Rant: Governance

[WarBlade]

... you mean those things (in NZ) we get to 'vote' on that aren't legally binding, and that politicians have a track record of ignoring (e.g. the vague 'harsher sentencing')  ;)

Yeah those are the ones. :D Actually in the instance of that 'harsher sentencing' question a couple of elections back, the wording was so poor it could not be legally binding anyway. It was two questions rolled into one with the correct answer being "Well duh, and Yes/No" with the only options being "Yes" and "No". Naturally 90% voted "Yes", I voted "No" (because unlike most of the country I refused to be duped by BS wording) and many people seemed to be complaining about the wording afterwards. :lol:

No, that one had to be dropped. The question itself was screwed.

OTOH there was the referendum in which we made the decision to drop FPP in favour of proportional representation. "Yes/No" for proportional with the majority voting "Yes". There were something like four or five options of proportional representation systems: MMP, STV and a couple of other freakish transferable vote systems IIRC. "MMP" had the vast majority and two elections later we were voting under MMP. :)

We got exactly what the majority voted for in the referendum. :)

"It could be worse. We could have FPP again!"
America still does?  and FPP means that essentially if you did not vote for the winner then your vote does not count, same as in proportional representation though if you happened for an 'opposition' party, except that if the largest party is not a sole majority you may get a slight say when their coalition parners will not support them.

Yes America still does, but then can you imagine Americans' "We - Will - Win" attitude coming to terms with our "we can compromise and negotiate" system. It's a stretch I think.

And as for votes not counting, take my position. I live in an area that has always voted for a National candidate. Historically I could vote National, vote anybody else (didn't really matter who), or stay at home and my area would send a National candidate into Parliament every time. Now I actually have a vote that does something and I'm happy with the results of the last two elections.

"There would also be issues how much time you want the country's workforce not actually being productive, but sitting and analysing the data"
True, but do people actually do that now before the election (I really don't think so) although there definately is the issue of 'idiot votes' like those that vote for the legalise cannibis(sp?) party or McGillicuddy Serious.

McGillicuddy Serious seemed to have pulled out these days. Maybe they realized that after MMP there was a risk they might actually get into Parliament . . . :lol: And Legalize Cannabis were only ever about as likely to get in as Christian Heritage. Bunch of monkeys, the pair of them. <_<

And no, most people don't sit and analyze all available data prior to elections. It's much easier for the mindless masses to keep things in general terms they can understand. Kind of like the convenience of delegation really.

"WTF??? That's news to me. I wonder how they'd pull that off. Hello security loophole expoit!"
A quick search brought up how they would pull it off:
http://www.eucybervote.org/Reports/KUL-WP2...4V1-v1.0-02.htm
NZ for local elections:
"New Zealand is discussing legislation to allow for electronic voting to be used in local elections." http://www.paris-conference-2001.org/eng/c...ix_contrib.html
NZ for general election:
"The world's first national electronic voting trial is scheduled
for testing in New Zealand, in December, with around 21,000 volunteers
from across the country - about 1 per cent of the voting population."http://www.mtn.org/edem-elect/archive/msg01457.html
Funnily enough I couldn't find a mention at the first site I visited www.election.govt.nz

Thanks. I'll go check it out. B)