Tuesday, September 21, 2010

POSTAL VOTING IS A RORT

All of you registered to vote will have received your voting papers courtesy of NZ Post. We were over at our Paihia property at the weekend and in our mailbox were the papers for the previous occupants.

There are a lot of unoccupied houses in our street (holiday homes etc). Our next door neighbour's home falls into that category and they have asked us to check their mail which we did and low and behold another four voting papers for their long gone tenants. I suspect if I went along the street and checked the mailboxes of all unoccupied houses I would find many more.

So right now we have six additional voting papers. We will of course return them unopened to the Returning Officer.

But does everyone in that position play ball? I suspect not and especially in the 'dark' depths of South Auckland where rorting the (voting) system is elevated to art form status.

And that is why Postal Voting is a rort. A system designed to encourage 'participation'. Problem is the amount of participation. And the 'Left' love it.

Real democracy requires people to get off their arse and vote. In some countries they die for that. It's a small price to pay in order to get an honest result.

Postal voting is a rort and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Agree. No wonder in the US turn out is poor though, with Presidential elections (and mid terms?) always being on a Tuesday. Adding in 'time off work' to the list of excuses for lethargy.

Anonymous said...

Your rant would make more sense if participation rates in postal votes exceeded that of the general elections.

They don't.

Real democracy requires people to get off their arse and vote. In some countries they die for that.

And in Ozzie, you can at least go to jail if you haven't got up from in front of the TV...

KG said...

"Your rant would make more sense if participation rates in postal votes exceeded that of the general elections"

What the hell does that have to do with it? Postal votes can in some cases be enough to swing an election.

The Realist said...

It is a total rort. Bloody socialist initiative. We all know if it's raining on polling day, the Labour vote is significantly diminished.
We look after about 24 intellectually disabled folk, and duly received their voting forms. I could fill these out and post them in if I were minded. Apart from the fact these people do not have sufficient intellectual capacity, they don't pay bloody rates. I have a property in Hamilton, but because I don't live in it, I am refused a say as to how the rates I am charged are spent. No taxation without representation I say.

Anonymous said...

they don't pay bloody rates

Right but that's the REAL disgrace.

Who the fuck though it was a good idea to turn from property owner franchise to universal franchise for local government. It's been a fucking disaster.

Bring back qualified ratepayer voting:
* residential property owner valued at more than $1M
* corporate with income over $1M

the rest of the bludgers can just fuck off!

KG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gravedodger said...

Far too much of our electoral system from candidate selection, To electorate systems, to methods of communicating the message and including the actual casting of the votes, collectively undermines democracy where an informed voter chooses the candidate most likely to further the aims of the voter, and then votes.
Sadly nearly all of the so called "improvements" are promulgated by the educated elite to perpetrate the socialist line "of representing the People" when in fact it is designed to make it simpler for a political belief to manipulate the system to further the cause and the stupid, uncontrolled easily manipulated postal voting system is but one more method of avoiding responsibility, gaining support from the consumers of tax dollars and easily conducted electoral fraud.
Just check out old folks homes where the votes of those with absolutely no idea what day it is will be "assisted " to cast a valid vote.

Psycho Milt said...

I have a property in Hamilton, but because I don't live in it, I am refused a say as to how the rates I am charged are spent. No taxation without representation I say.

If it's a rental property, the people living in it and paying the rent are the ones actually paying the rates - ie, it's their taxation and their representation. You're just a middleman.

Anonymous said...

that only holds true if the tenants rent exceeds all outgoings associated with the property's ownership. If the rent they pay does not meet all those obligations (insurance, maintenance, interest as well as rates), then the property owner is SUBSIDISING the tenant's butt, thus the landlord is paying the rates. For you to not have a say means that you didn't write to the council to ask for a non-resident voter nomination form. Which is a pain in the butt, those forms should be sent to every single ratepayer as of right. Its not hard for the council to sort out in-town and out of towners when it comes to the actual ratepayer.

The Realist said...

Middlemen or not, I'm the one with all the risk. In any event, the property is not tenanted in the usual sense of the word