were the people who showed up!
Finally ban all publishing of polling at least 2 weeks out from the election. The way the media spun the polls it was very hard to work out that the race between the right and the left was close.
“How about we sack the Electoral Commission and its weird little orange man” Er, I like him.
The rest of yer ideas are interesting,
Though I don’t mind the formality bit cos it makes it an occasion. 