NZ history of voting systems in elections

33 comments on “NZ history of voting systems in elections ”

• Comments are now closed

1. DS 1

   13 May 2023 at 3:09 pm

   1898-1910: Non-ratepayers begin to be able to vote in local elections in urban areas.

   1944: Non-ratepayers in rural council areas can vote in local elections.

   Late 1980s (can't find the specific date): The ratepayer roll (then called the property vote) was abolished for local government elections.

   1991: The ratepayer roll/property vote restored for local government elections.

   Also as a nitpick, New Zealand had coalition governments from Ross Meurant's Right of Centre Party splitting off from National (and then United splitting off from National and Labour) during 1994-1996. So 1996 was not the first coalition government since the 1930s.
2. DS 2

   13 May 2023 at 3:22 pm

   1993: Prisoners serving a term of less than three years can vote.

   2010: Prisoners cannot vote, regardless of term, except if they were sentenced prior to 2010.

   2020: Prisoners serving a term of less than three years can vote.

   Bizarrely enough, the 2010 legislation restored the right to vote to murders like Clayton Weatherston, since they had been sentenced prior to 2010, but were serving more than three years.
3. DS 3

   13 May 2023 at 3:26 pm

   In conclusion, as the historical record shows, there has only been one general election where we could claim ‘one person, one vote’ for all people in Aotearoa New Zealand over the age of 18, which was 1975.

   Did the 1975 legislation say anything about insane people? If not, then not all over 18s were eligible in 1975 either.
4. RedLogix 4

   13 May 2023 at 3:32 pm

   This is the kind of absurdity you get when you view history through the lens of the present.

   The question you have to ask is – by what practical means could you determine who was eligible to vote? Because even today we strictly control this with electoral roles, and careful cross checking to ensure only people with the right to vote do so.

   But in the 1800's the conditions were very different to the present. It may surprise a lot of people to know that we did not have computers or the internet to manage complex electoral roles. Amazingly we did not have passports or border controls, there was no census, no communication between regions other than by shipping. Literally the govt of the day had no idea who was present in this country, and on what basis. So how did you conduct an election under these circumstances?

   As it happened the only reliable records government had at the time were land records – and so they very sensibly used these to determine who was allowed to vote or not. And remarkably enough this idea allowed all Maori males (who in principle all owned land in common) enjoyed universal suffrage a decade or so before all non -Maori. This fact alone utterly debunks the notion of an implacably racist colonial regime determined to disenfranchise Maori at every possible turn.

   As the decades moved on and govt capacity expanded, elections became more sophisticated and universal. To the point now where for all practical purpose every person of age gets the same access to democratic accountability. To argue otherwise is a risible nonsense.

   As for local govt – the same problem applies. How do you determine who is eligible to vote in a local district where people are moving around all the time, with no record of this?
   • DS 4.1

     13 May 2023 at 4:33 pm

     That wasn't the justification – then or now – for property voting. Britain was having full censuses by the time New Zealand was getting settled.

     The traditional justification was that owning property (specifically land) gave you a stake in governmental decision-making. Government, after all, was fixated on property rights. Non-property owners were considered to be lacking that stake.

     Maori land ownership posed a problem for this system, since they owned land collectively. The solution was the Maori seats, thereby ensuring all men could vote before all Pakeha men.
     • RedLogix 4.1.1

       13 May 2023 at 4:48 pm

       Britain was having full censuses by the time New Zealand was getting settled.

       New Zealand held it's first census in 1851, but it only covered non-Maori who had a permanent 'household'. And while a census might well be useful for determining the size and location of an electorate – it has never been used for determining electoral eligibility – even today. By convention the two functions were always kept separate.

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1851_New_Zealand_census

       And it was not until 1915 were passport introduced, and formal New Zealand citizenship came much later in the 1950's. Again my core point is that many ideas we take utterly for granted today, simply did not apply to the world our ancestors lived in.
       • pat 4.1.1.1

         13 May 2023 at 5:21 pm

         Indeed….whether the reasons for the voting rights were as stated the fact remains that confirming eligibility was problematic.
       • DS 4.1.1.2

         13 May 2023 at 5:52 pm

         If they had the ability to run a census, they had an ability to run an electoral roll. Passports have never played a role in the right to vote, and the notion of distinct citizenship is simply a reflection of "New Zealand" separating itself from the wider context of the British Empire. You claimed that property ownership criteria was a mere matter of pragmatism. That was simply not true.

         It was the matter of the "stake."

         Otherwise it would be easy enough for a land-owning rich prick to provide a list of his family and servants, whereupon the servants (or at least the male ones) could vote too. But they couldn't.

         This trend is actually more noticeable in Britain itself, rather than New Zealand:

         • Pre-1832: Only rich landowners could vote (included some women, bizarrely enough).
         • 1832: Well-to-do urban men can vote too.
         • 1867: Part of the working class can vote too.
         • 1884: More of the working class can vote. But women and 40% of men still excluded.
         • 1918: All men can vote, and women over 30.
         • 1928: Universal adult suffrage.

         The trend here is not pragmatism about paperwork. The trend is a transfer of power from the rich pricks to everyone else, with the prospect of French-style Revolution being a threat in 1832, with later Reform Acts being a bidding war between Gladstone and Disraeli, and then 1918 being about the First World War. Every New Zealander who died in the War could at least vote for his Government – but that wasn't true in Britain. After the War, the moral imperative of letting all men vote was overwhelming,
         • pat 4.1.1.2.1

           13 May 2023 at 5:57 pm

           Passports??…you may wish to consider that the ability to prove identity was somewhat difficult back in the day, not to mention the prevalence of changing name/identity for various reasons…..in those circumstances how can validity of voting rights be confirmed?
           • DS 4.1.1.2.1.1

             14 May 2023 at 2:37 pm

             The USA was managing it in the 1830s.
             • pat …

               14 May 2023 at 6:11 pm

               Im not sure that citing the USAs record on democratic process is wise….they have considerable difficulty even today , so much so they are described as a flawed democracy.

               https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy-countries

               Historians have noted the prevalence and relative ease of identity change in early NZ and passports were not in existence here until 1915 and the need to hold one was not commonplace not to mention the difficulty in obtaining birth certificates etc.
         • RedLogix 4.1.1.2.2

           13 May 2023 at 6:15 pm

           Your argument is blind to the impact of technology on culture. Over and again we see technical progress opening the door for social change to follow.

           Now this does not discount the important work of those who had to advocate and sometimes struggle for important social change – in this case universal suffrage – but it is useless to accuse our ancestors of moral failure without regard for the real world conditions they had to contend with.

           When I read the OP I see a remarkable story of just how quickly we adopted universal suffrage once the conditions to support it became widely available.
           • DS 4.1.1.2.2.1

             14 May 2023 at 2:13 pm

             Technology was never the issue. The USA was adopting universal male suffrage (for whites) in the 1830s, ditching property qualifications under pressure from Andrew Jackson. Hell, the USA actually had voting systems set up during the Civil War, to allow Union soldiers to vote without returning home.

             The Chartists in Britain were demanding universal male suffrage in the 1830s and 1840s too.

             The technology to implement it in New Zealand (and Britain) was most certainly available. The argument at the time wasn't "we can't check eligibility," but rather "if we let the peasants vote, they'll destroy everything. And next they'll want to give the vote to women."
             • RedLogix …

               14 May 2023 at 2:24 pm

               New Zealand was considerably more remote and less developed than the USA or Britain during this period. It was literally at the far side of the planet, isolated and lacking even basic communications, travel or institutional infrastructure. In this light your own argument inadvertently proves my point.

               And next they'll want to give the vote to women."

               That NZ then famously became the first nation to do this seems utterly lost on you.
               • DS …

                 14 May 2023 at 2:42 pm

                 We had efficient, functioning government (multiple ones, actually – this was the era of the provinces), and far less institutional inertia than Britain. There was a reason we were considered the Social Laboratory of the world – something that rather goes against your implication that we were somehow on the Moon so far as technology went.

                 The "next they'll give the vote to women" was famously used by opponents of the Chartists. In 1832, it was even used as a reductio ad absurdum. That was the argument used at the time, in all debates about the franchise. Not practicality.

                 (I also think you'll find that the US state of Wyoming adopted women's suffrage in 1869. Not a nation, of course, but a highly remote location in the context of the time. Again, all that mattered was political will. Not issues of practicality).

                 Your desperation to excuse the wealthy elephant in the room from any political fault is duly noted.
                 • RedLogix …

                   14 May 2023 at 2:46 pm

                   If technology is so irrelevant – why did we not have woman's suffrage 10,000 years ago? Why did it all arrive pretty much all at once, in most places in the world, in the immediate period of the Industrial Revolution?
                   • DS …

                     14 May 2023 at 4:42 pm

                     It didn't arrive all at once.

                     France didn't have women's suffrage until 1945. Switzerland until 1971.

                     Moreover, democracy itself is a weird fluke in human history. Our species naturally defers to Kings and Priests. The notion that the common people ought to have any say in government would be considered absurd for most of history. And that's not because everyone went "oh, sorry. We just don't have the infrastructure to support it." It's because certain influential people kept appealing to the dangers of mob rule, or to the sanctity of the divine mandate.
     • Ad 4.1.2

       13 May 2023 at 10:22 pm

       The Treaty of Waitangi is fully focused on property rights, so of course it affects both our concept of what the state is for and our concept of franchise as well.

       Great that franchise was widened out, but property ownership and the role of the state in conferring title is more fundamental to New Zealand than voting.
       • DS 4.1.2.1

         14 May 2023 at 2:15 pm

         The Treaty was infamously declared a "simple nullity" in 1870.
         • Ed1 4.1.2.1.1

           14 May 2023 at 9:40 pm

           Treaty discussion is probably outside the scope of this thread, but I was intrigued by possible differences between this article:

           https://www.newsroom.co.nz/book-of-the-week-the-first-tiriti-fraud?

           and this: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief

           and https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/learn-about-the-justice-system/how-the-justice-system-works/the-basis-for-all-law/treaty-of-waitangi/

           I do not see The Treaty being solely relating to property rights without a very broad interpretation of property.
5. Mike the Lefty 5

   13 May 2023 at 3:34 pm

   Interesting and illuminating post Seddonville miner.

   I want to add a few comments about MMP.

   The two main parties, Labour and National, have never really been comfortable with MMP. They were pushed into it in the 1990s because there was a backlash against both parties for pushing their lies and deceit on the people and entrenching lacklustre career politicians in safe seats under FPP. The calls for a referendum became too loud for the National government to ignore and it was forced, largely against its (and Labour's) wishes to hold it. I don't think either Labour or National actually expected MMP to win in the final referendum and it was a profound shock to them both.

   More for National than Labour. Labour shook its head dolefully but then eventually realized that there was potential in MMP to bring in different people than the old white suits to represent the growing migrant, especially asian and pasifika population. National were a lot slower to adapt and continued to select the same old white suit farmer boy professional girl candidates they always had, whilst pouring hatred at anyone different who entered parliament over the other side of the house (think Nandor Tanzos).

   So National's "one person one vote" is actually pointless and meaningless to anyone who thinks about it but as usual National is reaching out to the non-thinking voter, the voter who only takes notice of populist slogans and is incapable of thinking beyond the catchy word play. Unfortunately there are a LOT of such people around.

   Labour should challenge National to say whether this "one person one vote" is a disguised pledge to revert to FPP voting. It probably isn't but it would be a good counter. I don't see any public appetite to return to FPP. Although MMP is not perfect, it certainly gives us a parliament that is far more representative of our society than FFP ever did and I have yet to see any list MPs with paper bags over their heads.
   • DS 5.1

     13 May 2023 at 4:46 pm

     After 1978 and 1981 – back to back elections where the party getting the most votes lost the election – Labour was at least open to investigating reform. So David Lange – much to the annoyance of his cabinet colleagues – declared there would be a Royal Commission. Which recommended MMP.

     Bolger, to his credit, and again to the annoyance of his colleagues, pushed through the promised referendum.
   • Seddonville Miner 5.2

     13 May 2023 at 7:22 pm

     Thanks. That is really interesting. I would argue the National still haven't come to terms with what MMP is and how it works. Look at their petty whining in 2017 about being the winners on the night. They argued that because of that they should have the first opportunity to form a government. They don't realise that being ahead on election night is like trying to claim that you won the marathon because you were leading up until the final kilometre, The finish line is the first to get to 61 seats however that occurs.
     • Incognito 5.2.1

       13 May 2023 at 7:45 pm

       FYI, because you changed your username, your comment was caught in the Spam-trap; if you’d used you pre-approved username then this wouldn’t have happened.

       HTH
     • Ad 5.2.2

       13 May 2023 at 10:24 pm

       National invented and implemented NZ MMP. They get it.
       • Patricia Bremner 5.2.2.1

         14 May 2023 at 7:37 am

         I agree Ad. Key's "cup of tea" for Epsom was their manipulation of MMP.

         They truly "understand", and they are prepared to game the situation for advantage (pun intended).
         • Mike the Lefty 5.2.2.1.1

           14 May 2023 at 9:35 am

           Don't agree that National invented or implemented MMP, they resisted it strongly but did it hiding behind Peter Shirtcliffe's group. But certainly John Key was the cleverest in realizing how deals could be made with political partners, something that Labour won't do.
       • DS 5.2.2.2

         14 May 2023 at 2:16 pm

         The Royal Commission of 1986 stole our system of MMP from West Germany. National's only role was Bolger promising a referendum, and then (along with Labour) voting for the Electoral Act 1993.
6. tWiggle 6

   13 May 2023 at 5:42 pm

   Since when have residents, as opposed to citizens, had full national voting rights?
   • Incognito 6.1

     13 May 2023 at 5:49 pm

     1975
7. Thinker 7

   14 May 2023 at 12:39 pm

   To me, the problems don't lie with the voting process but campaign processes that ensure that candidates who can afford to mount an election campaign have to owe allegiance to somebody or someone's ideology before they even ask for our vote.

   I include the Auckland mayoralty in that.

   We need a way of holding candidates to come clean about who they associate with and who their backers are. It won't be easy though. L
8. Ad 8

   14 May 2023 at 4:12 pm

   So Seddonville is running an argument that Luxon is wrong to critique the form of New Zealand democracy because our democracy is actually far weaker than that in every single election except 1975.

   "Everything you say is shit because everything else every other time was shittier" is not a useful argument either against National or in support of New Zealand democracy.
9. Stuart Munro 9

   14 May 2023 at 10:00 pm

   Democracy is old. Much older than the Greeks. It goes back to the consensus democracies of band cultures. Sometimes only men got to vote. Certainly no-one from outside the polity could. Nevertheless these early democracies were much more genuine than one riddled with lobbyists and neutered by non-performing neo-liberal economic hacks.

   One man one vote is an ideal worth working towards – and when, relegated to the opposition benches yet again, National is obliged to subsist on the bitter and nutritious diet of those words, they might learn something from them. The moreso given that TPM mean to impose a feudal upper house with apparent Labour connivance.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS