Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘Elections’

Politics should be about ideas

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 23rd, 2011

Politics should be a contest of ideas. Increasingly it’s becoming more and more focused on tactics and personalities. More column inches have been devoted to analysing whether Labour’s tax policies have moved our poll ratings than have been devoted to detailing what the policies actually are and whether they’re a good idea or not. Plenty of publicity has been given to John Key’s Rugby World Cup forays, much less attention to the fact that under his watch unemployment has sky-rocketed and the cost of living is rising at the fastest rate in over 21 years.

But that’s the reality. We can complain about it, or we can get out there and redouble our efforts to promote the ideas we believe in. I want to be part of Labour government after this year’s election because I think we’ve got the best ideas for turning our economy around, giving hard-working Kiwis a break, and securing a brighter future for our country.

I hate comparisons between politics and sport, but there is one analogy with sport that I do find useful from time to time. In politics, as in sport, it’s important to “leave it all out on the field”. We compete fiercely with our opponents, we think our ideas are better, and we think we’re better able to manage the challenges we face. But we should never forget that our opponents are also driven by decent intent, however misguided we may think that they are.

Nobody is entitled to power, or to claim ownership of a particular constituency. In a democracy, it’s a right that has to constantly be earned. Likewise, I think it shows total contempt for voters to declare the electoral race all but run before the starting whistle has even been blown. There are still three months to go before polling day, and I, along with my colleagues, intend to campaign for the ideas and values that Labour represents right up to the last hour. This one is too important.


Electronic voting

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 15th, 2011

In my speech on the Electoral Administration Bill last Thursday I said that I thought it was time we had a debate about electronic voting. That sparked quite a lot of feedback via Twitter and Facebook, with No Right Turn and Kiwiblog also posting their opposition and support on their blogs. I thought I’d set out my thoughts in a bit more detail here.

The first thing to clarify is that I don’t think we should rush into this. A move to electronic voting will need to be robustly debated, the pros and cons carefully weighed, and if we do decide to proceed, great care will need to be taken to ensure we avoid the pitfalls experienced in many overseas jurisdictions.

But there are a lot of potential benefits to electronic voting that we can’t ignore. A large percentage of those who are eligible to vote but don’t are young people. Electronic voting is likely to appeal to them quite a lot (the Bill we passed last week allows people to enroll to vote and update their enrollment details online, a very welcome step).

Electronic voting also has the potential to improve participation amongst those with disabilities. Blind people can’t complete a secret ballot under current arrangements, and those less mobile also rely on others to ensure they can do their democratic duty. Those temporarily overseas or out of their electorates may also be more inclined to vote if they could do so online.

The downsides and risks are considerable. If an electronic voting system was used it would need to be auditable and recountable. It’s hard to go past paper ballots on both of those counts. The system would also need to be very simple so that voter intention is clearly respected (ie. your vote goes to the candidate or party you think you’re voting for).

I’m no IT expert, but I do all my banking online, do a lot of shopping online, and interact with most of my friends online. Security has improved remarkably in recent years. I’d be surprised if we couldn’t design a robust, fair and transparent voting system using electronic means. Let’s have the debate. If it improves participation, why wouldn’t we?


Campaigning on Election Day

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 25th, 2011

For a long time New Zealand has had a very clear rule that prohibits campaigning on Election Day. All the signs have to be down by midnight the night before, no leaflets are allowed in letterboxes, and we’re not allowed to try and influence voters in any way on the day (although we are allowed to remind them it is Election Day and offer them assistance to get to/from the polling booth and so on).

There was an interesting little article in the Listener recently pointing out that during the recent Canadian elections, where the law prevents “premature transmission” of election results, anyone in the east, where polls close earlier, tweeting or facebooking about results, before the polls have closed in the west, is technically breaking the law and is liable to a $25,000 fine.

That lead me to wonder how enforceable our current laws prohibiting campaigning on election day are in the information age. Technically an ordinary member of the public tweeting on the day “I’ve just gone and voted to get rid of that idiot xxx” or “It’s Election Day. Get out there and vote for our future and vote xxx” is breaking the law. What about if someone comments on an MP or candidates Facebook page with something like “Good luck, hope everyone gets out there and votes for you”?

I like the fact that people are left alone on Election Day to vote at their leisure. I’d hate to see a situation where political parties were lined up along the streets on the day touting for votes. But I do wonder whether we need to re-think how we deal with online and social media. So what do you think? Are our laws out of date? How could they be changed?


Managing parking or maximising tickets?

Posted by Phil Twyford on September 13th, 2010

Marcus Ganley of Labour is running an impressive campaign in the Wellington Council downtown ward of Lambton. One of his issues is whether the Council should bring parking enforcement in-house and put an end to revenue maximisation. You can vote in Marcus’ poll here, and choose which one of a gruelling schedule of meet-the-candidates meetings is nearest you.


Elections Solomons-style

Posted by Phil Twyford on August 24th, 2010

All eyes are on Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott as they try to cobble together a majority. But just as close to home the Solomon Islands are in post-election negotiations, and if anything their task is even more complicated.

Political parties in the Solomons are little more than loose groupings. For the past two weeks groups of MPs have camped in Honiara’s top hotels, in shuttle negotiations to form a majority and choose a Prime Minister. The country has been watching nervously mindful that in 2006 the announcement of a new PM sparked rioting that saw the capital’s Chinatown burnt down.

I have just returned from a UN election observer mission to the Solomons. Nine Kiwis took part including my Labour colleague David Shearer, several other MPs and a city councillor, MFAT staff, and led by former deputy PM Wyatt Creech.  We were part of a 60-strong contingent coordinated by the UN.

I was deployed to Makira, a relatively undeveloped province in the east. It is the real Solomons: not much town to speak of, most people living from subsistence agriculture and a bit of fishing, a reliance on open motorboats to travel between villages because of a lack of roads. And sadly the Malaysian logging companies are ripping the guts out of the forests as fast as they can go.

On election day, my colleague (an American from the East-West Center) and I visited polling stations in 10 villages. We travelled with the two police officers, one Aussie and one Fijian, stationed on the island by the Regional Assistance Mission (RAMSI). Without their old 4WD we’d never have been able to travel the unbelievably pot-holed road.

It was quite something observing the elections. Churches, school rooms, health clinics and in one case even a private dwelling had been converted into polling places. Well trained and equipped polling staff ran them like clock work. Briefed by the UN and with a clipboard in hand we looked for even the slightest irregularity, and mostly found none. (more…)


Independent’s Day

Posted by Clare Curran on August 23rd, 2010

For those of you who follow Aussie politics and are gripped by the scenario across the ditch, there’s going to be an internet streamed live debate  (2.15pm WednesdayNZ time) amongst the independents who hold the power balance.

To access it go here.

I’ve blogged about GetUp before. They do good stuff


Apathy sucks #5 Democracy rules in Oz

Posted by Clare Curran on August 14th, 2010

Further to my post earlier today this is the second win activist group GetUp has had in the Australian courts in the last two weeks.

Decision No 2

Extending the enrolment period  gives more Australians the ability to vote

The Age reports:

A week ago an historic High Court decision deemed invalid the law that closes enrolment on the day writs for an election are issued.

An estimated 100,000 people lodged applications to enrol or change their details after the original deadline – but to vote they must have done so within a week of Julia Gillard issuing writs for the August 21 poll.

The High Court’s decision is likely to help Labor, as 70 per cent of Australia’s 1.4 million unenrolled voters are 18 to 39.

Today’s (last week’s) ACNielsen poll finds voters aged 18 to 24 prefer Labor (57 per cent) on two-party preferred figures.

In a majority judgment, the full court struck out the laws brought in by the Howard government in 2006 that cut the deadline from seven days to one for enrolment and three days for a change of details.

Howard’s law meant many thousands of Australians were cut out of the democratic process. Shows you what lengths the conservative side of politics will go to to prevent the younger, poorer, more disenfranchised sectors from participating.

I wish we had a GetUp in NZ.


Apathy sucks #4 Landmark Aust court decision favours online enrolment

Posted by Clare Curran on August 14th, 2010

There have been two important decisions in the Aust High Court this week re the upcoming election and the voting process.

Decision No 1

Australians will be able to enrol online after the High Court ruled in favour of activist group GetUp! in its action against the Australian Electoral Commission.

The group took the commission to court after concern was expressed about an online voting enrolment site it created in July.

I blogged about this a few weeks ago. I think it’s important.

I think we should consider allowing people to vote online under certain circumstances. Of course there are issues around security. I’m NOT suggesting that online should replace the voting booth. EVER.

But in this day and age we should be able to use online tools to get people more engaged in the political process. It’s a matter of how, not if for me.


A new initiative on voting in local body elections

Posted by Clare Curran on August 2nd, 2010

This is a good initiative and something David Farrar (at Kiwiblog) and I agree on.

It was reported in the DomPost.

A website designed to help boost the country’s low voter turnout figures for local body elections has gone live.

The website, elections2010.co.nz, is a one-stop shop that aims to equip voters with all the information they need to vote in October’s local body elections


Voters aren’t stupid

Posted by Chris Hipkins on April 4th, 2010

In science it takes more than a coincidence, or series of coincidences, to prove a hypothesis. There needs to be evidence that the two things are actually linked, that one leads to the other. Apparently no such standard of evidence is required when it comes to linking the outcome of general elections to the results of the Rugby World Cup.

We’re sport mad country, and rugby is our national sport. No argument there. But to suggest that a knockout or a loss during the World Cup could have a material impact on the outcome of a general election shows a level of contempt for voters that I just can’t fathom. I’m just not willing to believe that the outcome of a rugby match would have more of an impact on how people vote than say, taxes, crime, education, health, or the leadership qualities of the candidates on offer.

Those who put forward this argument cite two examples, 1987 and 1999. In 1987 David Lange was leading what was at the time a very popular government. The by then unpopular Muldoon still dominated the National Party (from the backbench) and the stockmarket crash was still months away. Kiwis were proud of our World Cup win for sure, but to suggest that’s why Lange’s government was re-elected is just a bit bizarre.

In 1999 Jenny Shipley had the opposite problem. After 9 years in office voters had tired of National. The spectacular bust-up of NZ First cemented the public’s appetite for change. The All Blacks being knocked out in the semis wouldn’t have had any impact on the election result. Emotion plays a big part in how people vote, but I don’t think Kiwis are going to blame John Key if we don’t win the cup…


Chris Trotter wrong about Waitakere

Posted by Darien Fenton on March 21st, 2010

There’s been a bit of excitement on right-wing blogs about Chris Trotter’s comments about the Waitakere selection.

I was at the selection meeting yesterday and it was a great day. The candidates were impressive and the process was robust. As is the case with democratic selections, three out of the four will be feeling gutted today and I feel for all of them, but Hamish and Phil in particular.

I’ve lived in this place for a long time. My son went to primary and secondary school here, I’ve worked in the community and represented workers in the factories, hospitals and schools. I’ve door-knocked and campaigned for Labour in many elections and I know all parts of the electorate pretty well.

The street where I live is a mix of Waitakereites. There are down to earth working people, retirees, young couples buying or renting their first home, the odd greenie and one or two beneficiaries.

Let’s be clear, I live in the more “working class” part of the electorate, not in Titirangi or Oratia or the new housing area where Paula Bennett finally moved to from Epsom. I live in a place where it is still possible to buy a first home for less than most other parts of Auckland.

Chris previously described what he called “Waitakereman/woman” in an attempt to analyse why Labour lost Waitakere in 2008.  It drew on the TV show “Outrageous Fortune” and perceptions of the Bogan West.

I can only think of one “Waitakereman” in my street. He is a tradesperson, pakeha, with two young kids. He gets working for families and did pretty well under Labour, but he likes straight talking and he voted for Bennett in 2008. But he’s been pretty openly grumbly about the National government lately.  And I’m pretty sure that his “Waitakere woman” has her own views!

Trotter says that

The clear goal facing Labour in Waitakere was to choose a candidate who can beat Paula Bennett. That candidate needed to be: female, have a solid working-class background (to which, at some point, she had added a tertiary qualification), be either Pakeha or Maori (or, ideally, a mixture of both) and, most importantly, be capable of “talking shit” with the same cheeky facility as the incumbent.

Carmel Sepuloni qualifies on most of Chris’s counts. She’s female, has a solid working class background, has added a tertiary qualification later and is capable of “cheeky shit”. She’s taken on Bennett in the House on the Training Incentive Allowance (that Bennett received and then pulled the ladder up on) and she’s pretty fearless.

But Carmel is of Tongan/Samoan descent, so somehow misses out, even although she’s also from a sixth-generation pakeha family.

National put huge resources into winning the Waitakere seat in 2008. Everywhere across Waitakere (and leading into the electorate) there were hundreds of hoardings and in the last few days “Proud to be a Westie” signs saturating the electorate. It wasn’t the brilliance of Paula Bennett that won Waitakere in 2008.

National clearly targeted the seat, yet could only win with a 600-odd vote margin, at a time when the tide went out on Labour across the country.

Believe me, that won’t happen in 2011. Labour voters will be back in force.

Paula Bennett’s “westie chick” persona is paper thin.  Winning the vote of the people in my street will take a whole lot more than leopard skin in 2011.

Tags:
Filed under: Waitakere

St Kitts and Nevis election report

Posted by Chris Carter on February 19th, 2010

As reported earlier the Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma asked me to lead a Commonwealth election observer team to monitor the general election in St Kitts and Nevis on 25 January 2010. I was honoured to be approached for this mission and was happy to donate 2 weeks of my summer break to assist.

Other team members included Krishnan Srinivasan, the former head of India’s Foreign Ministry and Lorna Simon, the Supervisor of Elections for Antigua and Barbuda.

I have had some previous experience in the role of election monitoring. I was a member of the Commonwealth Team that monitored South Africa’s first multiracial election in 1994, was an official observer in the US Presidential election in 2000, and led the large New Zealand election team which monitored the Solomon Islands’ election in 2002.

You can now access our full report on the St Kitts and Nevis general election (712kb).

Note: You may require Adobe Reader software to be installed on your computer in order to open the file linked to this page. You can download a free version of Adobe Reader at the Adobe website.


St Kitts and Nevis election monitoring

Posted by Chris Carter on January 19th, 2010

I’m heading off to St Kitts and Nevis tonight to lead the international Commonwealth team monitoring their elections.

It’s a real privilege to have been asked to carry out this important work by Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma. I guess it shows how respected New Zealand is in the world! We are one of the oldest democracies on earth, but I think that decisions taken by successive Labour Governments – such as our nuclear free policy and more recently keeping New Zealanders safe and out of the Iraq War – have really raised our global profile as a fair player and a strong defender of human rights.

Many New Zealanders may not have heard a lot about the small Caribbean nation of St Kitts and Nevis. It’s a really beautiful island chain with very friendly people, which I know because I represented New Zealand as Conservation Minister during the International Whaling Commission meeting there in 2006. But the country has suffered from corruption and the results of the last election there were hotly disputed. You can read more about St Kitts and Nevis at the CIA World Factbook.

United Nations Development Programme officials have asked to brief me about recent issues in Caribbean democracy and development before I arrive in the capital Basseterre, which will be really useful. There are some parallels between island-nation development in the Caribbean and closer to home here in our Pacific region.

St Kitts and Nevis is only an hour’s flight from Haiti, so I’m going to be paying a lot of attention to how the small states in the region have been able to respond to the terrible earthquake there. Many readers will remember that last year Luamanuvao Winnie Laban and I boarded the first flight to Samoa immediately following their devastating earthquake. If you ever have to hold a mother as she cries for her missing baby, as I did in Samoa, you’ll probably become as passionate about improving global disaster relief as I am.

I’m really hoping the St Kitts and Nevis election will run smoothly and properly, and that the free and fair will of the people will be expressed in the outcome without my intervention. I’ll look to report back to Red Alert readers after the results are in.

I’m likely to be gone for just under three weeks. My flights are being covered by the Commonwealth and I’ll meet any miscellaneous expenses myself so New Zealand taxpayers won’t foot any of the bill.