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

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#940353 25-Nov-2013 14:05

KiwiNZ:

A citizens initiated referendum becomes initiated when enough signatures are gained on a petition requesting same, both petitions and referendums are examples of effective democracy, others are elections, lobbying MP's etc etc.

With regards to examples of parliamentary votes check Hansard.

The party I voted for at the last election I agreed with about 60% to 70% of their policies, a referendum allows for a vote on a particular matter that is of concern to the populous.

(Truncated quote, due to my love of double spaced sentences....)

So you voted for them based on agreeing with 60-70% of their policies, and then hoped to be able to change their views on the remaining 30-40%, should they successfully gain power, by way of citizens initiated referendum?

How often has that worked?

I am certain, that history will show that in a democracy, no party has ruled from the year dot, through to where we are now. The extreme left and extreme right policies are not sustainable. I still say that a balncaed approach is required, but debating from extreme left or right positions, with no middle ground does nobody any favours.

If you look at asset sales as your example, you only need look at the power generation company sell down vs. the Air new Zealand sell down. Similar concepts, but in my opinion, one has merits and the other not so many. Having said this, the National approach was "sell, sell" whilst the Labour Greens approach was "don't sell, don't sell", all parties being guilty of not being able to see the pro's and cons of each proposal, merely shouting from their particular end of the left-right spectrum.

And yes, I do see the irony in my debating the topic of debating with you....

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#940359 25-Nov-2013 14:20

MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:

A citizens initiated referendum becomes initiated when enough signatures are gained on a petition requesting same, both petitions and referendums are examples of effective democracy, others are elections, lobbying MP's etc etc.

With regards to examples of parliamentary votes check Hansard.

The party I voted for at the last election I agreed with about 60% to 70% of their policies, a referendum allows for a vote on a particular matter that is of concern to the populous.

(Truncated quote, due to my love of double spaced sentences....)

So you voted for them based on agreeing with 60-70% of their policies, and then hoped to be able to change their views on the remaining 30-40%, should they successfully gain power, by way of citizens initiated referendum?

How often has that worked?

I am certain, that history will show that in a democracy, no party has ruled from the year dot, through to where we are now. The extreme left and extreme right policies are not sustainable. I still say that a balncaed approach is required, but debating from extreme left or right positions, with no middle ground does nobody any favours.

If you look at asset sales as your example, you only need look at the power generation company sell down vs. the Air new Zealand sell down. Similar concepts, but in my opinion, one has merits and the other not so many. Having said this, the National approach was "sell, sell" whilst the Labour Greens approach was "don't sell, don't sell", all parties being guilty of not being able to see the pro's and cons of each proposal, merely shouting from their particular end of the left-right spectrum.

And yes, I do see the irony in my debating the topic of debating with you....

1. I have not stated which party I voted for.
2. I have not stated that I support or oppose asset sales.
3. I believe in the democratic system we have of allowing citizen initiated Referendums
4. I believe that once a referendum had been initiated the sales processes should have been suspended to allow the democratic process to run it's course.
5. The Citizens initiated referendum act 1993 was passed by a National Government... irony.

k1wi

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

#940362 25-Nov-2013 14:26

We've been a little off topic for a while now haven't we...

nakedmolerat

4625 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#940365 25-Nov-2013 14:41

k1wi: We've been a little off topic for a while now haven't we...

I disagree. I think we have great discussions in this post

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#940372 25-Nov-2013 14:49

nakedmolerat:
k1wi: We've been a little off topic for a while now haven't we...

I disagree. I think we have great discussions in this post

Keeping in mind, of course, the fact that the topic of the post was the fact that I was able to look at my sealed vote, and those of my friends, and determine that all were to my satisfaction, and that my ability to do this is a problem. (It's not a super power on my part).

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#940389 25-Nov-2013 15:35

KiwiNZ:
MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:

A citizens initiated referendum becomes initiated when enough signatures are gained on a petition requesting same, both petitions and referendums are examples of effective democracy, others are elections, lobbying MP's etc etc.

With regards to examples of parliamentary votes check Hansard.

The party I voted for at the last election I agreed with about 60% to 70% of their policies, a referendum allows for a vote on a particular matter that is of concern to the populous.

(Truncated quote, due to my love of double spaced sentences....)

So you voted for them based on agreeing with 60-70% of their policies, and then hoped to be able to change their views on the remaining 30-40%, should they successfully gain power, by way of citizens initiated referendum?

How often has that worked?

I am certain, that history will show that in a democracy, no party has ruled from the year dot, through to where we are now. The extreme left and extreme right policies are not sustainable. I still say that a balncaed approach is required, but debating from extreme left or right positions, with no middle ground does nobody any favours.

If you look at asset sales as your example, you only need look at the power generation company sell down vs. the Air new Zealand sell down. Similar concepts, but in my opinion, one has merits and the other not so many. Having said this, the National approach was "sell, sell" whilst the Labour Greens approach was "don't sell, don't sell", all parties being guilty of not being able to see the pro's and cons of each proposal, merely shouting from their particular end of the left-right spectrum.

And yes, I do see the irony in my debating the topic of debating with you....

1. I have not stated which party I voted for.
2. I have not stated that I support or oppose asset sales.
3. I believe in the democratic system we have of allowing citizen initiated Referendums
4. I believe that once a referendum had been initiated the sales processes should have been suspended to allow the democratic process to run it's course.
5. The Citizens initiated referendum act 1993 was passed by a National Government... irony.

Ok, misunderstanding somewhere, because at no point did I say that you had voted for National or said that you support asset sales.

You also failed to respond to my question regarding successful CIR's. The answer to that is a resounding "it has not worked since the act was enacted".

In fact, since 1994, when the act was first called upon, there have been 4 instances only where there has been enough support for a CIR (not including the current asset sales CIR).

Of those four, which were held in 1995, 1999, 1999 and 2009, all gained overwhelming support of between 81.5% and 91.8%.

None of these referendums caused any of the governments in power to halt proceedings or change policy decisions. Basically, a single fingered salute to the public from both major parties in NZ politics.

My point: Have as many referendums as you desire, however, decisions will be made by the party in power, based on which way they lean, based on the fact that they have mandates to do as they have stated in their policy statements, prior to elections.

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

scottjpalmer

5962 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#940406 25-Nov-2013 16:04

jnawk:
nakedmolerat:
k1wi: We've been a little off topic for a while now haven't we...

I disagree. I think we have great discussions in this post

Keeping in mind, of course, the fact that the topic of the post was the fact that I was able to look at my sealed vote, and those of my friends, and determine that all were to my satisfaction, and that my ability to do this is a problem. (It's not a super power on my part).

Do to the course this has taken and there not being a need for another thread I have amended the thread title.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#940407 25-Nov-2013 16:10

MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:
MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:

A citizens initiated referendum becomes initiated when enough signatures are gained on a petition requesting same, both petitions and referendums are examples of effective democracy, others are elections, lobbying MP's etc etc.

With regards to examples of parliamentary votes check Hansard.

The party I voted for at the last election I agreed with about 60% to 70% of their policies, a referendum allows for a vote on a particular matter that is of concern to the populous.

(Truncated quote, due to my love of double spaced sentences....)

So you voted for them based on agreeing with 60-70% of their policies, and then hoped to be able to change their views on the remaining 30-40%, should they successfully gain power, by way of citizens initiated referendum?

How often has that worked?

I am certain, that history will show that in a democracy, no party has ruled from the year dot, through to where we are now. The extreme left and extreme right policies are not sustainable. I still say that a balncaed approach is required, but debating from extreme left or right positions, with no middle ground does nobody any favours.

If you look at asset sales as your example, you only need look at the power generation company sell down vs. the Air new Zealand sell down. Similar concepts, but in my opinion, one has merits and the other not so many. Having said this, the National approach was "sell, sell" whilst the Labour Greens approach was "don't sell, don't sell", all parties being guilty of not being able to see the pro's and cons of each proposal, merely shouting from their particular end of the left-right spectrum.

And yes, I do see the irony in my debating the topic of debating with you....

1. I have not stated which party I voted for.
2. I have not stated that I support or oppose asset sales.
3. I believe in the democratic system we have of allowing citizen initiated Referendums
4. I believe that once a referendum had been initiated the sales processes should have been suspended to allow the democratic process to run it's course.
5. The Citizens initiated referendum act 1993 was passed by a National Government... irony.

Ok, misunderstanding somewhere, because at no point did I say that you had voted for National or said that you support asset sales.

You also failed to respond to my question regarding successful CIR's. The answer to that is a resounding "it has not worked since the act was enacted".

In fact, since 1994, when the act was first called upon, there have been 4 instances only where there has been enough support for a CIR (not including the current asset sales CIR).

Of those four, which were held in 1995, 1999, 1999 and 2009, all gained overwhelming support of between 81.5% and 91.8%.

None of these referendums caused any of the governments in power to halt proceedings or change policy decisions. Basically, a single fingered salute to the public from both major parties in NZ politics.

My point: Have as many referendums as you desire, however, decisions will be made by the party in power, based on which way they lean, based on the fact that they have mandates to do as they have stated in their policy statements, prior to elections.

I believe that the referendums should be binding

scuwp

3868 posts

Uber Geek

#940450 25-Nov-2013 16:47

KiwiNZ:
MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:
MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:

A citizens initiated referendum becomes initiated when enough signatures are gained on a petition requesting same, both petitions and referendums are examples of effective democracy, others are elections, lobbying MP's etc etc.

With regards to examples of parliamentary votes check Hansard.

The party I voted for at the last election I agreed with about 60% to 70% of their policies, a referendum allows for a vote on a particular matter that is of concern to the populous.

(Truncated quote, due to my love of double spaced sentences....)

So you voted for them based on agreeing with 60-70% of their policies, and then hoped to be able to change their views on the remaining 30-40%, should they successfully gain power, by way of citizens initiated referendum?

How often has that worked?

I am certain, that history will show that in a democracy, no party has ruled from the year dot, through to where we are now. The extreme left and extreme right policies are not sustainable. I still say that a balncaed approach is required, but debating from extreme left or right positions, with no middle ground does nobody any favours.

If you look at asset sales as your example, you only need look at the power generation company sell down vs. the Air new Zealand sell down. Similar concepts, but in my opinion, one has merits and the other not so many. Having said this, the National approach was "sell, sell" whilst the Labour Greens approach was "don't sell, don't sell", all parties being guilty of not being able to see the pro's and cons of each proposal, merely shouting from their particular end of the left-right spectrum.

And yes, I do see the irony in my debating the topic of debating with you....

1. I have not stated which party I voted for.
2. I have not stated that I support or oppose asset sales.
3. I believe in the democratic system we have of allowing citizen initiated Referendums
4. I believe that once a referendum had been initiated the sales processes should have been suspended to allow the democratic process to run it's course.
5. The Citizens initiated referendum act 1993 was passed by a National Government... irony.

Ok, misunderstanding somewhere, because at no point did I say that you had voted for National or said that you support asset sales.

You also failed to respond to my question regarding successful CIR's. The answer to that is a resounding "it has not worked since the act was enacted".

In fact, since 1994, when the act was first called upon, there have been 4 instances only where there has been enough support for a CIR (not including the current asset sales CIR).

Of those four, which were held in 1995, 1999, 1999 and 2009, all gained overwhelming support of between 81.5% and 91.8%.

None of these referendums caused any of the governments in power to halt proceedings or change policy decisions. Basically, a single fingered salute to the public from both major parties in NZ politics.

My point: Have as many referendums as you desire, however, decisions will be made by the party in power, based on which way they lean, based on the fact that they have mandates to do as they have stated in their policy statements, prior to elections.

I believe that the referendums should be binding

So you want to leave NZ's future to a bunch of people who largely may:

Not be qualified in the topic matter
Have no experience or exposure to the topic matter
Are irrationally swayed by public opinion, media images and messaging

Hmmm...interesting concept. Isn't that like asking a 5 year old what they think of middle eastern politics?

Not saying I disagree totally, just depends on the topic.

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

MikeSkyrme

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#940471 25-Nov-2013 16:56

KiwiNZ:

I believe that the referendums should be binding

I have two responses to that...:

1. Awesome. Let's get rid of government completely and decide everything by referendum.

OR....

2. There is a binding referendum every few years... it is called a general election, whereby the general public gets to choose the people they believe will make the decisions that need to be made regarding the governing of the country.

Michael Skyrme - Instrumentation & Controls

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#940476 25-Nov-2013 17:02

MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:

I believe that the referendums should be binding

I have two responses to that...:

1. Awesome. Let's get rid of government completely and decide everything by referendum.

OR....

2. There is a binding referendum every few years... it is called a general election, whereby the general public gets to choose the people they believe will make the decisions that need to be made regarding the governing of the country.

I don't believe you fully comprehend democracy

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#940487 25-Nov-2013 17:04

scuwp:
KiwiNZ:
MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:
MikeSkyrme:
KiwiNZ:

A citizens initiated referendum becomes initiated when enough signatures are gained on a petition requesting same, both petitions and referendums are examples of effective democracy, others are elections, lobbying MP's etc etc.

With regards to examples of parliamentary votes check Hansard.

The party I voted for at the last election I agreed with about 60% to 70% of their policies, a referendum allows for a vote on a particular matter that is of concern to the populous.

(Truncated quote, due to my love of double spaced sentences....)

So you voted for them based on agreeing with 60-70% of their policies, and then hoped to be able to change their views on the remaining 30-40%, should they successfully gain power, by way of citizens initiated referendum?

How often has that worked?

I am certain, that history will show that in a democracy, no party has ruled from the year dot, through to where we are now. The extreme left and extreme right policies are not sustainable. I still say that a balncaed approach is required, but debating from extreme left or right positions, with no middle ground does nobody any favours.

If you look at asset sales as your example, you only need look at the power generation company sell down vs. the Air new Zealand sell down. Similar concepts, but in my opinion, one has merits and the other not so many. Having said this, the National approach was "sell, sell" whilst the Labour Greens approach was "don't sell, don't sell", all parties being guilty of not being able to see the pro's and cons of each proposal, merely shouting from their particular end of the left-right spectrum.

And yes, I do see the irony in my debating the topic of debating with you....

1. I have not stated which party I voted for.
2. I have not stated that I support or oppose asset sales.
3. I believe in the democratic system we have of allowing citizen initiated Referendums
4. I believe that once a referendum had been initiated the sales processes should have been suspended to allow the democratic process to run it's course.
5. The Citizens initiated referendum act 1993 was passed by a National Government... irony.

Ok, misunderstanding somewhere, because at no point did I say that you had voted for National or said that you support asset sales.

You also failed to respond to my question regarding successful CIR's. The answer to that is a resounding "it has not worked since the act was enacted".

In fact, since 1994, when the act was first called upon, there have been 4 instances only where there has been enough support for a CIR (not including the current asset sales CIR).

Of those four, which were held in 1995, 1999, 1999 and 2009, all gained overwhelming support of between 81.5% and 91.8%.

None of these referendums caused any of the governments in power to halt proceedings or change policy decisions. Basically, a single fingered salute to the public from both major parties in NZ politics.

My point: Have as many referendums as you desire, however, decisions will be made by the party in power, based on which way they lean, based on the fact that they have mandates to do as they have stated in their policy statements, prior to elections.

I believe that the referendums should be binding

So you want to leave NZ's future to a bunch of people who largely may:

Not be qualified in the topic matter

Have no experience or exposure to the topic matter

Are irrationally swayed by public opinion, media images and messaging

Hmmm...interesting concept. Isn't that like asking a 5 year old what they think of middle eastern politics?

Not saying I disagree totally, just depends on the topic.

The same could be said about the electoral process.

jnawk

176 posts

Master Geek

#940488 25-Nov-2013 17:04

scuwp:
KiwiNZ:
I believe that the referendums should be binding

So you want to leave NZ's future to a bunch of people who largely may:

Not be qualified in the topic matter
Have no experience or exposure to the topic matter
Are irrationally swayed by public opinion, media images and messaging

Hmmm...interesting concept. Isn't that like asking a 5 year old what they think of middle eastern politics?

Not saying I disagree totally, just depends on the topic.

Way to misconstrue the point - CIRs need 10% support before they even happen. The "bunch" of people you mention are quite a large "bunch". Not as if just any old topic gets 10%+ of the voting population riled up enough to sign a petition about it.

Also, you seem to assume politicians are:

Qualified in the topic matter
Have experience or exposure to the topic matter
Aren't irrationally swayed by public opinion, media images and messaging

Isn't that a little optimistic?

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#940528 25-Nov-2013 18:18

jnawk: Also, you seem to assume politicians are:

Qualified in the topic matter
Have experience or exposure to the topic matter
Aren't irrationally swayed by public opinion, media images and messaging
Isn't that a little optimistic?

Politicians have proven time and time again that they, by and large, do not meet the criteria above

Twitter: ajobbins

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#940539 25-Nov-2013 18:22

The fact that the national party cronies can just turn around and give us the middle finger and LOL whilst selling off something that doesn't belong to the Govt is astounding .... The referendum should have been binding

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 12