Citizen's Initiated Referendum - transparent return envelopes and general discussion

Forums › Off topic › Citizen's Initiated Referendum - transparent return envelopes and general discussion

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

176 posts

Master Geek

#952136 14-Dec-2013 12:44

k1wi:

Does anyone know/remember if the forms had a unique identifier to them or were they totally anonymous? I had read some voters claimed that they never received their envelopes. If the forms don't have a UID then there would be very little way to identify electoral fraud...

They had a unique QR code.

The QR code on the voting paper provides a number unique to each individual and voting paper. The information is provided by the Electoral Commission’s Enrolment Services team. The number can only be traced back to a person through information held by Enrolment Services – this information is not held by the referendum vote processing team. An action to trace a voting paper back to a person is only undertaken if there is some discrepancy with the voting paper, and even then, tracing is only permitted by the Returning Officer or processing staff who've each signed secrecy declarations.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#952139 14-Dec-2013 12:57

crazed:
I believe those who are running for office need to sit down with the ones they represent more and listen to the situations in their local communities rather than worrying about towing the party line.

This. For all the Americans have problems, at least their politicians tend to vote per their constituency rather than what the party thinks.

code15

198 posts

Master Geek

#952143 14-Dec-2013 13:14

It annoys me that there are thousands of New Zealanders who voted for National but are against assets sales.

National promised to:
1. Give tax cuts
2. Sell state owned assets

Did you think you could have your cake and eat it too? How else were the tax cuts meant to be funded. As much as I dislike John Key and his ideologies, he is correct in saying that NZ made their decision last election.

My advice: think more carefully before you vote next election.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#952170 14-Dec-2013 13:59

Lets be honest this referendum is just a precursor to the elections next year and being used as free campaigning, nothing more nothing less for those that think otherwise look at the anti smacking how many opposed it and what happened, nothing.

Basically a waste of tax payers money and pointless having these votes if the government doesn't have to act on them.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

rugrat

3107 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#952223 14-Dec-2013 16:40

code15: It annoys me that there are thousands of New Zealanders who voted for National but are against assets sales.

National promised to:
1. Give tax cuts
2. Sell state owned assets

Did you think you could have your cake and eat it too? How else were the tax cuts meant to be funded. As much as I dislike John Key and his ideologies, he is correct in saying that NZ made their decision last election.

My advice: think more carefully before you vote next election.

People might have been against assets sales, but there were things that They didn't like about Labour either, the voter can't win, who ever gets in works with their own ideolgy no matter what the population wants.

I.e Labour wants to make kiwi saver compulsory. I already have a super scheme but it doesn't qualify as kiwi saver so under Labour I'd be forced to have two. The one i have has better benefits then kiwi saver.

I did look up their web site about it and they seem to think that an existing provider will transfer existing one to kiwi saver, when rang old provider (of one not currently putting money in as one I got now is better), they wanted me to start it up as a another scheme .

Why should a government be able to tell me where to put my own earnt money?. Labour seems to think they can.

What tax cut, under National. GST up 2.5 percent, companies got a company tax cut, but they're still moving off shore. Looks like ACC is over charging on car registrations, as it was recommended to drop fee for safer cars, and National has put it on hold, mean while I think saw in news ACC buying shares in chorous, if good investment fine.

In summary doesn't matter who gets voted in, everyone is just screwerd in a different way. Unwanted asset sales or something else.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79295 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#952224 14-Dec-2013 16:44

jnawk:
crazed:
I believe those who are running for office need to sit down with the ones they represent more and listen to the situations in their local communities rather than worrying about towing the party line.

This. For all the Americans have problems, at least their politicians tend to vote per their constituency rather than what the party thinks.

Sorry, but from what I read American politicians seem to vote as per their party's instructions.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#952246 14-Dec-2013 18:05

rugrat:
I.e Labour wants to make kiwi saver compulsory. I already have a super scheme but it doesn't qualify as kiwi saver so under Labour I'd be forced to have two. The one i have has better benefits then kiwi saver.
else.

I am actually surprised that National didn't bring up the point that NZs have already previously voted in a referendum about compulsory retirement saving. NZers overwhelmingly voted against compulsory retirement savings in that referendum. The thing about labour is that they bring in new taxes, and once you have new taxes, they are very difficult to get rid of. They are wanting to bring in a captial gains tax, but not on the house you live in. But people will get around that, and over time the policy will likely get eroded to make it simpler, by then including it on the main home. Look at kiwisaver as an example. I was introduced without too much fuss, as it was voluntry, and had good incentives. Those incentives have slowly been eroded, and not they are wanting to make it compulsory, so it is a bit of a slippery slope when any new policy like that comes in.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#952249 14-Dec-2013 18:17

mattwnz:
rugrat:
I.e Labour wants to make kiwi saver compulsory. I already have a super scheme but it doesn't qualify as kiwi saver so under Labour I'd be forced to have two. The one i have has better benefits then kiwi saver.
else.

I am actually surprised that National didn't bring up the point that NZs have already previously voted in a referendum about compulsory retirement saving. NZers overwhelmingly voted against compulsory retirement savings in that referendum. The thing about labour is that they bring in new taxes, and once you have new taxes, they are very difficult to get rid of. They are wanting to bring in a captial gains tax, but not on the house you live in. But people will get around that, and over time the policy will likely get eroded to make it simpler, by then including it on the main home. Look at kiwisaver as an example. I was introduced without too much fuss, as it was voluntry, and had good incentives. Those incentives have slowly been eroded, and not they are wanting to make it compulsory, so it is a bit of a slippery slope when any new policy like that comes in.

Pensions are curious here though.

If I were to work and pay National Insurance in the UK and earn a full state pension there, then move to NZ and work the full number of required years to earn NZ super as well, the logical mind would say I had contributed fairly to both and should be entitled to receive both. But no. Only one.

And now they have a bill in parliament which seeks to tax the CONTRIBUTIONS made by UK taxpayers into private pension schemes - not just the income remitted to NZ, but the contributions which were tax deductible and could have been made 25 years ago!

So it surprises me not at all that there is confusion and dithering as to whether saving for your old age ought to be compulsory or not.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#952262 14-Dec-2013 19:02

freitasm:
jnawk:
crazed:
I believe those who are running for office need to sit down with the ones they represent more and listen to the situations in their local communities rather than worrying about towing the party line.

This. For all the Americans have problems, at least their politicians tend to vote per their constituency rather than what the party thinks.

Sorry, but from what I read American politicians seem to vote as per their party's instructions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote :

Because free votes are the norm in the United States, the terms "free vote" and "conscience vote" are generally unused and unknown there.

Guess you might want to correct that Wikipedia article then. It's ok, Wikipedia has been known to be wrong before [citation needed]

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#952267 14-Dec-2013 19:20

jnawk:
freitasm:
jnawk:
crazed:
I believe those who are running for office need to sit down with the ones they represent more and listen to the situations in their local communities rather than worrying about towing the party line.

This. For all the Americans have problems, at least their politicians tend to vote per their constituency rather than what the party thinks.

Sorry, but from what I read American politicians seem to vote as per their party's instructions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience_vote :

Because free votes are the norm in the United States, the terms "free vote" and "conscience vote" are generally unused and unknown there.

Guess you might want to correct that Wikipedia article then. It's ok, Wikipedia has been known to be wrong before [citation needed]

Yeah, they just vote for whatever the person/organisation paid for their electoral campaign wants.

mattwnz

20164 posts

Uber Geek

#952329 14-Dec-2013 20:32

Geektastic:
mattwnz:
rugrat:
I.e Labour wants to make kiwi saver compulsory. I already have a super scheme but it doesn't qualify as kiwi saver so under Labour I'd be forced to have two. The one i have has better benefits then kiwi saver.
else.

I am actually surprised that National didn't bring up the point that NZs have already previously voted in a referendum about compulsory retirement saving. NZers overwhelmingly voted against compulsory retirement savings in that referendum. The thing about labour is that they bring in new taxes, and once you have new taxes, they are very difficult to get rid of. They are wanting to bring in a captial gains tax, but not on the house you live in. But people will get around that, and over time the policy will likely get eroded to make it simpler, by then including it on the main home. Look at kiwisaver as an example. I was introduced without too much fuss, as it was voluntry, and had good incentives. Those incentives have slowly been eroded, and not they are wanting to make it compulsory, so it is a bit of a slippery slope when any new policy like that comes in.

Pensions are curious here though.

If I were to work and pay National Insurance in the UK and earn a full state pension there, then move to NZ and work the full number of required years to earn NZ super as well, the logical mind would say I had contributed fairly to both and should be entitled to receive both. But no. Only one.

And now they have a bill in parliament which seeks to tax the CONTRIBUTIONS made by UK taxpayers into private pension schemes - not just the income remitted to NZ, but the contributions which were tax deductible and could have been made 25 years ago!

So it surprises me not at all that there is confusion and dithering as to whether saving for your old age ought to be compulsory or not.

NZ treats people far better than Australia. Many NZers won't get either the NZ pension or the Australia one if you move to Australia to retire, and spent all your working life in NZ working. The NZ system is simple, pays a decent amount, and reasonably fair. But it is expensive to sustain with an aging population, and National don't see this as a problem.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#952354 14-Dec-2013 21:15

jnawk:
crazed:
I believe those who are running for office need to sit down with the ones they represent more and listen to the situations in their local communities rather than worrying about towing the party line.

This. For all the Americans have problems, at least their politicians tend to vote per their constituency rather than what the party thinks.

Ever heard of the lobby industry? US politics are the quintessential example of why constituents dont matter to politicians. NZ politics has it's own version with successive governments (National and Labour in particular) watering down, changing, or ignoring their political promises they used to get elected to government, after they have met with the Lobby groups just after an election...

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#952355 14-Dec-2013 21:16

freitasm:
jnawk:
crazed:
I believe those who are running for office need to sit down with the ones they represent more and listen to the situations in their local communities rather than worrying about towing the party line.

This. For all the Americans have problems, at least their politicians tend to vote per their constituency rather than what the party thinks.

Sorry, but from what I read American politicians seem to vote as per their party's instructions.

From what I have seen, due to the ludicrous amounts of money they need to raise to stay in the game for the Senate or Congress, they mostly tend to ignore both their constituencies' wishes AND the instructions of their party. Mostly they tend to follow the voting instructions of the people who have made "campaign contributions" (=payoffs) to get the vote they wanted. Plus, their senior public servants are political appointees, which makes it even worse.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#952356 14-Dec-2013 21:21

code15: It annoys me that there are thousands of New Zealanders who voted for National but are against assets sales.

National promised to:
1. Give tax cuts
2. Sell state owned assets

Did you think you could have your cake and eat it too? How else were the tax cuts meant to be funded. As much as I dislike John Key and his ideologies, he is correct in saying that NZ made their decision last election.

My advice: think more carefully before you vote next election.

So some (a majority?) of national party supporters either changed their minds about the asset sales, or didn't want them, but wanted wanted a national government enough to stop that political policy being a 'vote' breaker when they ticked the box on the ballot paper.

Voters are allowed to change their minds about the policies of the government they voted for you know.

My hope is that the 67% of us that voted against asset sales remember this referendum result and carry over this dissatisfaction with the asset sales to the ballot box next year.

MaxLV

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#952358 14-Dec-2013 21:26

freitasm:
jnawk:
crazed:
I believe those who are running for office need to sit down with the ones they represent more and listen to the situations in their local communities rather than worrying about towing the party line.

This. For all the Americans have problems, at least their politicians tend to vote per their constituency rather than what the party thinks.

Sorry, but from what I read American politicians seem to vote as per their party's instructions.

You spelt lobbyist wrong.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12