Forms of government for New Zealand

Forums › Off topic › Forms of government for New Zealand

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1026104 16-Apr-2014 11:46

kiwinz: I have often thought that the Electoral Role thing seems messy, however not every citizen has a passport and with it now only valid for a handful of years it costs a lot more. So I guess its a compromise.

We have a national id coming so that will become a possibility for those that want to use it. Should at least be able to vote on the list with that.

kiwinz:We had an Upper House in the past and like the UK it became a lucrative retirement hobby for washed up Parliamentarians.

I don't see any point in another house/senate and see no arguments in favor. What a nightmare. Just more pork and more barrels.

3 year term. Personally I like it. It means change is rarely radical or trojan horse style and govts wary of making fools of themselves in the first term. Think of it as a six year cycle with a three year probation ; ).

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1026105 16-Apr-2014 11:47

Geektastic:
The right to vote descends from my NZ citizenship, not from my presence on a list. Ergo, proof of citizenship in the form of a NZ passport presented on polling day should entitle the person presenting the passport to vote, whether on a list or not.

Except.. It doesn't.

Permanent Residents of New Zealand vote in elections.

My wife's not a NZ passport holder. She votes.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1026112 16-Apr-2014 11:51

Bee:

I agree re term. 3 years is ridiculous.

Referenda are a two edge sword.

NZ seems to like things like banning smacking and allowing homosexual marriage. How would it be if a binding referendum reversed those decisions (bearing in mind that a non-binding one already reversed the smacking thing).

Or how about a binding referendum banning further Treaty settlements? Or criminalising homosexuality completely?

It's not enough to say "oh that would never happen here" because it might.

That's why the conditions have to be clearly defined.

maybe at least 80% of eligible voters must vote and decision must be majority of 75% - this might never happen but at least then there is the possibility of the people being heard and actually listened to.

A problem with Binding Referenda is we can end up with a paralysed political system

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1026116 16-Apr-2014 11:54

Sidestep:
Geektastic:
The right to vote descends from my NZ citizenship, not from my presence on a list. Ergo, proof of citizenship in the form of a NZ passport presented on polling day should entitle the person presenting the passport to vote, whether on a list or not.

Except.. It doesn't.

Permanent Residents of New Zealand vote in elections.

My wife's not a NZ passport holder. She votes.

Correct

Entitled to enrole as a voter if you...
are 18 years or older, and
have lived in New Zealand for more than one year continuously at some time in your life, and
are a New Zealand citizen, or
are a permanent resident of New Zealand*

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1026128 16-Apr-2014 12:11

KiwiNZ:
Entitled to enrole as a voter if you...
are 18 years or older, and
have lived in New Zealand for more than one year continuously at some time in your life, and
are a New Zealand citizen, or
are a permanent resident of New Zealand*

And I believe a year continuously = 280 days.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1026130 16-Apr-2014 12:14

KiwiNZ:
I have a couple of questions....
What is wrong with our current political system?
What is wrong with our current voting system?

I think the biggest problem is that it isn't possible to find a representative who represents you exactly. For example, you and I agree on some things, but not on others. We might end up voting for the same candidate, but always be annoyed about some of the things he or she voted for in Parliament. It's also the case that normally, a party politician has to literally vote on party lines even if he or she disagrees with party policy.

I feel that National's economic management over the last several years has been very good, and the country is in a pretty good place considering the global downturn. But I also think the Key government is a nanny-state government hell bent on being able to stick their noses into people's private lives on a whim, whilst also being completely out of touch with modern technologies and their implications.

I'd love to be able to let them manage the economy while keeping them away my private life. But I can't, because the system doesn't work that way. And while it is always the case that I will have to compromise on some things, there is the possibility that things could change to increase the amount of voice I have in the running of the country on issues I feel strongly about, or have some special ability to contribute. That can only be beneficial.

If you're talking about a case of 'let's get rid of the Queen because she's a relic' - well, yes, I agree, changing that would just be a waste of time and money.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1026132 16-Apr-2014 12:17

Sidestep:
Geektastic:
The right to vote descends from my NZ citizenship, not from my presence on a list. Ergo, proof of citizenship in the form of a NZ passport presented on polling day should entitle the person presenting the passport to vote, whether on a list or not.

Except.. It doesn't.

Permanent Residents of New Zealand vote in elections.

My wife's not a NZ passport holder. She votes.

Yeah, I was confused too -- a fortnight after registering my first car after moving here I got a letter from the Electoral Commission saying congratulations, you're on the roll. I was all 'WTF? I'm not a citizen...' In Australia you have to be a citizen. I can see why each arrangement makes sense, though.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1026147 16-Apr-2014 12:38

SaltyNZ:
Yeah, I was confused too -- a fortnight after registering my first car after moving here I got a letter from the Electoral Commission saying congratulations, you're on the roll. I was all 'WTF? I'm not a citizen...' In Australia you have to be a citizen. I can see why each arrangement makes sense, though.

You just need Citizenship if you're going to stand for public office
- so in the Dotcom/Mana alliance neither Kim nor Darth Vader would actually be allowed to hold office. Probably one of the reasons Hone's willing to work with them

charsleysa

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1026149 16-Apr-2014 12:39

On the voting side of things I would like to point out that NZ has quite a low voting turnout at 74.2% of registered voters and has been on a steady decline.

My best guess would be that this is because we still use an outdated voting system. E-democracy would alleviate this issue as it would allow voters to cast their vote no matter where they are.

Regards
Stefan Andres Charsley

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1026153 16-Apr-2014 12:43

charsleysa: On the voting side of things I would like to point out that NZ has quite a low voting turnout at 74.2% of registered voters and has been on a steady decline.

My best guess would be that this is because we still use an outdated voting system. E-democracy would alleviate this issue as it would allow voters to cast their vote no matter where they are.

Yes, there's a chunk of the population that doesn't feel engaged enough in the process to physically go and vote. Or even post a vote.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1026193 16-Apr-2014 13:18

SaltyNZ: Yeah, I was confused too -- a fortnight after registering my first car after moving here I got a letter from the Electoral Commission saying congratulations, you're on the roll. I was all 'WTF? I'm not a citizen...' In Australia you have to be a citizen. I can see why each arrangement makes sense, though.

I agree with the NZ arrangement compared to a Saudi Arabia / UAE with significant migrant worker population with no rights at all and treated like dirt. Looks like Australia wants to make similar arrangements unfortunately.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1026194 16-Apr-2014 13:20

SaltyNZ:
KiwiNZ:
I have a couple of questions....
What is wrong with our current political system?
What is wrong with our current voting system?

I think the biggest problem is that it isn't possible to find a representative who represents you exactly. For example, you and I agree on some things, but not on others. We might end up voting for the same candidate, but always be annoyed about some of the things he or she voted for in Parliament. It's also the case that normally, a party politician has to literally vote on party lines even if he or she disagrees with party policy.

I feel that National's economic management over the last several years has been very good, and the country is in a pretty good place considering the global downturn. But I also think the Key government is a nanny-state government hell bent on being able to stick their noses into people's private lives on a whim, whilst also being completely out of touch with modern technologies and their implications.

I'd love to be able to let them manage the economy while keeping them away my private life. But I can't, because the system doesn't work that way. And while it is always the case that I will have to compromise on some things, there is the possibility that things could change to increase the amount of voice I have in the running of the country on issues I feel strongly about, or have some special ability to contribute. That can only be beneficial.

If you're talking about a case of 'let's get rid of the Queen because she's a relic' - well, yes, I agree, changing that would just be a waste of time and money.

“You can please some of the people some of the time all of the people some of the time some of the people all of the time but you can never please all of the people all of the time.”

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1026214 16-Apr-2014 13:51

I do not think we are ready for electronic voting yet

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Sidestep

1019 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 567

Lifetime subscriber

#1026220 16-Apr-2014 14:06

KiwiNZ: I do not think we are ready for electronic voting yet

That's because electronic voting's not ready for us yet.

There's not yet been the ability or real need to put a coherent system together.

I hope it'll come one day.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1026226 16-Apr-2014 14:15

KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
Sidestep:
SaltyNZ: However... I have no idea how you would do it in practice.

E-Democracy. It will happen. One day.

With New Zealand's relatively clean and simple political system (meaning no State or Provincial levels of government to contend with) we'd be the perfect test bed for new political technology.

One of the reasons we still struggle along with such outdated political systems in our modern world, is the huge risk in involved in making changes. We need to backup an ISO of the current system and test out a new one.

The shift to MMP was considered radical, but has sort of worked in making government more inclusive (or perhaps divisive) a step in the right direction.

But the system's not fixed.

There are other countries who's politics – under similar systems to NZ – have been seriously affected by interference from the Queen's representative.

The Canadian Federal Parliament was Porogued by the Governor General in 2008.
It was seen to have been done under the urging of the sitting Prime Minister to avoid a looming vote of no confidence by an (unholy alliance) of opposition parties.

In Australia (back in 1975 I think) The Governor General fired – controversial - Prime Minister Gough Whitlam..
Whitlam later campaigned strongly for Australia to become a Republic.

Both actions caused a lot of soul searching, protesting on the streets and questions about whether the powers of the Governor General should be curbed, and what could replace them..

The question really is “was the will of the people done?” in either case.

@salty's “revocable transferrable vote” combined with @ charsleysa's “computer based voting system managed by the electoral commission where each person can manage their vote just by logging in online” might be one possibility. - Just up to Geekzoners to figure out the details now:)

I have a couple of questions....
What is wrong with our current political system?
What is wrong with our current voting system?

IMV the answer to your first question is 'nothing much although I'd prefer an Upper House personally rather than a dodgy committee system'

To the second, aside from encouraging time wasting toy parties, I object most to be required to register on a public list in order to exercise the right to vote.

The right to vote descends from my NZ citizenship, not from my presence on a list. Ergo, proof of citizenship in the form of a NZ passport presented on polling day should entitle the person presenting the passport to vote, whether on a list or not.

I have often thought that the Electoral Role thing seems messy, however not every citizen has a passport and with it now only valid for a handful of years it costs a lot more. So I guess its a compromise. We had an Upper House in the past and like the UK it became a lucrative retirement hobby for
washed up Parliamentarians.

So there can easily be an option: want to vote but no NZ passport? Register on the list as now.

Want to vote and have a NZ passport? Either take it along on voting day (where it can be stamped to avoid multiple votes being cast) OR go on the list.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 13