Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
18324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5252

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 548513 22-Nov-2011 16:00
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
networkn: Actually staying at home gives you no chance to voice your opinion, it sounds like you have no desire to voice your opinion and if that's the case, then don't vote, but if you want your say, you can't use the argument that you can't control the outcome so there is no point, otherwise why do many things you do day to day which have no point, including having this conversation since it's unlikely you will change the outcome. Why bother ever having an opinion.



If it’s about voicing an opinion, rather than making a difference to the result, then fair enough, vote away, although even then it still isn’t a very good way of voicing an opinion.  

If I want to voice my opinion I can do it in many ways.  
Voting is probably the least useful of them.
Why?  
Because I only have a limited choice and nobody will know why I voted for a particular candidate.

Let’s say I agree with a candidate’s policy on lowering taxes, but disagree with his policy on mandatory abortions for teenage mums.  If I vote for him then am I voicing an opinion in support of lower taxes or mandatory abortions?
Nobody will ever know. 
However, if I write a letter to the paper, post on a blog, or something similar, then I can voice my opinion in a much better and more specific way.  It still won’t change anything probably, but if my objective is just to voice an opinion then that doesn’t matter.

 

(I’m not trying to change anyone’s opinion here – I am just having fun explaining.)


My recommendation would be do both. Voting gives validity to your opinion. Also make sure that you make your local MP aware of why you feel the way you do, unless they get feedback, they have no guidance.

I and many others made our local MP  aware of our stance of the anti smacking legislation. Initially she was behind it, when she got all the feedback, she knew that unless she changed her stance, she would not get our vote, as I understand she voted in our favour. It didn't make a difference to the OUTCOME but our opinions were heard.

At the end of the day, the party I vote for, has many good things and a few bad things, I need to pick the party which most CLOSELY represents my views, or for which my key issues are aligned if I feel strongly about 1 thing.

 

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 548516 22-Nov-2011 16:04
Send private message

networkn: I am struggling to see why you aren't addressing the point which has been made time and time again. MMP DOES cater for the single voter. Also your vote DOES make a difference regardless, if 10 people vote, there are 10 votes, if 11 vote, then there are 11 votes. That is a DIFFERENCE. What you are arguing is the OUTCOME, and not being able to affect it. I would put it to you that you have as much chance of changing the outcome of the recycling benefit (In fact much less), as you would of the voting OUTCOME.

I do understand statistics, it's not about statistics, it's about your claim that you shouldn't vote because you can't single handedly controlling the outcome of the election. You can have some effect on the outcome on MMP, you just don't want to do it based on the fact you can't control the outcome on your own.

I wonder then if you feel that there would be no point to being in the military because you can't single handedly control the outcome, or going to work in a team for the same reason.




how is it DIFFERENCE if the outcome is the SAME.

with the recycling, the OUTCOME is DIFFERENT if I choose to participate or not.  the diference might be very small, but it is different nonetheless
with voting, the OUTCOME is the SAME whether or not I choose to participate.


Don’t get me wrong,  there are plenty of other reasons why somebody might choose to vote – you enjoy going for the drive, your wife will hit you if you don’t,  etc etc.  I happen to not have any of those reasons.

But thinking that you can change the outcome of the election isn’t one – and if you think it is, then you are dead wrong.



Military service is different again since it isn’t just about whether you win the war or not.  Sure, one soldier isn’t going to affect the macro result of the war (probably) but he can still make a differenc eot the outcome at a micro level e.g. he miught save a comrade’s life or he might not  with an election, there is no ‘micro’ outcome.  It’s an all or nothing result.

 

Let’s compare the two.  Take the results of the last election.  Would the outcome have been any different at any level if one person had not voted? Obviously at the macro level national would still have gotten the same number of seats and hence gotten into power, but what about the micro level where the percentage of total votes does count towards each seat.  Would one vote either way have made a difference to the coalition results or changed even one seat? Answer is still: nope.

 

What about theIraqwar. Would the overall outcome (i.e.Iraqgetting trashed) have been any different had one solider not participated. Almost certianly not.  Would the small outcomes have been different? Quite probably – individuals (comrades, civilians etc) could have lived or died depending on that one soldeir’s actions.  In other words, each individual soldier’s actions DO have an impact.

2100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 367

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 548525 22-Nov-2011 16:17
Send private message

I thought this topic was "are you better or worse off" not "should people vote".

Personaly I dont think anyone is better off but I dont blame the government for that. I also dont blame them for migration to Australia. I think both are outside of the goverments control.

I think the current government has done the best job it can in a financial sense, all things considered, and I think it would pay to not go out and borrow at this stage in the game or make a whole bunch of spending promises. This global downturn could easily get much worse before it gets better.

As for migration to Australia, what can they possibly do? We do not have the population to be able to provide the same level of opurtunity as Australia so its always going to look attractive.




When you live your life on Twitter and Facebook, and are only friends with like minded people on Twitter and Facebook, you are not living in the real world. You are living in a narcissistic echo chamber.

 


My thoughts are my own and are in no way representative of my employer.


Bee



593 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 109


  Reply # 548528 22-Nov-2011 16:23
Send private message

Give up while you are ahead... You are killing your own argument!

If Dan Carter had played in the final World cup game we might have won by more points - his actions would have had an impact according to your arguement... but really - we still won the game so who cares if it was by one point or 100???

Its big picture vs small picture... If you dont recycle, recycling still happens but you haven't played your small part...


6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 548531 22-Nov-2011 16:32
Send private message

Bee: Give up while you are ahead... You are killing your own argument!

If Dan Carter had played in the final World cup game we might have won by more points - his actions would have had an impact according to your arguement... but really - we still won the game so who cares if it was by one point or 100???

Its big picture vs small picture... If you dont recycle, recycling still happens but you haven't played your small part...



Not sure if you are aiming this at me.  Both your points support my position though, so I presume you are aiming it at someone else.

 

Dan Carter, for example. This really depends on whether you think the scoreline of a rugby game matters, or just the win/lose result.  If the former, then you would probably have wanted Dan Carter to play if you believed a bigger margin was better. If the latter (i.e. you just care about win/lose), then it is irrelevant since the ABs won. (assuming, of course, you believe he would have influenced the game in favour of the ABs, rather than negatively)

 

The ‘scoreline’ (no of seats each party gets) in MMP matters, but no one single voter has enough of an impact to change that scoreline since one vote is not enough to swing any seat one way or the other.

 

It’s all about influence – Dan Carter has a massive impact on the scoreline of a rugby game (not only is he oneplayer out of only 22, he is also the first-five, which is regarded as the most influential player on the park), a single voter has negligable impact on the scoreline of the election because they are 1 person out of several million voters, and no single seat is decided by one vote.

Bee



593 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 109


  Reply # 548536 22-Nov-2011 16:49
Send private message

geekiegeek: I thought this topic was "are you better or worse off" not "should people vote".

Personaly I dont think anyone is better off but I dont blame the government for that. I also dont blame them for migration to Australia. I think both are outside of the goverments control.

I think the current government has done the best job it can in a financial sense, all things considered, and I think it would pay to not go out and borrow at this stage in the game or make a whole bunch of spending promises. This global downturn could easily get much worse before it gets better.

As for migration to Australia, what can they possibly do? We do not have the population to be able to provide the same level of opurtunity as Australia so its always going to look attractive.


So we shouldn't vote cos no government will make any difference to if we are better off or worse? 

Migration to Australia to me is the issue that proves that Labour and National are not better than the other...  When National were in Opposition they attacked Labour at every chance about all the peoples leaving to Aus...  Now that they are in power - what have they done to stop this?  nothing?  why? because there is nothing they can do???


But yes the original questions : most people so far seem to be better off and seem to think that has nothing to do with either Labour or National... 

14356 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1867


  Reply # 548565 22-Nov-2011 17:36
Send private message

Bee:
geekiegeek: I thought this topic was "are you better or worse off" not "should people vote".

Personaly I dont think anyone is better off but I dont blame the government for that. I also dont blame them for migration to Australia. I think both are outside of the goverments control.

I think the current government has done the best job it can in a financial sense, all things considered, and I think it would pay to not go out and borrow at this stage in the game or make a whole bunch of spending promises. This global downturn could easily get much worse before it gets better.

As for migration to Australia, what can they possibly do? We do not have the population to be able to provide the same level of opurtunity as Australia so its always going to look attractive.


So we?shouldn't?vote cos no government will make any difference to if we are better off or worse??

Migration to Australia to me is the issue that proves that Labour and National are not better than the other... ?When National were in Opposition they attacked Labour at every chance about all the peoples leaving to Aus... ?Now that they are in power - what have they done to stop this? ?nothing? ?why? because there is nothing they can do???


But yes the original questions : most people so far seem to be better off and seem to think that has nothing to do with either Labour or National...?


Well they did reduce tax rates, so NZ tax rates are far less than what people are taxed in australia. They also reduced company tax rates, so they are also lower than australias. More people are leaving to go to Oz under national, but to be fair, quite a few of those are people from chch. You do have to admit that national have had a lot of bad luck too, and this national government didn't cause the problems from the past decade. eg excessive borrowing to buy overpriced houses etc.

1168 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 69


  Reply # 548583 22-Nov-2011 18:10
Send private message

For me the question isn't 'Am I better off?' as I don't think the Govt of the day has a lot to do with this. 

I'm better off than I was last election and the Govt of the day had nothing to do with it. I have a degree with helped me get my current job but I also have a student loan which is bad and all this happened a long time ago. Therefore, cause and effect are kind of difficult to attribute. 

I'm voting the other way from last election. 

My question is: Which party is proposing the most new things that are not completely insane? 

This time around I am voting for the party which I think is going to at least try to make things better by trying something new. They might get it right, they might fail, but at least they are going to try. 

Yeah, or they may be lying through their teeth in which case they won't get my vote next time. 

As far as should you vote or not. Yeah, you should, I should, we all should. I sounds corny but the greatest threat to democracy isn't force but apathy. 

I strongly believe that the party I am going to vote for will loose on Saturday. But if my vote, and the vote of others like me, keeps the beating down just a little bit then the policies that I support might make it through to the next election.  

The NZ electoral cycle is usually two terms per major party. It becomes three terms when a party collapses, my goal is to help avoid that collapse. To me one percentage point toward that end will be making a difference that I will be proud of. 

I hope the party I vote for will feel they have a mandate from me to keep fighting. Yeah I know they won't know it is CrackedByCracku voting for them but that isn't the point,

NPM - I get the statistical argument and you are right but for me voting is a heart thing not a head thing. Statistically who bets on the All Blacks to win a World Cup?  




Didn't anybody tell you I was a hacker?

4091 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 738

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 548601 22-Nov-2011 18:40
Send private message

My position is the same as many others in this thread - I'm actually in a better position than I have ever been at any time in my life, but apart from a small tax cut the government had nothing to do with it. I'm all about looking for opportunities, managing risks and fostering friendships, and the government has a very, very minor role to play in any of those things.

Despite all the political rhetoric the only government policies that I can think of that have ever had a significant impact on me have been the introduction of interest free student loans, and Kiwisaver. Kiwisaver was a good move but I have never supported interest free student loans despite having benefited from that policy because it was a blatant election bribe from a desperate Labour party.

As for not voting, I totally respect the right of others to abstain. I have been actively involved in politics since my student days so I will never miss a chance to participate in elections, but much as I had no interest in the rugby tournament last month I can understand that some people genuinely have no interest in politics and I don't think that someone should be expected to vote if they don't have the passion or the background knowledge to make a worthwhile contribution. 

2861 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 683

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 548603 22-Nov-2011 18:43
Send private message

nakedmolerat:
jeffnz: The questions are rather ambiguous as it depends entirely on your view and circumstances and you can argue on both sides of it.

I agree with Langers and heavenly and believe we need to stop funding poverty and which party is prepared to front up and do this will get my vote but i'm not holding my breathe.


do u know that countries that spend more money on welfare do better? eg: sweden (welfare state) vs greece


Bit late in reply but this link probably says more than I can about Sweden
 http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/01/29/sweden-is-a-role-model-but-for-free-market-reforms-not-socialism/
points to note would be the high number on welfare during the so called socialist years and also how some stae owned enterprises were sold off. Given all the reforms  (most should be familiar as they are being used by some parties here in NZ) and where they are now I'm not sure how using Sweden to argue for welfare states works




Galaxy S8

 

Garmin  Vivoactive 3




1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 139


  Reply # 548654 22-Nov-2011 21:27
Send private message

mattwnz: 
Well they did reduce tax rates, so NZ tax rates are far less than what people are taxed in australia. They also reduced company tax rates, so they are also lower than australias. More people are leaving to go to Oz under national, but to be fair, quite a few of those are people from chch. You do have to admit that national have had a lot of bad luck too, and this national government didn't cause the problems from the past decade. eg excessive borrowing to buy overpriced houses etc.

The whole Australian migration issue is just a political red herring. As others have said there will always be migration from smaller economies to larger ones... more opportunities.  
Tax changes here and some other policy changes may have a minor impact on the numbers, but from what I've heard it's been pretty much nett one way traffic for most of the last hundred years.

As for the original questions.....
Like others I can only hold myself responsible for where I am now, and where I'll be in 3, 6 or 16 years, and I'll take my chances to vote along the way. Because I choose to, and a democracy gives me that choice.

5227 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1121

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 548656 22-Nov-2011 21:42
Send private message

This government isn't worth voting for. Here are some reasons: 

1. They cut taxes claiming it was affordable. It wasn't. They either lied or were incompetent. 

2. They used the debt the tax cuts made even worse as an excuse to sell public assets.

3. "No asset sales in the first term" really meant: "The debt we're creating isn't big enough yet to use as an excuse." 

4. They have no real reason for sellinhg these profitable assets. They earn more money than interest saved on the debt they would pay down. That's just dumb. 

5. They are destroying public broadcasting. TVNZ7 is probably the best channel in the country for people who think and pay attention. They are working to gut RadioNZ - probably the last, best source of New Zealand news that isn't infotainment or tabloid trash. 

6. They have lied about the efficacy of the CBD rail loop in Auckland with Min. Steven Joyce cooking the books on how many cars it would remove from the roads to make the rail loop look like a poor investment. His numbers were SO bad they were obviously fictional. 

7. National hasn't got a CLUE about peak oil or climate change and the impact this will have on NZ in the very near future. We need major public transport investment yesterday to prepare for the expensive-energy future already well underway. 

8. National put up a referendum on MMP because a major donor asked for it. So we get the "1% referendum" and I risk losing my vote that actually elects people. I take a VERY dim veiw of millionaires buying referendums for the purpose of making my vote worthless....and an EXTREMELY dim view of any party that has sold such a referendum....as National has done.  

9. They claimed they wanted a high wage policy..then introduced several pieces of legislation that can ONLY push wages down and make workers less secure in their jobs. The 90-day probation law. The move to CUT the wages of school leavers who are just starting out on their own. This is disgusting. 

10. Getting rid of interest-free student loans is disgraceful. Young people starting out with a mountain of debt have NO hope of buying a home or saving for retirement. We only live so long. Loafing kids with debt when they are trying to start families and get their lives going is a seriously STUPID thing to do. 

11. Past National governments brought in the legislation that lead to the leaky buildings. They also dismantled the mines inspectorate and that lead to effectively voluntary compliance...and Pike River. 

12. Now they want to sell energy assets just as peak oil kicks in (daft!)...and use the money to build irrigation for....farmers. Effectively stealing from all of us (we lose the profit on the assets) to build canals for cronies. 

There is more.....but the lies and incompetence and shady dealing listed above is already TEN times more than any sane person should need to ensure they never voted for the National party ever again.

But worst of all - by a long, LONG way - they want to take my vote away. That is some SERIOUS sh*t. 




____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


18324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5252

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 548671 22-Nov-2011 22:27
Send private message

/me lol and speechless at the same time. What an outrageous slanting of the facts!

Also not the point of this thread, perhaps you could start a new thread.

5227 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1121

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 548673 22-Nov-2011 22:42
Send private message

networkn: /me lol and speechless at the same time. What an outrageous slanting of the facts!

Also not the point of this thread, perhaps you could start a new thread.


There is no "slant".

This is what is happening.  

I'm worse off for all these reasons...and my kids will get paid less just as they are starting out.

Spin that if you like. It's more than plain enough to me and my kids.

I gave a dozen specific examples. You gave.....nothing.  




____________________________________________________
I'm on a high fibre diet. 

 

High fibre diet


18324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5252

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 548693 23-Nov-2011 00:23
Send private message

Oh please, there are so many holes in your suggestions you could put an oil field inside it :)

However this isn't the thread for a discussion of those points hence I didn't make point by dismantling of your FUD.

BTW no-one is taking your vote away, it's a referendum, vote to keep your vote if that's what you consider so important. MMP will stay in, very little doubt.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.