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

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

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#951906 13-Dec-2013 21:10

It's all completely irrelevant because it will be ignored, and that my dear friends is $9M of your hard earned taxpayers money down the toilet. Shame really.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#951908 13-Dec-2013 21:12

scuwp: It's all completely irrelevant because it will be ignored, and that my dear friends is $9M of your hard earned taxpayers money down the toilet. Shame really.

this

but like the greens and Labour combining to make the sale price of the assets less it is seen as a victory butr achieved nothing more than ripping off the tax payers once again

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

crazed

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#951917 13-Dec-2013 21:46

jnawk:
KiwiNZ:
richms: Miss leading headline when not everyone voted

It isn't misleading, it was nearly two thirds of those who voted.

No, it is. Two thirds of those who voted are not two thirds of all voters. Two thirds of those who voted are around 1/4 of all voters.

Fewer people voted 'no' than people who voted 'not national' in the last election. I think it's official, John has his mandate. (Which isn't what the headline would have you believe.)

47.31% of those who voted in the general election in 2011 voted for National, while that is a majority of those who voted, it is far from a mandate, 47.31% in 2011 was 1,058,636 votes that is still only around 1/3 of all registered voters.

CraZeD,
Your friendly Southern Geeky Fellow :P

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#951927 13-Dec-2013 22:28

crazed:
jnawk:
KiwiNZ:
richms: Miss leading headline when not everyone voted

It isn't misleading, it was nearly two thirds of those who voted.

No, it is. Two thirds of those who voted are not two thirds of all voters. Two thirds of those who voted are around 1/4 of all voters.

Fewer people voted 'no' than people who voted 'not national' in the last election. I think it's official, John has his mandate. (Which isn't what the headline would have you believe.)

47.31% of those who voted in the general election in 2011 voted for National, while that is a majority of those who voted, it is far from a mandate, 47.31% in 2011 was 1,058,636 votes that is still only around 1/3 of all registered voters.

Yup, I don't disagree with the numbers.

But, approximately 75% of voters _didn't_ say 'no' to asset sales - the one thing we question national's 'mandate' on - when the issue was put forward, in isolation. It might as well be a mandate.

crazed

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#951972 13-Dec-2013 23:48

I know several who didn't vote not because they supported the sales, but because they have lost faith in the democratic process and found no point in voting on something that is being ignored no matter the outcome.

Democracy has been on a steady decline in participation for many years. Many see politicians as out of touch, ignorant and arrogant when it comes to real issues and situations in the communities.

It comes down to politicians not engaging with voters which shows itself in the voter turnout. Many just don't see the point of voting anymore. Its not just NZ's problem, its happen worldwide and some politicians are using it as an opportunity to play sim city on a larger scale.

CraZeD,
Your friendly Southern Geeky Fellow :P

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#951988 14-Dec-2013 00:39

crazed: I know several who didn't vote not because they supported the sales, but because they have lost faith in the democratic process and found no point in voting on something that is being ignored no matter the outcome.

Democracy has been on a steady decline in participation for many years. Many see politicians as out of touch, ignorant and arrogant when it comes to real issues and situations in the communities.

It comes down to politicians not engaging with voters which shows itself in the voter turnout. Many just don't see the point of voting anymore. Its not just NZ's problem, its happen worldwide and some politicians are using it as an opportunity to play sim city on a larger scale.

I fiind this silly. Do you want a vote on every single issue? I don't have a clue how to run a country's budget and while I may/may not support the asset sales I'm not going to pretend I know what the economic impact of my own personal opinion would be on the country. How the hell does every member of the public know how the asset sales really fit in to the long term plan of governments budget? How the intended sales intend to fund other areas/programmes?

I would be worried if every issue (or more accurately, any issue the media decide is worthy of air time) came down to a lengthy and expensive referendum where the majority of people can't even explain how they arrived at their decision. If the assets sales really are a bad idea, and we really see the economy crash and burn because of it then vote National out next election. They are elected representatives, let them do their jobs. If anything I'm more pissed off with the Greens/Labour/Mana sabotage of the asset sales more than the sales themselves. They could not give a clear reason not to sell in the first place so instead made political threats that impacted on the value of the shares. That seems like a far more dangerous future government than one that wants to sell down 49% while retaining majority ownership...

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#951990 14-Dec-2013 00:47

scuwp: It's all completely irrelevant because it will be ignored, and that my dear friends is $9M of your hard earned taxpayers money down the toilet. Shame really.

That's the tip of the iceberg. The impact on the share sale price of the Lab/Green grandstanding just before the sale occurred looks like it cost the taxpayer many, many times this amount. Depending who you believe, it appears to have spooked investors sufficiently to shave several hundred million off the sale price.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#951992 14-Dec-2013 01:15

crazed: I know several who didn't vote not because they supported the sales, but because they have lost faith in the democratic process and found no point in voting on something that is being ignored no matter the outcome.

Democracy has been on a steady decline in participation for many years. Many see politicians as out of touch, ignorant and arrogant when it comes to real issues and situations in the communities.

It comes down to politicians not engaging with voters which shows itself in the voter turnout. Many just don't see the point of voting anymore. Its not just NZ's problem, its happen worldwide and some politicians are using it as an opportunity to play sim city on a larger scale.

You can't blame the elected officials in a government made up of the votes of everyone who wants to. The only blame to be laid is on those either apathetic toward the outcome or if ignorant of the issues.

Instead of throwing your hands in the air, how about educating those around you.

driller2000

935 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#952016 14-Dec-2013 07:46

jnawk:
KiwiNZ:
richms: Miss leading headline when not everyone voted

It isn't misleading, it was nearly two thirds of those who voted.

No, it is. Two thirds of those who voted are not two thirds of all voters. Two thirds of those who voted are around 1/4 of all voters.

Fewer people voted 'no' than people who voted 'not national' in the last election. I think it's official, John has his mandate. (Which isn't what the headline would have you believe.)

bollocks to "mandate"

of those who voted on this SPECIFIC issue (and that is what matters in any vote on any matter) - 2/3rds have said NO

to spin it any other way shows bias on your part

hopefully national will zip it on this claimed mandate re asset sales

yes they have a mandate to govern based on the last election result (with their coalition partners) - and to enact the policies that they want as a result

they however have no right to claim that the nation supports them in EVERYTHING they do because that is never the case for any elected government

ps: i have no issue with the money spent on the referendum - it's our system - it was used as intended - and at less than $3 head - meh...
pps: and national has every right to ignore the vote, but a government that doesn't listen too often to the electorate does so at its peril

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#952019 14-Dec-2013 07:58

driller2000:
jnawk: I think it's official, John has his mandate. (Which isn't what the headline would have you believe.)

bollocks to "mandate"

of those who voted on this SPECIFIC issue (and that is what matters in any vote on any matter) - 2/3rds have said NO

to spin it any other way shows bias on your part

Mate, if you've been reading this thread, you'll see that I'm indeed biased - but not in the way you seem to suggest. Heavily against asset sales, and against the National party.
John key is a naughty word beginning with W that GeekZone will probably not let me post, so I won't try, and I think asset sales are a bad idea. But, one can't ignore the facts. The question was put to "the people", and the people said "meh".

driller2000

935 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#952035 14-Dec-2013 09:03

ok i was wrong about your bias - my apologies :)

i however stand by everything else i said :)

k1wi

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

#952049 14-Dec-2013 09:36

To be honest the turn out was higher than I expected (I had expected a turn out in the 30's), but the result was less against asset sales than I had thought it would be.

It does seem as if the country largely said 'meh' to the sale of these SOEs.

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...

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#952052 14-Dec-2013 09:38

sdav:
crazed: I know several who didn't vote not because they supported the sales, but because they have lost faith in the democratic process and found no point in voting on something that is being ignored no matter the outcome.

Democracy has been on a steady decline in participation for many years. Many see politicians as out of touch, ignorant and arrogant when it comes to real issues and situations in the communities.

It comes down to politicians not engaging with voters which shows itself in the voter turnout. Many just don't see the point of voting anymore. Its not just NZ's problem, its happen worldwide and some politicians are using it as an opportunity to play sim city on a larger scale.

I fiind this silly. Do you want a vote on every single issue? I don't have a clue how to run a country's budget and while I may/may not support the asset sales I'm not going to pretend I know what the economic impact of my own personal opinion would be on the country. How the hell does every member of the public know how the asset sales really fit in to the long term plan of governments budget? How the intended sales intend to fund other areas/programmes?

I would be worried if every issue (or more accurately, any issue the media decide is worthy of air time) came down to a lengthy and expensive referendum where the majority of people can't even explain how they arrived at their decision. If the assets sales really are a bad idea, and we really see the economy crash and burn because of it then vote National out next election. They are elected representatives, let them do their jobs. If anything I'm more pissed off with the Greens/Labour/Mana sabotage of the asset sales more than the sales themselves. They could not give a clear reason not to sell in the first place so instead made political threats that impacted on the value of the shares. That seems like a far more dangerous future government than one that wants to sell down 49% while retaining majority ownership...

Very nicely said. I agree with your assertions.

Hammerer

2476 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#952058 14-Dec-2013 09:46

JimmyH:
scuwp: It's all completely irrelevant because it will be ignored, and that my dear friends is $9M of your hard earned taxpayers money down the toilet. Shame really.

That's the tip of the iceberg. The impact on the share sale price of the Lab/Green grandstanding just before the sale occurred looks like it cost the taxpayer many, many times this amount. Depending who you believe, it appears to have spooked investors sufficiently to shave several hundred million off the sale price.

I chose not to vote in the referendum for four reasons:

I'm for selling some of those assets and against selling others. There's no way for me to specify which.
The result was being touted as support for the policies of specific parties which is not what the question asked and not the result I want.
I wouldn't vote against because that would be taken as support for the actions of the parties that produced a lower price for overseas investors. Labour and the Greens have done enough damage to make sure that I won't consider voting for the party, and maybe the candidates, at the next general election.
I can't see any point in voting when the result is about political point scoring rather than addressing what I want. A well-designed market survey would have produced a more useful result that would provide a much clearer picture for much less cost.

crazed

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#952092 14-Dec-2013 10:45

sdav:
crazed: I know several who didn't vote not because they supported the sales, but because they have lost faith in the democratic process and found no point in voting on something that is being ignored no matter the outcome.

Democracy has been on a steady decline in participation for many years. Many see politicians as out of touch, ignorant and arrogant when it comes to real issues and situations in the communities.

It comes down to politicians not engaging with voters which shows itself in the voter turnout. Many just don't see the point of voting anymore. Its not just NZ's problem, its happen worldwide and some politicians are using it as an opportunity to play sim city on a larger scale.

I fiind this silly. Do you want a vote on every single issue? I don't have a clue how to run a country's budget and while I may/may not support the asset sales I'm not going to pretend I know what the economic impact of my own personal opinion would be on the country. How the hell does every member of the public know how the asset sales really fit in to the long term plan of governments budget? How the intended sales intend to fund other areas/programmes?

I would be worried if every issue (or more accurately, any issue the media decide is worthy of air time) came down to a lengthy and expensive referendum where the majority of people can't even explain how they arrived at their decision. If the assets sales really are a bad idea, and we really see the economy crash and burn because of it then vote National out next election. They are elected representatives, let them do their jobs. If anything I'm more pissed off with the Greens/Labour/Mana sabotage of the asset sales more than the sales themselves. They could not give a clear reason not to sell in the first place so instead made political threats that impacted on the value of the shares. That seems like a far more dangerous future government than one that wants to sell down 49% while retaining majority ownership...

Actually no I don't, It would be a time consuming, expensive and complex system, controlled by a select few as many wouldn't bother voting. 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. Typical party politics.

I don't support any party, never have, but I also think the system is a failure and controlled by a select few without any type of true democracy or true representation. While I do vote, I vote based on an issue by issue basis and what I see needs changing in my local community.

I'm personally against asset sales, especially when it comes to assets considered national infrastructure, such as power, water, transport and communications. I don't care if it was national selling them, labour selling them or Winston Peters selling them.

CraZeD,
Your friendly Southern Geeky Fellow :P

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12