That was my suggestion!
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:57 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
A diluted but still hardline version of Act’s three strikes policy is now on the negotiating table with the National Government.
Act MP and three strikes architect David Garrett said Act would support any amendment that would have impact, citing a “three strikes and the max” version.
Instead of the third strike offence leading to the offender being “struck out” with a 25-year-to-life sentence, they would instead get the maximum sentence for the offence.
Mr Garrett said this would see an offender whose third strike offence was aggravated robbery serving 14 years – the maximum prescribed in the Crimes Act – rather than the four or five years such an offender would likely serve now.
I wish to point out back in March I blogged:
I would change the third strike from life (with no parole for at least 25 years) to being the maximum penalty set down for that offence
I think this achieves the aim of dealing harshly with repeat offenders, but avoiding the possibility of someone getting a life sentence for a relatively minor offence.
The three strikes and the maximum version would also allow for a “life means life” sentence if the offender’s third strike was murder, which would satisfy the call of many law-and-order hardliners.
Yep. It is worth noting that murderers can also now get sentenced to life with no parole under changes introduced since the election.
I hope National can back the law as amended. The main issue will be what crimes qualify as a strike.
Of interest to some will be whether the amended law, if supported by National, meets the iPredict contract:
This contract pays $1 if the National Party votes for the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (2009) at its second reading. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill must include a requirement that courts impose a minimum period of imprisonment of 20 years for the third qualifying sentence for this contract to pay $1.
It would seem not to meet the contact, based on the Herald story. The longer description is:
1. The National Party votes for the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (2009) at its second reading.
2. The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (2009) includes a “three strikes requirement”, defined below.
For the purposes of this contract, a “three strikes requirement” means:1. The definition of serious violent offense (or equivalent wording) in the bill includes, at a minimum, murder and attempted murder.
2. Courts are expected to be REQUIRED to impose a minimum period of imprisonment of at least 20 years for the majority of offenders on their third serious violent offence.
As some serious violence offences have maximum penalties of less than 20 years, I think this contract will close at zero, even if National vote for the law as amended. However this is based on the NZ Herald story being accurate!
Related posts:
- The revised Three Strikes Law
- No one would get a third strike!
- Reaction to Three Strikes
- Three Strikes and the Max
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:24 am
Though our prison population is disproportionately large, something has to be done about people like Stephen McDonald, the guy whose rampage ended with the accidental shooting of Halatau Naitoko. If I heard the radio news correctly, this guy had 180 prior convictions. How is a guy with 180 convictions allowed to walk free among the rest of us?
Perhaps we need a solution that involves removing them from the community without us having to descend to their level. My solution for these intractibles involves the creative use of some of our remote territories like Campbell Island or Raoul Island
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 7:55 am
I agree. It doesn’t have to be bad for them. Nissan-type huts, solar water heaters and regular air drops of food. Let them live in a society that suits them. Hell, I would even put a heavily defended admin/medical center there.
But in the real world we have to live in. What types of crime constitute a strike? I would say any burglaries or car theft for a start. When a burglar with 100 convictions get caught for his 101st time, remember it is probably his 1001th burglary. Fuck them, property crime needs to be treated harshly as well.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 am
A simpler answer is
First 2 strikes – or times in court you get sentenced concurrently
Example – You steal a car (1 year), rob a bank (3 years), hold summon one hostage (2 years). You get sent to jail for 3 years
Third strike onwards – you get sentenced consecutively
Vote:Example if same as before 1+3+2 = 6 years
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:23 am
Well, it would certainly be an improvement on the “three strikes and you’re garrotted” version.
But there is still room for serious injustice. The strike offences include, for example, indecent assault, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years. Now, that crime can encompass some very serious offending.
But it also includes offending such as some drunken oaf lewdly groping a woman’s breast – sleazy and yukky, but hardly the crime of the century. If that happened to be the actus rea of the offending for someone on their third strike, they would get the maximum 7 years imprisonment under the revised regime being suggested. That would still be a disproportionately severe sentence, given the severity of the offending that gave rise to the third strike.
[DPF: I'm not sure if indecent assault would stay in as a strike offence, but maybe if you have twice previously been convicted of violent or sexual crimes, you should not grope a women's breasts knowing what will happen if you do is a long prison term]
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 am
@toad – I don’t believe the concern you raise in relation to indecent assault would be a problem – although the article does not make it clear, the third strike only counts as a third strike if the sentence that would have been imposed is 5+ years. I don’t see National getting rid of this from the bill.*
@DPF – Yep. It is worth noting that murderers can also now get sentenced to life with no parole under changes introduced since the election.
Now? Or once the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill is passed?
I hope National can back the law as amended. The main issue will be what crimes qualify as a strike.
I’m not sure it will. With the 5-year qualifying sentence rider, the particular crimes that are covered aren’t super-important.
Of interest to some will be whether the amended law, if supported by National, meets the iPredict contract…
The law as introduced didn’t meet the iPredict contract, so this one has always been an incredibly safe bet.
@Herald The three strikes and the maximum version would also allow for a “life means life” sentence if the offender’s third strike was murder, which would satisfy the call of many law-and-order hardliners.
Well, National’s pre-election promise was “life means life” for second-strike murder, so this would actually be a pretty major backdown. Instead, the change here is “life means life” for third strike manslaughter.
*EDIT: Although I note Garrett seems to think it is a must.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 8:53 am
Congratulations Mr. Farrar on your sensible input into an important debate. However, where are the jails?? National should be building them by the score if we really intend to deal with the tidal wave of amoral scum presently stalking our streets.
Which brings me to my real point, and that is that this is really so much window dressing. The socialists have destroyed morality and civility. That is the real problem. Until we restore these two important requirements of a civilised society, we’re just going to have to build more and more prisons.
Unless of course one’s preference is for living in a socialist sewer where rape violence robbery and barbarity are the price you pay for the enjoyment of such an otherwise ‘wonderful’ political system.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:03 am
Redbaiter, I doubt the scum you are referring to give a stuff about politics. Rape violence robbery and barbarity have never been confined to neat “good” and “bad” political leanings. But all shades of politics have been used as an excuse for all shades of thuggery. Except yours of course, your Utopianism in a police state.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 am
DPF: “It is worth noting that murderers can also now get sentenced to life with no parole under changes introduced since the election.”
Has this amendment passed and in what circumstances can such a sentence be handed down?
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:14 am
“Redbaiter, I doubt the scum you are referring to give a stuff about politics.”
Who ever inferred anything so remotely possible?? Are you another Progressive who graduated from a collapsing socialist education ssytem with purposefully crippled comprehension skills?? The scum are a purpose product of Progressivism manufactured to give the socialists a means to posture as our saviours.
“Rape violence robbery and barbarity have never been confined to neat “good” and “bad” political leanings”
An assertion that is utter rubbish. The Progressivism foisted on this country by the left, with the destruction of morality being one of its key measures, has seen crime rise like never before. Just as it has in other countries that have embraced the same poisonous system.
Go way and do some research before coming on here with your empty assertions, prompted as they are by your hurt feelings that socialism should be subject to such terrible disparagement and criticism.
Take the Progressive log out of your eye.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_vic-crime-rape-victims
Check the difference in rape numbers between Conservative Japan and Socialist New Zealand.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 am
Reddy, I’m not sure there will be a “tidal wave of amoral scum” being locked up under these laws. If the caveats are that strikes are limited to a few of the more serious offences, I would think it would be more a trickle than a tidal wave. Also worth bearing in mind that the worst of the scum of recent times wouldn’t qualify. Clayton Weatherston’s murder of Sophie Elliot was his first “strike”. AFAIK the animals who killed Nia Glassie weren’t on their third strike. I seem to recall reading somewhere that only a very small handful of offenders would qualify for “third strike” status.
While I think it is a very good idea, I’m not sure it will stop the worst of the worst crimes. I live in hope that the threat of it will be a sufficiently strong deterrent.
And toad, I agree with DPF. Some drunken fool giving a woman’s chest a tickle is yucky, but if that drunken fool has twice previously been convicted of violent or sexual crimes, then he is clearly a hopeless recidivist and needs to be locked away to protect the young lovelies from him, and to protect himself from himself.
Edit: Having said all of that, I agree with Redbaiter. I despair at the breakdown of morals, ethics and decent behaviour.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Redbaiter, I think you might be a bit delusional to be honest.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 am
“Redbaiter, I think you might be a bit delusional to be honest.”
Mr Doms, It always amazes me that socialists are so up themselves as to think that in lieu of a contribution to the debate, an expression of personal dislike will do. Do you not know that the time is long over when people gave a flying fuck about what you anally retentive Progressives thought of your critics??
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 am
I believe in socialism as much as I believe in this crap of yours RB, both as bad as each other.
You wouldn’t want to compare the barbarity of non-socialist Nazism would you?
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 am
“You wouldn’t want to compare the barbarity of non-socialist Nazism would you?”
“Non socialist Nazism?? How bizarre. You do know what NAZI stands for do you Pete? And look, as much as I enjoy making you look the ponderous ignorant fool you actually are, I don’t have the time today to indulge lame arsed attention seekers in off topic diversions. Go away bore.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
@Ernesto – “Has this amendment passed and in what circumstances can such a sentence be handed down?”
It has not passed. It’s part of the same bill that three strikes is in.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:44 am
“Edit: Having said all of that, I agree with Redbaiter. I despair at the breakdown of morals, ethics and decent behaviour.”
Yes, and so do so many other people. But that is the key to the success of socialism. Lets all talk around the real problem, and dick around with detail, and submerge the core issue under a mass of waffle. I endorse Mr. Garrett’s policy and I believe he is a courageous man of the kind that we need more of in politics, but I repeat, what he is proposing is a short term solution that will only result in a requirement for more prisons.
The real problem is that society has broken down under the influence of Progressive political ideas that have seen amorality run rampant. We must restore personal morality as the default position. This cannot be achieved until we turn our backs on the politics of the Progressives.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:52 am
Yip, what we need is for the Government and crackpots like Redbaiter to tell me how to think and act, because their version of morality is obviously best, right?
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 9:55 am
It constantly amazes me that sane, intelligent people like DPF let themselves be influenced by communists such as Toad.
If criminal scum commit a third offence that is punishable by a term of imprisonment why on earth would we ever want to let these vermin out on our streets again.
Just yesterday we had a man sent to prison for thirteen years, he shot at police, his actions resulted in the death of an innocent man, for that he received thirteen years…………………..he has 182 PREVIOUS criminal convictions.
These are the vermin that Toad, the Greens and some sane people want to see back on our streets one day.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am
But he can do a course.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 am
“Non socialist Nazism?? How bizarre.
Not really, Nationalsozialistische and socialism are quite different, some things in common but a lot different. The Nazis had more far right support.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
I think it’s lame.
The whole point of the proposed 3 strikes law is to deal to the issue of people showing continued complete disregard for the law and contempt for society.
If someone’s 3rd crime isn’t a particularly heinous one, they are still flouting the law. That should be punished. They are still giving the law and society the finger.
Make repeated flouting of the law a crime in itself with a 30 year term. That’s what people want – they want crims off the street.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 10:19 am
On the question of morals.
I do not want to be told by the left, the religious right or anybody else what I MUST find acceptable or what I MUST find abhorrent in today’s society.
Morals are a personal choice, what I may find unacceptable is perfectly normal for somebody else.
What I will always fight against is other people forcing their morals or principals down my throat, I detest being told by the left that I MUST accept gay adoption, equally I detest being told by the religious right that the fundamental problem in today’s society is down to a lack of religion.
I am not even sure if it is a question of morals, it is a question about what is right and what is wrong, we should ALL be aware that the left are doing their best to divert blame away from criminal scum, they (the left) are slowly but surely conning a large percentage of out population into the fucked up belief that low life criminal scum “had no choice”.
By the time a child reaches the age of five they ALL know the difference between right and wrong, at that stage most kids are not criminals, most kids know there will be consequences for their actions if they do something wrong, it is only when we expose these kids to the pinko’s and other fucked up idiots from the left that kids quickly learn that their actions will go unpunished.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 10:34 am
By the time a child reaches the age of five they ALL know the difference between right and wrong, at that stage most kids are not criminals, most kids know there will be consequences for their actions if they do something wrong, it is only when we expose these kids to the pinko’s and other fucked up idiots from the left that kids quickly learn that their actions will go unpunished.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 11:04 am
That’s the whole point. The leverage effect. As Brian pointed out above, when someone is prosecuted multiple times it is more than likely that those offences are the tip of the iceberg.
When this idea first came into law in some US states there were dire predictions that the prison population would grow enormously. Only it didn’t happen. It’s pure economic incentives at work. In NZ the economic cost to the offender is too low. Low chance of getting caught and short sentences.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
“The real problem is that society has broken down under the influence of Progressive political ideas that have seen amorality run rampant. We must restore personal morality as the default position. This cannot be achieved until we turn our backs on the politics of the Progressives.”
What is morally correct and what isnt was shown in a very drawn out thread to be quite subjective at best ranging from a harsh literal interpretation of any religous text to the other extreme of anything not causing direct harm to another being seen as not immoral.
Just because societies views of what is and isnt moral have switched from the beliefs that are that of your generation doesnt mean that society has become immoral. Many see morailtiy now as superior to that of the 1940s when the right to rape your wife, discipline your wife, and expectation to put up with an abusive relationship.
I would agree there is a causal link between dependance on the state, and accordingly lack of self worth and therefore an increased likely hood to live a life of crime, however I would not say this is linked to the change of what is and is not seen as morally correct.
You point to conservative Japan, they also have the highest suicide rate in the world and woman’s rights are far lacking.
I can also point to Pakistan, Afganistan, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and many eastern european countries which are ‘conservative’ in nature but which henious crimes are regulaly committed, especialyl against woman.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
REDBAITER (7490) They certainly have destroyed morality and civility. One should never underestimate the attraction of trying to build ‘paradise on Earth’. That particular end always justifys the means for them. Communists, Socialists, and Fascists always shared this goal. They just differed as to the means. They’ve had since 1848 to worm their way in everywhere. It didn’t happen over night.
The advent of the two world Wars was a huge boost for Socialisim. WWI caused some soldiers to lose their faith. Much of the best leadership material on both sides were killed. Faith in authority was reduced. Then came the Great Depression. That shook faith in capitalisim. Along comes WWII, and the process accelerated. Into this gap came the siren call of Socialisim.
I think Socialisim must bear 2/3 of the blame for our current problems. The other 1/3 belongs to the assorted Conservative and Liberal parties. At various times they’ve had the chance to roll it back. Conservative parties bear most of the blame. It comes from their idea of conserving the status quo. Unfortunately, the status quo is rather Socialist. Sometimes Conservatives pass leftist measures to politically out maneuver the Socialists.The rest of the problem is the ‘gentlemans agreement’ not to roll the Socialist fundamentals back. This is the situation we find ourselves in now.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Jeff83 wrote:
Good posting Jeff83. I would add that apparently in Japan you can buy previously worn young women’s underwear from vending machines and manga comic-style books with extremely graphic sexual violence. I can attest to the latter but unfortunately wasn’t able to verify the former.
They’re also very politic and have the cleanest and most spectacular toilets. Foods pretty good as well.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Communists, conservatives, progressives, regressives, doesn’t matter what it’s called, it’s not the label that does the damage, it’s what the people who use the banners do. If we keep going down the path (as in the US) of saying, shouting “my politics is right so the other politics must be the cause of all problems” is plain stupid and as much to blame for deteriorating standards as anything.
Conservatives can be good people, socialists can be good people. Most people are a mix of both anyway, they have to be to get on in our sort of society. We will be better off if we look for and promote good as much as possible rather than degenerate into ideological slanging matches where we all become the problem rather than looking to solving anything.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
Mr. Prosser I agree with much of what you say, especially the bit about the Conservatives. Of course the reality is that they are Conservatives in name only, and in all other parts merely dwell in the same intellectually barren habitat as the Progressives.
That is why the most important step in restoring equilibrium and civility to society is to drive the compromisers, quislings and pretenders from the Conservative side, and force them to join the enemy. We cannot win when our forces are so full of white ants and traitors. Solidarity is always the most effective force.
Morality will only be restored to society at the same rate the influence of the Progressives is reduced.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 11:53 am
“Conservatives can be good people, socialists can be good people.”
Fence sitters are all idiots.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
“You point to conservative Japan, they also have the highest suicide rate in the world”
A lie. A quick glance at this table proves that and also underscores the point that suicide rates are apparently not driven by political systems. (We’re talking crime here anyway moron)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_mal-health-suicide-rate-males
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Nice to see RB is back with his rants and ‘purest’ ideologies, insults and ability to ignore posts which completely rip his incoherent ramblings apart wow you responded to one point.
I would love to see the right be left with only ‘purists’ like Sarah Palin, they would be unelectable.
Japanese cuisine is definitely my favourite of the Asian groups, followed closely by Thai. Have to say Malaysian would be my least favourite.
Even though I generally disagree with what you see as immoral I agree with your basic sentiment that having morals shoved down your throat is less than appealing. In saying that I think legally what is legal and what isn’t where there is no definitive harm caused the law should not intervene. One doesn’t have to agree with it, or can see it as morally repugnant (i.e. gay adopton) but if a parent wants to adopt to gay parents the law shouldn’t really intervene.
In regards to your second point whilst there are some apologists the majority of the group you are referring to are not so much apologising for those actions but finding what causes crime and addressing that. For example there is no hiding the link between child abuse and later predisposition for crime. Further a child by the age of 5 knows right or wrong by what its parents have taught it, if a parent has been a shit parent then their knowledge is less than complete. This should so much be used to excuse that crime but highlight the importance of getting children away from shit parents, and not being all PC about it.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
“having morals shoved down your throat is less than appealing.”
So what morals do you disagree with?
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4170649.ece
So thanks not a lie, was meant to read one of the highest rates, but anyway.
Love the part about crime to; unless I am heavily mistaken suicide is a criminal offense. So call me a moron again but you continue to prove your own stupidly, much like when you last entered debate with me, lost so insulting my grammar and in doing so messed up your own grammar.
Oh by the way a nice quote for you.
I am off.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
“So thanks not a lie, was meant to read one of the highest rates, but anyway.”
Yeah sure, after you were found out. Glad you’re off.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Redbaiter, the reason for the decline of morals in society is the individualistic, “save-myself-fuck-everyone-else” attitude that people like you promote. Moral behaviors on their own, to the individual concerned, are not intrinsically valuable, they are only of any value when society lives by “treat others how you would like to be treated”. At that point, you are in a round about manner, ensuring your own safety and liberty, by doing the same to others. Your promotion of save myself and fuck every one else, that is what is destroying society.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
“So what morals do you disagree with?”
Yours. You are confusing morals with getting your own way by any means possible.
“That is why the most important step in restoring equilibrium and civility to society is to drive the compromisers, quislings and pretenders from the Conservative side, and force them to join the enemy.”
Promoting civil unrest, uprisings, driving away dissenters, friend or enemy. A model of civility RB? Or your normal contradictions.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Someone must have put something in my weetbix this morning. I’m agreeing with both redbaiter AND racer1! I repeat, I despair at the breakdown of civilised society. I don’t blame either side of politics for it, however if one created a graph of violent and sexual crime I suspect the slope would have steepened significantly over the 9 year to November 2008. I also agree with racer that the only value that really matters is “treat others …”, although I tend to go with “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but the sentiment is the same. If I want someone to be courteous and polite to me, then I should first be willing to offer those behaviours.
This thread has morphed somewhat (thanks, reddy) although I don’t see too many disagreeing with the basic 3 Strikes sentiment. If you’re stupid enough to get caught 3 times, it likely means you’ve gotten away with it (whatever “it” is) 300 times and you deserve to be double-bunked with Bubba in a shipping container!
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“Alistair Miller
I suspect the slope would have steepened significantly over the 9 year to November 2008.”
I suspect it have have significantly steepened in the previous 9 years before that, but who knows, the numbers are all here have a look for yourself:
http://wdmzpub01.stats.govt.nz/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportName=Justice/Convicted%20Offenders
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
racer1 1:07 pm,
You got half of the equation right: “treat others how you would like to be treated”.
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Vote:Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
adc suggests:
My entire life experience – from prison to politics – suggests the “law” is, to quote the brilliant bon mot of Alan Wilkinson:
I have no respect for it, or the scoundrels, idiots, thugs and puppets involved in its formation and enforcement. The fact I’m not on my third strike is not for want of trying by the Police (they’ve in fact had six goes at it, failing every time) but is down to luck, the support of several people who believe in outmoded concepts like truth, justice and ethics (including a couple of prison officers to whom, more than anyone else, I owe my present freedom), and my parents’ savings, now totally depleted on lawyers’ bills.
So excuse me if I go on “giving the law and society (but just those parts of it that get all moist at the thought of a police state) the finger.
Certainly meany — undoubtedly the majority — of those caught in a “three strikes” law will be thugs who deserve their sentences. But not all will be, which is why I oppose any mandatory sentencing which takes from the court the ability to consider all the factors of an offence in reaching a judgment as to punishment.
Bad enough we have puppets administering the law without binding their arms with even more strings.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“Kris K 1:53 pm
racer1 1:07 pm,
You got half of the equation right: “treat others how you would like to be treated”.
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
No, your religion has it entirely wrong, it is just like the individualism i mentioned above, teaching people that moral behavior is to be done do avoid going to hell, not because it is good for society.
Vote:September 23rd, 2009 at 7:03 pm
racer1 6:14 pm,
If my ‘religion’ has it entirely wrong it’s humourous when someone such as yourself quotes (paraphrase) from the ‘good Book’.
Morals are a reflection of the heart.
Vote:So perhaps it’s a matter of both not going to hell, and being good for society.
Having your cake and eating it too, so to speak. Your choice Racer.
September 23rd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Treat others how you would like to be treated long precedes The Bible.
Vote: