Brilliant Electoral Review - but doubt we will see change

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Brilliant Electoral Review - but doubt we will see change

Eitsop

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

ID Verified

#305828 6-Jun-2023 19:23

The Electoral review out today is brilliant.. https://electoralreview.govt.nz/assets/PDF/IER-Interim-Report.pdf#page=26

dropping party vote to 3.5% from 5%
dropping coat tails law
limiting donations from big donors and businesses
dropping voting age to 16
extending period from 3 years to 4 years

However, I don't expect any changes, as I expect National/Act will get in next election, and it simply doesn't suit their own self interests.

Already we had National Party say its not a major concern for next election. and I would hypothesise that the National party tried to distract news today with issue with Transport minister having a paltry $13000 of shares in Auckland airport

1 | 2 | 3

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#3085721 6-Jun-2023 19:51

'Already we had National Party say its not a major concern for next election. and I would hypothesise that the National party tried to distract news today with issue with Transport minister having a poultry $13000 of shares in Auckland airport'

Did your chickens come home to roost or did you mean 'paltry'?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Bluntj

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 284

#3085734 6-Jun-2023 20:26

Rikkitic:

'Already we had National Party say its not a major concern for next election. and I would hypothesise that the National party tried to distract news today with issue with Transport minister having a poultry $13000 of shares in Auckland airport'

Did your chickens come home to roost or did you mean 'paltry'?

Hipkins dropped him very quickly before any others commented. The issue was not the value of the shares, but the fact he had been told 3 times to get rid of them. Duh..

Eitsop

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

ID Verified

#3085739 6-Jun-2023 20:36

Bluntj:Hipkins dropped him very quickly before any others commented. The issue was not the value of the shares, but the fact he had been told 3 times to get rid of them. Duh..

easier to drop him, than argue the point and get more distracted

the key news is the great recommendations

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 944

Lifetime subscriber

#3085749 6-Jun-2023 21:40

I don’t agree with dropping the voting age, and it would be less democracy on a four year vote, they get another year to do what they want without facing the consequences if it is not what voters want.

If you can’t discriminate based on age then the smoking laws and drinking laws are discriminatory as well.

Also there is a recommendation to allow all prisoners to vote, where at present only ones with sentences less then three years from memory.

The cash one would need to analyse, restricting to individuals could help the party with the wealthiest voters/supporters, where one with less wealthier supporters may need to rely on organisations/groups. So not sure about that one. Is it $30,000 per donation, or is the $30,000 the total amount of all the donations a party can receive?

I do like getting rid of the coat-tail rule, Not sure what the ideal percent threshold should be they recommend 3.5%

Eitsop

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

ID Verified

#3085750 6-Jun-2023 21:50

rugrat:I don’t agree with dropping the voting age.... Also there is a recommendation to allow all prisoners to vote, where at present only ones with sentences less then three years from memory

Numbers wise, its not really a huge issue.. of the 16-17 year olds, not all will vote, and really it is a small proportion of voting population..
But on upside, it has positives of increasing voter participation later in life if they start early. And those that do vote from 16 have the most to gain/loose.

Same with prisoners, there is not a high impact it will have on outcome.. unless we have 30% of NZ in prison. and again not all will vote

rugrat:The cash one would need to analyse, restricting to individuals could help the party with the wealthiest voters/supporters, where one with less wealthier supporters may need to rely on organisations/groups. So not sure about that one. Is it $30,000 per donation, or is the $30,000 the total amount of all the donations a party can receive?

It's 30k per person per 3/4 year term that can be donated. Businesses/Unions/organisations are not allowed to donate.
As such there is a supplement contribution towards election funds from Electoral Commission based on % of votes they got in the last election

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 944

Lifetime subscriber

#3085800 6-Jun-2023 22:34

Eitsop:

It's 30k per person per 3/4 year term that can be donated. Businesses/Unions/organisations are not allowed to donate.
As such there is a supplement contribution towards election funds from Electoral Commission based on % of votes they got in the last election

In 2022 Labour donations were $419,364.66. Nationals were over $5 million.

I can’t see where most of Labour’s money came from but I’m guessing most of it from the Unions. If the case then if this goes through Labour would be screwed as would get a lot less. I’d expect Nationals to drop, but would say they’d know enough wealthy people to still make it well over a million.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-raises-record-5m-in-2022-ten-times-labours-total/T6TC2V6MUFGK5PTD2KDNV4IJSE/

I think this recommendation needs a closer look at.

edit:"Rashbrooke noticed that more than half of National’s tally came from donations of over $15,000, which he said was an indication that the “wealthy end of town” was backing the party.’’

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Bluntj

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 284

#3085805 6-Jun-2023 23:04

rugrat:

I don’t agree with dropping the voting age, and it would be less democracy on a four year vote, they get another year to do what they want without facing the consequences if it is not what voters want.

If you can’t discriminate based on age then the smoking laws and drinking laws are discriminatory as well.

Also there is a recommendation to allow all prisoners to vote, where at present only ones with sentences less then three years from memory.

The cash one would need to analyse, restricting to individuals could help the party with the wealthiest voters/supporters, where one with less wealthier supporters may need to rely on organisations/groups. So not sure about that one. Is it $30,000 per donation, or is the $30,000 the total amount of all the donations a party can receive?

I do like getting rid of the coat-tail rule, Not sure what the ideal percent threshold should be they recommend 3.5%

What worries me with lowering the age is the influence school teachers will have on the students, and I am not totally convinced the students/kids have the development needed to ensure they can make up their own minds.

rugrat

3142 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 944

Lifetime subscriber

#3085815 7-Jun-2023 02:27

Eitsop:

rugrat:I don’t agree with dropping the voting age.... Also there is a recommendation to allow all prisoners to vote, where at present only ones with sentences less then three years from memory

Numbers wise, its not really a huge issue.. of the 16-17 year olds, not all will vote, and really it is a small proportion of voting population..
But on upside, it has positives of increasing voter participation later in life if they start early. And those that do vote from 16 have the most to gain/loose.

Same with prisoners, there is not a high impact it will have on outcome.. unless we have 30% of NZ in prison. and again not all will votE

I couldn’t find how many 16 to 17 year olds in NZ. Did find birth rate ending March 2023 is around 58,000.

Multiply by 2 since it includes two years of age groups, looking at 116,000 potential new voters. The birth rate has been declining so likely to be higher.

In article it says the lower 3.5 % threshold would take about 100,000 votes. So if 16-17 year olds would be potentially over 3.5% of the vote, even though a small proportion, is still enough to completely change out come of election.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#3085821 7-Jun-2023 07:18

Eitsop:

However, I don't expect any changes, as I expect National/Act will get in next election, and it simply doesn't suit their own self interests.

I think we've learned our lesson when it comes to partisan electoral act changes.

Eitsop

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

ID Verified

#3086190 7-Jun-2023 17:42

GV27:I think we've learned our lesson when it comes to partisan electoral act changes.

What do you mean?

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3086298 7-Jun-2023 21:29

rugrat:
I don’t agree with dropping the voting age

I do, because a lot of 16-17 year olds are far more engaged with politics than most adults. Can you imagine a 16-year-old saying "I'd vote for Boris [Johnson], I think he's funny", an actual quote from an adult voter on why they were voting the way they did?

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

gzt

18679 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7810

Lifetime subscriber

#3086325 7-Jun-2023 23:57

Bluntj: What worries me with lowering the age is the influence school teachers will have on the students, and I am not totally convinced the students/kids have the development needed to ensure they can make up their own minds.

I don't recall any political party discussions in the classroom during my time. I expect most teachers would tend to avoid the topic regardless of their personal views one way or the other just as they probably do now.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#3088742 12-Jun-2023 06:50

Eitsop:

GV27:I think we've learned our lesson when it comes to partisan electoral act changes.

What do you mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Finance_Act_2007

This garbage.

A blatant attempt at deck-stacking in favour of the sitting government.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#3088922 12-Jun-2023 11:26

neb:
rugrat:

I don’t agree with dropping the voting age

I do, because a lot of 16-17 year olds are far more engaged with politics than most adults. Can you imagine a 16-year-old saying "I'd vote for Boris [Johnson], I think he's funny", an actual quote from an adult voter on why they were voting the way they did?

My feeling is that the vast majority who bothered to turn out would vote Green just because of climate change.

If you want to improve engagement make voting mandatory with fines for not voting. And put a box on the voting paper for 'I'm not voting for any of the above'.

Eitsop

584 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 153

ID Verified

#3088947 12-Jun-2023 12:03

My feeling is that the vast majority who bothered to turn out would vote Green just because of climate change.

What is wrong with that? the vast majority of elderly people won’t vote green as they won’t care

1 | 2 | 3