Do Not Vote campaign
April 30th, 2008 at 12:16 pm by David FarrarOn Monday a group called Better Democracy NZ launched a Do Not Vote website.
They support binding referenda as opposed to the “elective dictatorship” known as representative democracy.
Pretty stupid idea. I am strongly against binding referenda, but if they really think people want them, why don’t they get 300,000 signatures for an indicative referendum on having binding referenda. Or set up their own party.
On a practical level, it is impossible to have binding referenda without a written constitution. I support a written constitution incidentally, and would view a constitution and significant amendments to it as something that should be done by referendum. But not day to day law making.
Related posts:
- A referendum on referendums!
- Republic Referendum Bill selected in ballot
- Ansell on his Treatygate campaign
- The parliamentary purchased referendum achieved
April 30th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
The “binding referenda” idea is one that SHOULD be taken up by a party that will win big on votes as a consequence. The NZ public is probably very very ready for it.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Well here we have it from the horses mouth (Or asses mouth):
A parliamentary inquiry has found that there are problems and dissatisfaction with New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, but there is no need for immediate change.
Vote:The constitutional arrangements select committee said there needed to be more widespread understanding of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and the implications of any change.
The committee said schools should do more civic and citizenship education and the Government should consider setting up an independent institute to foster understanding and debate about the constitution.
The report also recommended that a permanent parliamentary select committee be set up to look at constitutional issues as they arise.
New Zealand’s constitution, unlike most countries, is not based on one main document. It has evolved over time through different laws, treaties and conventions.
The committee said while many people were concerned about the state of the constitutional arrangements, the subject of their concerns varied, as did how best to fix the problems.
“New Zealand’s constitution is not in crisis…(and) the costs and risks of attempting significant reform could outweigh those of persisting with current arrangements,” the report said.
Advertisement
Advertisement
“We think that public dissatisfaction with our current arrangements is generally more chronic than acute.”
The report said even discussing constitutional changes could cause more problems than existed now.
“The process of embarking on a discussion of possible constitutional change may itself irretrievably unsettle the status quo without any widely agreed resolution being achievable.”
One example cited is the role of the Waitangi Treaty. Some want it to have a greater constitutional significance and others want it reduced or removed entirely.
Instead of advocating for any changes or even a process to look at change, the committee pushed for more education.
In the past, New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements had evolved piece by piece and sometimes without many people noticing, the committee said.
“There is a risk at present that individual changes are sometimes made without sufficient appreciation, by Parliament and the public, that they have constitutional ramifications,” the committee said.
They said a permanent parliamentary select committee should act on a non-partisan basis to examine constitutional issues as they arise.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“In the past, New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements had evolved piece by piece and sometimes without many people noticing, the committee said.”
Isn’t that the standard socialist way? Sneak the social engineering through hoping the proles don’t notice and by the time the fools realise they have been shafted it is too late!
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
And all those time-evolved little legal principles that make up our “constitution”, what do they count for when we’ve got a gummint like the Heleban?
By the way, what is so offensive about my comment at the top, to justify a negative Karma hit?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Ah, right up my alley.
vto in fact stands for the name of a party I made some minor moves at creating for the last election (until apathy tackled me). It stands for “Vote Them Out”.
Vote Them Out is a party whereby an elected member does not attend Parliament, does not vote on anything, does not attend select committees, doesn’t do anything. Donates all salaries and expenses to charity.
The idea is to vote out the politicians. Many people are sick and tired of them. This way the system can be used to vote the system out. If say VTO got 5 seats then the those 5 seats would be rendered useless and the number drop from 120 to 115.
It is a way for those that have serious concerns about the whole system to do something about it – by voting it out. It would appeal to those that refuse to vote by giving them a voice and action.
I dear say it would lead to some hatred being directed towards those involved as it could potentially wreak havoc with the system. Especially if VTO introduced random voting as an alternative.
Any takers out there?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“By the way, what is so offensive about my comment at the top, to justify a negative Karma hit?”
Nothing at all PB I just gave you a plus, must have been a passing Stalinist gave you the minus.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Interesting concept vto but turkeys have never voted for an early xmas besides who would get to ride around in them flash beamers we just bought for the shitbags?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
By the way, what is so offensive about my comment at the top, to justify a negative Karma hit?
Id say some people here give karma based on the poster, rather than the actual message.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
DPF
As you do not back up your statement that binding refernda are impossible without a written constitution it implies you just don’t want them albeit you support a written constitution. NZ is I understand unique in Western Democracies in having no second chamber or effective check on the executive which is part of the reason there is so much disquiet around the abolition of the Privy Council, the anti smacking and Electoral finance legislation all of which have been rammed through parliament in the face of significant if not majoirty disapproval of the electorate.The benefit of binding referenda is that the current system can remain as having a referendum does not mean that the result will be what the initiators were seeking. It does however provide a major brake on ill conceived or unacceptable legislation as the threat of a sucessful referendum which removed the legislation and perhaps the initiators would force politicians to consider this possibility.
Vote:Switzerland has used referenda for a century and they appear to be quite happy with the working of the system and Califonians do not seem to regret using their democratic power to remove a governor and even if the are it was the electors view and that can changed by referenda.It is disappointing that you dismiss the idea and the use of a protest by witholding a vote which if widespread would damage the legitimacy of any government elected by the few which is something politicians are aware of and is evidenced by their promoting of the need to vote – by law in Australia even if not strictly enforced,I do however commend you for putting the post up as it does provide the opportunity for the arguments to be made. Can you reinstate the daily any subject post please.
PhilBest/Frank – negative Karma neutralised.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Switzerland has used referenda for a century and they appear to be quite happy
Yeah, though alot regard it as a waste in some instances – they had a referendum on what Fighter Jet they should get to replace their old ones – all that money spent on a referendum that probably only 1% of the public knew anything about?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I ‘m generally not in favour of BCIRs. The problem lies in the wording and reducing the issue to a yes/no result. IIRC, one was about whether there should be four firefighters per vehicle or not. So yes meant that there should be four firefighters, and no meant…what, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, …? What if one wanted the option of the government choosing the appropriate level according to the best information available and value for money, etc? I.e. four if it makes sense, and other numbers if it makes sense. BCIRs don’t handle taking a complex problem and reducing it to a simple yes/no answer, especially when there are really many possible answers.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Hell Phil missed his chance there, he could have offered the Swiss our A4s at real good price. One less embarassment come election day.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Bevan: Id say some people here give karma based on the poster, rather than the actual message.
*nods* I suspect that is true as well. Of course, I suspect a number of people use the names of posters to decide whether they should read a comment. Like PhilBest, OwenMcShane, etc. gets read no matter if the karma score was -8,000,000. Unfortunately I haven’t taught myself to stay away from reading PJ’s drivel yet
Anyway, topic. Thread. I don’t want to sit through a referendum whenever the government needs to make a decision. They are elected to *make* the decisions. The only problem comes in when we have no checks and balances, like in the current system. Labour can rort and steal and thieve as much as they like and nobody and nothing has the power to stop them.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
The pollies and civil servants dont want BCIR because it gets in the way of orderly democracy I mean WTF would you want the peasants to have a voice FCS They might ask the 3rd question and stuff up the big plan.
In all seriousness the reasons for the Burkean Defence no longer apply in the 21st Century.
Participatory democracy should be the catch cry of every Freedom seeker.
The old paradigm that the failed pollies and civil servants are stuck in is past its used by date.
Apart from the Burkean Defence there is no other rational reason to not have BCIR
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
MMP was supposed to stop some of the abuse of power (at least that was its gospel according to Saint Rod) and look what we ended up with. MPs voted out by their electorates back in on the list. High list positions for the mighty and their ass-lickers so they have a job for life. Backroom deals by the utterly corrupt selling their souls for a few baubles. The unemployable becoming MPs so they can tell the rest of us how to bring up our children.
Vote:Im all for binding referenda if they help control the scum in the beehive.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Bevan, they got to choose their fighter jet!?! You say it like it is a bad thing. I want some of that action. Binding referendi FTW!
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
As the Greens have pointed out Johnboy, political parties could let party members vote for the order of MPs on the list, thus eliminating ‘ass-lickers’ as you put it.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
stephen: As the Greens have pointed out Johnboy, political parties could let party members vote for the order of MPs on the list, thus eliminating ‘ass-lickers’ as you put it.
That still puts it in the hand of the party members. Not the electorate.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Imho NZ suffers for lack of a check on the parliamentary and executive wings, being controlled as they are by generally the same folk. The US has the power spread far and wide through its system and that seems to be one of the main reasons for its place in thw world today. It is seriously stable. Mind you it also means that no one person can control it so it effectively is running out of control.
That suffering here in NZ is exemplified by the Privy Council abolition and EFA introduction. Conventions have been too easily ignored. Labour’s approach in these areas has been truly appalling. And it is likely to become part of their legacy.
Lordy knows the effort involved in getting a constitution or some other structure in place though. But it is clear that the near-unfettered power that has been abusively exercised by Clark et al MUST STOP.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Well within the current system, I think that is the best way. I might be missing the point, but I don’t see a reason for anyone (e.g. the entire registered voting population) other than the party’s members voting for the composition of the list. Naturally referenda for big issues appeals, but as said previously, the wording will always be an issue.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
In a true MMP system you would get the MPs from each party that the electorate voted in. Not the ones the Party selected or the ones that Party members voted in. I.e. open up the system so it truely becomes a representative democracy.
Edit: As an alternative to not voting as suggested by that group, can I have an option that says: “None of the above”. That would send a clearer message that none of the parties currently begging for my vote has a vision for the type of future I’d like to see for NZ.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Bevan, they got to choose their fighter jet!?! You say it like it is a bad thing. I want some of that action. Binding referendi FTW!
Note that I said they got to choose their fighter jet, “none of the above” or “scrap the combat wing” were not options
Mind you could you imagine what the public of NZ would pick if it was up to us? Guarentee it would be the cheapest and we’d end up with Focker Tri-Planes.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“As the Greens have pointed out Johnboy, political parties could let party members vote for the order of MPs on the list, thus eliminating ‘ass-lickers’ as you put it.”
An truly amazing concept stephen that there are no ass-lickers among party members!
Vote:I concede that the party should put up the members but they must be voted in by the electors.
That something like 40% are appointed under MMP is its flaw, it is anti-democratic and nothing anyone can say will change that.
Perhaps we should be looking at some change in our electoral system that limits the terms Ministers/MPs can stand for to eliminate the professional trough-snorters for life that rule the roost here. I cant see it happening though, turkeys-xmas-etc.
April 30th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I like the intention, but how do you reconcile that with the thousands of votes that would be wasted if say, a National candidate won every seat with a 20% vote? Also, I might have voted Nick Smith in Nelson because he does a good job representing me on particular local issues, but I mightn’t be too fond of his party’s broad stance on a number of issues, so I party vote Labour – wouldn’t people just end up taking no notice of an MP’s local performance in order to vote for their preferred party candidate, rather than simply the candidate, thus discouraging MPs from giving a toss about their electorate?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
2 karma votes for the ‘Vote Them Out’ party (my post at 12.46pm). It’s a start.
Let’s vote them out of office. Use the system against itself!
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
vto, but then no one would hold the non-vto politicians accountable, and they would become even more rampant then before, making the ‘situation’ even worse. Say National voters voted VTO, and Labour voters voted Labour?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Garrrgghhhh! It drives me crazy when someone as steeped in politics as yourself, DPF, makes statements like “it is impossible to have binding referenda without a written constitution”. You’ve almost tipped me into a Redbaiter-like rant, such is utter indefensibility of that comment. Certainly having a constitution would markedly improve the referenda process, and I too support a constitution. But in the absence of one it’s still entirely possible to have BCIR. The issue isn’t the absence of a constitution, it’s:
- widespread access to the means of casting a ballot.
- ensuring the populace are supplied with sufficient unbiased information on which to base a decision.
- ensuring that they have absorbed the information before voting.
- ensuring the security and validity of their vote.
- ensuring that a ‘receipt’ of some kind is produced in order to both reasure the voter their vote has been recorded and as a secondary protection against fraud.
All of these are difficult but not insurmountable, and technology is constantly evolving which enables these issues to be addressed.
If your opposition to BCIR is based on something other than your (admirable) loyalty to National – who, like every other political party – have a vested interest in keeping power for themselves, then I invite you to elucidate it further David.
[DPF: Okay Rex explain to me how a binding referendum works without a written constitution or some sort of super-law. What happens when Parliament then passes a law which conflicts with the results of a referendum?]
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Maybe we should do away with electorate seats all together. Each party puts up its list and those electors who wish can vote for the list to determine its order. Then we all get a party vote to determine how many seats each party gets.
Vote:Seems much more democratic to me.
April 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Yes Stephen there are all sorts of scenarios that are possible. It is a protest party that obviously does not have the full answer. It is a brutish hammer against the system. But it gives voice to the people who do not like the system – and that’s what democracy is about isn’t it?
And don’t forget, the VTO Party would have the option of the ‘random vote’ which, if it held the balance of power, would cause complete and utter chaos and there would ne choice but to listen.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I am in favour of binding referenda according to the degree of Public endorsement i.e. if the vote was say 80% plus of a 70% turnout then the matter is binding. If there is still a majority say 60% plus then Parliament should have to debate the issue and each member state their personal point of view…I also disagree with unelected list MPs having a vote on issues of conscience there can be no justification for them to have veto over the people’s choice.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
So we are going to have a referenda on whether we should be governed by binding referenda, sooooo what makes the first referenda binding so the clowns in power will have a binding referenda. Oh, I better stop I’m getting headache.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Thanks for responding David. That’s precisely why I agree with you that a consitution is both useful in the case of BCIR and necessary for a host of other reasons.
But, quite simply, a binding referendum obligates the government of the day to pass a law enacting the wishes of the people. So you’re suggesting that that government, or a subsequent one, may at some later date enact another law which effectively reverses the first law?
Then quite simply the legislation establishing BCIR needs to have a clause that says such a change must first be put to a further, binding, referendum. Thus if a government felt that there were compelling reasons, such as an external change in circumstances, that justified revisiting the issue then it would be required to convince the electorate of the validity of its argument.
edit: side show bob asks:
The politicians would have to state unequivocally that they’d honour the outcome. Oh wait… I just used ‘politicians’ and ‘honour’ in the same sentence! I think I need a lie down in a dark room.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Rex – but the problem is the Parliament and the public may have different views on whether a new law conflicts with an old referendum result. So unless a constitution gives Judges the power to strike laws down, then Parliament remains sovereign.
Of course the US Constitution did not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power to strike down laws, but that’s another debate.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
If a Parliament wants to breach a written constitution then it will do so. Then as history has shown its left to the people to remove the MPs either thru the ballot box or by force.
Yes we need a written constitution
Yes we need a smaller Parliament (40 members) and an Upper House (25 members) as a check and balance
But most of all we need a change in the top 2 inches of those seeking election.
Until we get that we will just keep on getting same old same old
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
DPF moots:
I accept that. But if referenda were able to be triggered via electronic signature-gathering (which entirely eliminates duplicates) and then held via electronic means – and thus easily and at minimal expense – then it would be simple for those people who felt the referendum issue they’d fought for was about to be overturned to seek the support of their fellows (by way of an electronic petition) to trigger a further referendum instructing the pollies to cease and desist.
Messy, I know, but then democracy usually is. And incidentally, while clearly delineating a lot of issues and thus simplifying all this somewhat, couldn’t possibly cover everything and even then there would be issues of interpretation that needed BCIR to sort out – like does smacking your child equate to hitting an unrelated child or another adult.
Good god man, citizens initiated referenda are the only issue on which Michael Laws and I agree… that alone must mean something!!
edit: gd proposes:
Steady on, gd. I’m as appalled as you are, but I don’t think scalping the bastards is the answer
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I’m sure we have the technology to have a citizen’s referendum on every bill if we wanted to.
(“NEXT: All in favour of replacing the word “must” with the word “shall” in paragraph 8.33.6.7 (c) of the public highways act 1969, text “AYE” to 4545. All those opposed, text “No” to 4545. NEXT: All in favour of yaddah yaddah yaddah…”)
In this layman’s humble opinion there are two serious problems with doing this:
(1) Without actual leadership you do not have direction, as there is never any agreement when everyone gets to have their say. A large company needs directors, a ship needs her captain, and likewise if you wait for literally every Tom, Dick & Harry to make up his mind about what he (in his considered opinion) thinks is best for the country on this occasion, we will be going nowhere.
(2) People would become bored with the endless referenda and would quickly lose interest except when the issue was something really topical. The only people who would bother to vote regularly would be those with a very healthy interest, and the screaming nutters with hobby horses and axes to grind like we see on here all of the time. So we would be back to a small group effectively making the decisions; except it would be a self-nominating group, none of whom have had to pass any sort of public popularity contest (election) to earn their role in this, and none of whom could be voted out by the rest of us.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
So what we should have is thirty MPs max. 15 executive/15 ordinary. Max of 2 terms as ordinary 2 more terms if you make it to the executive. Absolute total = 12 years at the trough then your gone. Voted in as I said above with no electorate seats.
Vote:Well paid to attract top flite managers. Make all the day to day decisions as per the management of a company but the big decisions go the shareholders (electorate) by referenda ala Rexs ideas. Of course New Zealand Ltd. would need a charter (constitution) So what are waiting for?
April 30th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Ever see a Peter Cook film called ‘The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer’?
It was about a charismatic figure who got elected to be prime minister by promising referenda on everything. After a while everyone got fed up with having to vote on things so often and they complained, so he suggested one final refererdum on whether people would give him the power to decide everything for them…
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
RRM, you’re right of course, if everything went to a referendum. But one would need to be initiated, for a start, and then interest a reasonable proportion of the electorate (nothing like the 300,000 needed at present though. 30,000 ought to be enough). And then it would be by way of an instruction from the board of directors to its managers – “make this happen. We’ll leave the details to you, just make sure you implement our wishes or you’re fired”.
In fact you’ve got the roles reversed in your analogy. The voters are the directors – we “meet” when necessary to consider the really big issues or when a quorum of us decide they’re not happy with the way management is running things. The pollies are our managers, charged with the day-to-day decisions and – depending on how much we trust them – left to get on with the detail stuff till we say otherwise.
Rob Hosking: Yes, Michael Rimmer is a film I’ve watched often. A brilliant bit of political satire. You raise a good point though – a particularly unscrupulous government could call a referendum on everything and simply annoy us so much we rejected the system. So perhaps a government-initiated referendum would need to have 30,000 (or whatever the trigger number which was decided upon) votes before it was put to the people.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
RRM I think Rex is right. To put forward a referendum would require work from those promoting it i.e a certain amount of support in the form of names on a petition. Prehaps we could have a referendum day once a year with say 3 or 4 referenda, the referenda’s with the highest support is voted on. I for one are getting feed up been told what shall be, isn’t this bloody country suppost to be a democracy, fuck all in this place.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
“Ever see a Peter Cook film called ‘The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer’? ”
Its apparently Vladimir Putins favourite movie.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 1:49 am
No, Johnboy, it’s actually a rather conservative notion that our self-government is achieved by evolution not revolution. Then again, it looks like yet another perfect storm where the rabid right and the loony left are in perfect harmony: “The people” aren’t so great when they’re not telling you want to hear.
There’s part of me that hopes you numpties get what you wish for — treat government like an episode of Dancing With The Stars and you’ll get exactly what you deserve.
Then again, why don’t we just take it all the way to the reductio ad absurdum. Why not just abolish Parliament all together, and outsource the legislative and electoral processes to a consortium of pollsters?
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 6:43 am
Stephen: Also, I might have voted Nick Smith in Nelson because he does a good job representing me on particular local issues, but I mightn’t be too fond of his party’s broad stance on a number of issues, so I party vote Labour – wouldn’t people just end up taking no notice of an MP’s local performance in order to vote for their preferred party candidate, rather than simply the candidate, thus discouraging MPs from giving a toss about their electorate?
How is that different from what is happening now? And secondly, what is wrong with voting for a good local MP (Irrespective of his party) and giving your party vote to the party you want to lead the country?
In the current system, as I understand it, the Party vote would allow the candidates that were “voted out” back in on the list. Whereas, if you did away with the list and relied on the electoral vote you’d get the people in there that truely represented New Zealand. List be buggered, it’s just a way for fatcat, hot-air hairdryers to sit and sleep in Parliament all day.
I’d much rather vote for my local MP secure in the knowledge that they’re doing a good job.
I live in Mt Albert. My local MP is Helen Clark and after seeing her lie, lead her party to the biggest electoral rort we’ve seen in New Zealand and so forth I’m not going to vote for her. I do not want somebody that unprincipled in parliament and representing me.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 10:37 am
Hmmm, I was under the impression from SOME people that they DID vote for a good local MP, then would vote for a separate party.
Wasn’t that the point of your previous posting, that it was wrong? How can you vote for a local MP and give a party vote without having any list members?
There are plenty of List MPs who work their arses off, Sue Bradford being one particularly high profile one…maybe an exception though.
I’ve just discovered that Clark is my MP too…thought I was Roskill or something. Bears thinking about.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Craig Ranapia suggests:
Craig, you know as well as I do that most of what we hear out of the mouths of politicians on either side of the aisle has been polled and focus group tested (the exception being the more rabid species, like Cullen, who simply can’t contain themselves). It’s by no means as bad as, say, the US but given our penchant for following their lead in things political it can’t be long until nothing we hear hasn’t been tested and approved first.
Given that’s the existing reality, I’d rather the pollsters did poll all of us and produce a decision based on the outcome. Because the alternative is that a politician dreams up a completely unacceptable piece of legislation and then the wording used to talk about it – as opposed to the substance of it – is massaged through polling until it becomes capable of fooling enough of the people enough of the time.
Vote:May 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 am
stephen: Wasn’t that the point of your previous posting, that it was wrong? How can you vote for a local MP and give a party vote without having any list members?
You are right. I am confused – there would actually be no need for a party vote then – you’d simply go for List vote. Now I see your point regarding losing what could potentially be a good MP. Need to think about this a bit more.
Vote: