web analytics

Polity: Turnout in the referendum

Written By: - Date published: 3:57 pm, December 16th, 2013 - 72 comments
Categories: democratic participation, Maori Issues, Maori seats, pasifika, referendum - Tags:

polity_square_for_lynnRob Salmond at Polity has had a look at the effectiveness of National’s deliberate strategy to discriminate against Maori and Pasifika in the asset sales referendum.

National chose a postal ballot for the referendum knowing it would disproportionately disenfranchise Maori and Pasifika communities. I hope they’re proud of themselves.

Here is a chart of turnout rates in the asset sales referendum, graphed against the National vote in the 2011 election:

asset sales turnout

What stands out? Well, first of all it contradicts the complete nonsense various people have been spreading about the turnout being just a bunch of lefties1 and also Matthew Hooten’s misinformation about turnout being pretty even around the country.

But more importantly we also see a deepening of the disturbing trend where heavily Maori and Pacific electorates have less of a voice than other areas. These communities have always had lower turnout than the rest of the country, but that trend was even more pronounced in the referendum. In the 2011 election the ten highlighted electorates turned out at about five-sixths the rate of the entire country. In this referendum, their turnout rate fell to only two thirds the nationwide average.

The dirty secret here is that National knew in advance this would happen, and that is exactly why they chose the postal ballot. Study after study has shown that postal ballots cause a wider turnout gap between the haves and the have nots.2 This is because people in low income communities (and especially low income ethnic minority communities) are:

  • Less likely to stay at one address for a long time, so less likely to receive their ballot paper.
  • Less likely to live somewhere NZ Post delivers to, so less likely to receive any mail at all.
  • Less likely to use the post office in any other part of their lives.
  • And so on.

National chose the postal ballot knowing all this full well. They wanted to make it comparatively harder – even harder than normal – for Labour’s strongest supporters in disadvantaged areas to cast their ballot’s than for National’s strong support bases in white-as-snow retirement communities.

It worked, of course. Yuck.

1.Even when you exclude the ten highlighted electorates, there, is still no relationship between National support and turnout rates. Even bearing in mind the limits of ecological inference, this pattern is highly inconsistent with the right-leaning spin.

2.An excellent example, from New Zealand-connected researchers Jeff Karp and Susan Banducci, shows that postal voting in Oregon causes increased turnout, but only really among high-turnout communities, thus expanding the turnout gap between the haves and the have nots.

72 comments on “Polity: Turnout in the referendum ”

  1. Arfamo 1

    There’s a poll on stuff.co asking what support there is for the assets to be bought back. The numbers at the moment look like this:

    Should Labour buy back shares in state assets if elected?

    Yes, they should do whatever they can to get them back
    148 votes, 11.9%

    Yes – but only if it’s affordable
    328 votes, 26.3%

    No – not needed, we retained a controlling stake
    685 votes, 54.9%

    No, we should have sold all of our shares in them
    87 votes, 7.0%

    I’ve given up on polls debates. The only one that’s important to me now is the next general election.

  2. Thomas 2

    This is silly. CIRs are normally postal ballots (unless they coincide with a general election).
    The reason is simple: postal ballots are much cheaper than having in-person voting. $9 million is expensive enough.

    • lprent 2.1

      That may be the case. However the objective with voting is not to attempt to deny voters from voting – right?

      In this case it’d have been preferable to have had this referendum at the next general election. But for some obscure reason National chose to expend more money, even though they’d already sold most of the viable assets, to have a postal election away from the general election.

      I wonder why? Possibly because they damn well knew that the asset sales program was deeply unpopular amongst their own voters? And more Labour, Green, Maori and Pasifika voters would vote in a general election.

      Deeply undemocratic. Such a pity that National will probably lose a lot of provincial NZ over this “mandate” that they didn’t have. 😈

      • Matthew Hooton 2.1.1

        But by the next election, even the Genesis deal would have been done. I really don’t think there was anything sinister in the decision to go for a postal ballot rather than a polling booth ballot. I did some analysis on this. See post below.

        • Paul 2.1.1.1

          Why did you claim voting was equal across electorates when it clearly was not?

          • Matthew Hooton 2.1.1.1.1

            I thought it was a bit narrower than this, but it’s all between about 30 and 50%, with the high 40s most dominant. The one good point Rob’s graph points out is that either Maori electorate and South Auckland voters tend not to vote as regularly as other voters, or that the electoral rolls in those electorates are less accurate than elsewhere.

        • greywarbler 2.1.1.2

          But Key is saying that so much has already happened with the asset sales already, there have been sales, plural, so now or at election time, would be little different.

          If it was supposed to be such a waste of money why have it now? Could it be that Shonkey had a little taunting song worked out, a childish sneering one about the Greens being dreebs, and forcing expensive, meaningless referendum on the public?

          In other words putting the referendum through now was a propaganda ploy that Key would turn to his advantage whatever the it indicated.

          • Matthew Hooton 2.1.1.2.1

            I don’t think that delaying a CIR for more than a year, even if that were lawful, would be more democratic than holding it soon after the petition was accepted and before the final sale had gone ahead.

            • greywarbler 2.1.1.2.1.1

              That’s a good point – does anyone know offhand whether it would have been lawful to
              delay the referendum until election time? Is there a time limit?

            • lprent 2.1.1.2.1.2

              I don’t think that delaying a CIR for more than a year, even if that were lawful,

              Just requires 75% of parliament to vote for it. That only required National to want to do it.

              National preferred holding it in a postal vote in December immediately after selling large chunks of two more assets to their mates.

              It has been interesting seeing how much that decision about when the referendum has been help has been pissing off family and friends out of the urban areas. They’re irritated.

            • Puddleglum 2.1.1.2.1.3

              I think it’s clear that National did not want the asset sales issue to have any official oxygen in an election year – hence rushing it through just before Christmas.

              On the broader issue of the post, polls consistently have shown that Maori are more opposed to asset sales than any other part of the electorate. Low turnout in those electorates compared with Pakeha dominated electorates reduces the proportion likely to be opposed to asset sales (and it’s not ‘MOM’, it’s ‘asset sales’ – shares have always been classed as assets in their own right),

          • lurgee 2.1.1.2.2

            Crikey, people demanded a referendum and now they are complaining about it being held!

            I really find being a leftie dispiriting at times.

        • Tracey 2.1.1.3

          I agree that waiting til the election would have been even more invalidating because all the jewels would be gone to the pawn broker by then.

      • Thomas 2.1.2

        The CIR act stipulates that the referendum must be held within a year. Ergo holding it at the next general election would not have been possible. See http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/about-parliament/get-involved/referendum/summary/00CLOOC_ReferendumProposals_1/citizens-initiated-referenda

        • lprent 2.1.2.1

          Ah no you silly clown. You should read your own references

          The Governor-General sets a date for the referendum within one month from the date of presentation. The referendum must be held within a year of the date of presentation unless 75% of all members of the House vote to defer it.

          Labour, Greens, NZ First, Mana, and I think even the Maori party were all happy to have it at the next election and even put up a remit for that. The 12 months was only a few months out from the next general election.

          National wasn’t interested in that. ergo National are responsible for having the postal vote for the referendum costing $9 million held at the very end of the year. Just designed to limit the types of people who’d vote..

          Pity it pissed off so many people in provincial NZ eh!

          • Thomas 2.1.2.1.1

            Oh good grief. That’s an entrenchment clause not a “or like whatever” clause.

            Your argument is really “well National could have amended the CIR act”. There is no good reason to overturn entrenched legislation to hold the CIR at the next election.

            Besides, I’m sure that, if National had moved the referendum to the next election, the Standard would be attacking them for delaying it and disregarding the rules of the CIR act.

            This is a conspiracy theory of the most ridiculous nature.

            • Colonial Viper 2.1.2.1.1.1

              Wow dude is everything a “conspiracy theory” nowadays? Seems like you’ve just hit peak conspiracy theory.

      • Wayne 2.1.3

        You are being ridiculous about postal voting. Not really an evil right wing conspiracy. Unless you think all local elections are such.

        Actually postal voting was first introduced to increase participation, not reduce it.

        • lprent 2.1.3.1

          Actually postal voting was first introduced to increase participation, not reduce it.

          It may have even done that when snail mail was popular. However I don’t think that it has succeeded for many years. At least for the last two decades it has been failing to achieve its goals at an accelerating rate.

          I didn’t do it at this years Auckland local body elections, but I have been working the intermediates at every other Auckland local body postal vote since 1995. What has been most noticeable is that the percentages in each 5 years age bracket who have voted has been steadily drifting downward. It remains high in the oldest brackets, but voters in 25-29 age bracket was down by a third since about 1995 in 2010 The other younger (ie <45) age brackets all show the same effect. Moreover it is doing it with at least double the acceleration of the general election votes.

          Living in an apartment block is quite interesting. We two moved back into my apartment in september after 3 years of renting it. But we got got about 7 voting forms at the local body elections, 6 for the referendum, and I was only able to forward 2. We only had two sets of tenants while we were in a larger place.

          Who uses snail mail any more? I haven’t for at least 6 years. But about the only mail I get is from the city council and the electoral commission.

          Basically postal voting works in the provincial areas and even in some settled urban areas. But the local body results and the referendum show that it has become essentially useless in urban areas. In those areas the voting is nearly twice as effective using polling stations for people who are < 35.

  3. Ad 3

    Look, conspiracy is daft.

    But the graph strongly supports Cunliffe’s tactical direction of focussing the general election effort on mobilising the 800,000 Enrolled Non-Vote.

    The south of Auckland won it for Labour last time, and this time the Maori Party is going to fold like origami, so concentrating effort on mobilising effort there will reap rich electoral rewards.

    • Matthew Hooton 3.1

      That’s true from Labour’s perspective if you believe that the integrity of the electoral rolls is the same in all electorates but there are reasons not to believe that.

      • Yeah, let’s get into that whole voter fraud morass because Hooton says so, even though individuals fake-enrolling has never been demonstrated to be a problem in any developed country. Whoops.

        Labour could do well focusing there, and on voters who haven’t enrolled but would like something to vote for.

      • rhinocrates 3.1.2

        So apparently the massive opposition to asset sales is do to huuuge voter fraud. That’s a serious allegation Hoots – would care to substantiate it and better still, take your damning evidence to the Electoral Commission or is it more desperate spin and insinuation from a slimeball? Oh, let me guess, the latter…

        • lurgee 3.1.2.1

          It’s a ‘Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander’ situation. The arguments put forward against a postal ballot also apply to a polling statino ballot, and also impugn the electoral roll.

          Nice to see you passing up another opportunity to hurl abuse and tilt at strawmen. Oh, wait a minute. You managed both, in about 30 words. Well done!

  4. DS 4

    By this same logic, in person voting is discriminatory because that also requires a properly registered address. Alleging conspiracy is utterly daft, and I’m hardly pro-Tory.

  5. DS 5

    And for what it’s worth, the likes of Dunedin South achieved solid turnout, and was very anti-asset sales too. If it was a conspiracy, it was an incompetent conspiracy.

    • Colonial Viper 5.1

      Dunedin South actually remains a very strong and politically active Labour supporting seat as evidenced by the referendum results. Just needs to get over a few constraints.

      • swordfish 5.1.1

        True enough, CV. But there has certainly been a significant swing to the Right in the seat over recent elections (well above the nationwide average, from memory). The hefty size of the Lab-to-Nat swings in the far south-west of Dunedin in particular (Green Island, Burnside, Concord and, above all, Abbotsford) have been something to behold. I do de-Clare !

  6. Matthew Hooton 6

    Rob Salmond is obviously angry about the result. The allegation that the government made a decision to use a postal ballot instead of making people go to the polling booth is absurd. Turnout in South Auckland and the Maori electorates is always lower than the average under either system.

    For example, in the 1995 firefighters referendum, where everyone had to go to the polling booths, turnout in the Maori electorates was between 11% and 16%, by far the lowest in the country, which had an average of 27%. The turnout in Mangere was below 20%. In Manukau East it was 21% and in Manurewa 23%. See http://electionresults.govt.nz/1995_citizens_referenda/7.1%20Return%20of%20Citizens%20Initiated%20Referendum%20Poll%20Votes.pdf

    However, in 2009, with the smacking referendum, a postal ballot, the turnout in the Maori electorates was in the 30s, compared with a national average of 56%. See http://electionresults.govt.nz/2009_citizens_referendum/2009_referendum_results.html

    This means that in the previous two CIRs conducted outside a general election, the percentage turnout in the Maori electorates and South Auckland, compared with the overall turnout, was HIGHER in the postal ballot than in the polling booth model (roughly 50% to 60%).

    In other words, the actual data suggests Maori and South Aucklanders tend to have higher representation in postal ballots than in polling booth ballots.

    Which means that, if Rob Salmond is right that National choose a postal ballot for the MON referendum in order to disenfranchise Maori and South Aucklanders, then that was the wrong strategy for National. Which seems improbable given John Key is quite an astute politician. (In fact, had it been a polling booth ballot the turn out would probably have been much lower so National could have rubbished the result even more than they have.)

    Which suggests that Rob Salmond’s post is a load of shit.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.1

      “then that was the wrong strategy for National. Which seems improbable given John Key is quite an astute politician. “

      lolz …I think you draw the wrong conclusion here, given that everything this government touches falls to bits, they seem to specialize in taking the wrong strategy – their hallmark, if you will.

      Or is getting away with messing up the entire country in numerous areas what being ‘quite an astute politician’ means these days?

    • QoT 6.2

      Rob Salmond is obviously angry about the result.

      Ah yes, undermine people by implying they’re emotional about something. And this from the dude who screamed “HE’S LYING! HE’S LYING!” on Radio NZ?

      • Paul 6.2.1

        Honestly Hooton is quite pathetic.
        He pretends to debate rationally but same as many others on this site, reverts to insults and tricks like the one you noticed to attempt to weaken the other person’s viewpoint.
        If you haven’t got an argument, I guess you have to use dishonest tricks.

        • rhinocrates 6.2.1.1

          His advantage is that he gets paid to do it. I wish I had a gig like that.

          Hoots is quite funny though – he’s incredibly pompous, but push him and you can seem him barely restraining the tantrums that he so often throws on Nine to Noon.

    • swordfish 6.3

      @ Young Master Hooton – “This means that in the previous two CIRs conducted outside a general election, the percentage turnout in the Maori electorates and South Auckland, compared with overall turnout, was HIGHER in the postal ballot than in the polling booth model (roughly 50% to 60%). In other words, the actual data suggests Maori and South Aucklanders tend to have higher representation in postal ballots than in polling booth ballots.”

      Utterly wrong on South Auckland, Big Fella.

      1995 (Polling Booth) Referendum on Firefighters.

      South Auckland Seat turnout as % of Nationwide turnout…

      Mangere 73%, Manukau East 78%, Manurewa 86%

      * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

      2009 (Postal Ballot) Referendum on Smacking

      South Auckland Seat turnout as % of Nationwide turnout…

      Mangere 68%, Manukau East 72%, Manurewa 79%

      So, the data suggests the opposite to what you imply, you amusingly disingenuous young scamp. (Which is probably, incidently, why you very carefully left out the 2009 Referendum figures for South Auckland – hoping no one would notice your little bit of intellectual sleight-of-hand).

      • lurgee 6.3.1

        I think you are trying to fudge the figures by expressing them as percentages of the nationwide turnout.

        Viewed simply as percentages of voters participating by electorate, the figures tell a very different story.

        In the 1995 referendum (Polling booth) 19.3% of the electors of Mangere voted, 21.08% of the people of Manukau East voted, and 23.21 of the good burghers of Manurewa voted.

        (Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_firefighter_referendum,_1995)

        In the 2008 Smacking referendum (postal), in Mangere 38.49% of the electorate voted, in Manukau East it was 40.47 and in Manurewa 44.25.

        (Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_corporal_punishment_referendum,_2009#By_electorate)

        I’d say that was pretty decisive in favour of postal ballots.

        • swordfish 6.3.1.1

          Nah, I was responding to Hooton – who, of course, was the one who focussed on comparing percentage turnout in the Maori seats and South Auckland with percentage turnout Nationwide. Do please try to keep up.

          • lurgee 6.3.1.1.1

            It’s a fair cop.

            But he is rightish in that participation almost doubled with the postal ballot. Dunno why he opted for some spurious and made up measurement concerning the national vote, when the path to victory was open in front of him.

            • lurgee 6.3.1.1.1.1

              Actually, re-reading the exchange, I was right – you’re aren’t playing fair with the numbers.

              Hooton is quite clearly looking at participation across several electorates (Maori seats plus Mangere, Manurewa and Manukau East) while you focused on one (Manukau East) so I don’t think you’re making a fair comparison.

              Manuakau East might have experienced a slump in participation from 1995 to 2009, but the participation across the selected electorates would have been up overall (unless Matthew is simply Making Stuff Up – I can’t be bothered wonking the figures). And expressing participation as a percentage of the national participation is still odd, but only made up a small part of his post, which you focused on exclusively – and selectively.

              • swordfish

                Nyet, Comrade, Nyet !!!

                I think you’re gonna have to re-read both my and Hooton’s comments again.

                Let’s go through your points one by one:

                (1) Turnout as % of nationwide turnout “only made up a small part of (Hooton’s) post, which you focussed on exclusively – and selectively.”

                No way. Hooton predicates his ENTIRE argument on this methodology.

                To purportedly prove that Rob’s allegation is “absurd”, Hooton begins (para one) by suggesting that “turnout in South Auckland and the Maori electorates is always lower than the average under either system.” And (para two) provides 1995 Referendum figures for these seats to partially back that claim up. But, his core aim in para two is to compare Maori/South Auckland turnout with Nationwide turnout. He then goes on to do the same for the 2009 Referendum in para three. (albeit, as I’ve shown (in my earlier comment), very carefully “forgetting” to mention the inconvenient South Auckland figures).

                That leads to his conclusion in para four that “percentage turnout in the Maori electorates and South Auckland compared with the overall turnout, was HIGHER in the postal ballot than in the polling booth model.” His “roughly 50% to 60%” figures (mistaken as they, in fact, are) represents Hooton’s attempt to compare the 1995 with 2009 Maori/South Auckland turnout as % of nationwide turnout percentages.

                Para five re-states this conclusion.

                Paras six and seven build on that conclusion.

                So, it forms the entire basis of his argument.

                (more to follow)…….

              • swordfish

                (2) Hooton’s looking at participation across Maori seats and Mangere, Manurewa and Manukau East, “while you focussed on one (Manukau East) so I don’t think you’re making a fair comparison.”

                First up, the whole point of my reply to Hooton was to challenge his argument SPECIFICALLY regarding his claims about the South Auckland seat turnout (hence my: “Utterly wrong on South Auckland, Big Fella”). I would have thought it was fairly bleeding obvious that I wasn’t challenging the claims about Maori turnout (or, at least, not his broad claims – some of his specifics were off).

                Second, I can’t even begin to understand why you would claim that I focussed only on Manukau East !!! Quite bizarre. Have another look at my comment. What do I do there ?: show that Hooton is completely wrong to suggest that “the percentage turnout in…South Auckland, compared with the overall turnout, was HIGHER in the (2009) postal ballot than in the (1995) polling booth model.”

                I show that, in fact, turnout in Mangere, Manurewa and Manukau East (Please note: NOT just the latter seat !!!), was – as % of overall turnout – higher in 1995 than 2009. (Mangere 73% (1995) / 68% (2009); Manurewa 86% (1995) / 79% (2009); Manukau East 78% (1995) / 72% (2009)).

                (Possibly more to follow – but only if I have time)

                • lurgee

                  Second, I can’t even begin to understand why you would claim that I focussed only on Manukau East !!!

                  Obviously, when I said, Manakau East, I meant all the non-Maori electorates.

                  *Embarrassed face*

                  Still, my under-caffeinated blundering aside, by pointing to the three non-Maori electorates, while Hooton was basing his figures on them plus Maori electorates, you are comparing apples with wildebeest.

                  I may review the whole discussion and respond to your other points later on, before proclaiming myself correct again.

    • [Cross-posted comment from Polity]@Matthew: Welcome along. I agree that the Maori / Pacific communities almost always have lower turnout. The question is always: “how much lower?”

      The comparison you have of the 1995 firefighters CIR and the 2009 anti-smacking CIR is flawed. You cannot directly compare the two referenda because the questions are of vastly different relevance in the Maori / Pacific communities. Cultural practice arguments around family discipline have particular salience for these communities in a way that arguments about how much to pay firefighters do not.

      The evidence on my side of the argument, however, is put together by social scientists specifically to make sure that you are comparing apples with apples. *Their* pretty consistent conclusion is that the postal ballot further disadvantages already marginalised communities. Consult the Karp / Banducci paper on Oregon for an especially good example, and a good discussion of how this effect comes about.

      I’ll take the scientific evidence over two compromised observations any time.

      PS – I also endorse what Swordfish says above. If you’re going to make with the data, do it properly, huh.

    • Gotta love attempting to “normalise” the postal ballot with the general election- have you considered that rather than there being a higher proportional turnout in the postal referendum, that potentially as an electorate becomes disenfranchised, it becomes harder to suppress the vote for each additional point? Diminishing returns isn’t a hard concept to grasp.

      That said, I do disagree that this was a tactic to disenfranchise people too. That would imply that the Government actually cares about referendum results. No, they ran a postal ballot because attaching the referendum to the election would have hurt their election results.

    • Tracey 6.6

      And if you had done your analysis before shooting from the lip, you would have known that it wasn’t all fairly even as you said, so that means, by your logic, your post was full of shit.

      So now you and Rob have crappy nappies. How clever you must feel.

    • Crunchtime 6.7

      1995 was a long time ago when the internet was barely used by anyone, a cellphone was for a tiny minority of rich folks (and the size of a large brick) and everyone still sent letters to each other. Also, that CIR barely registered on the public consciousness and turnout was just flat-out low across the board.

      Also, you’re desperately looking for trends here but you have a tiny sample size. Put that tiny sample size away Hooton, nobody wants to see that.

      • lprent 6.7.1

        You also forgot that the net was clunky and largely restricted to a few enthusiastic vaguely crazy people like myself.

        http://downtothewire.co.nz/1995/

        That was the year that I finally dropped my 6 year connection of getting e-mail and usenet on uucp running over some expensive ISDN lines. I also stopped going to BBS’es.

        Unfortunately the year that microsoft released internet explorer version 1. What a pile of junk that was (and remained). I really wish I hadn’t remembered that. I was still writing code for the switches at Clear.

        • Crunchtime 6.7.1.1

          I thought I covered that off with “the internet was barely used by anyone”. 🙂

          John Key and his strategists lined this all up so that they could say the turnout was “too low to matter”.

          However, the point missed by Mr Hooton AND by the original author of this article is this: nearly 900,000 people voted no to asset sales. In the last general election, where of course turnout is far higher because it’s a general election, just over a million voted for National. Those numbers are pretty damn close.

          In other words, if the turnout was too low to matter in this CIR, it was pretty much too low to matter last election too.

  7. Rogue Trooper 7

    discussion may get heated further-on.

    • Matthew Hooton 7.1

      Why’s that?

      • Rogue Trooper 7.1.1

        you have taken the time to submit a more comprehensive (than usual ) alternative analysis? Anyway, I’ve got to go in from play now. See ya tomorrow (school holidays).

        ps. regardless, the referendum results are far from a suave look.

        • Matthew Hooton 7.1.1.1

          I was just interested to see what the real data showed, so I looked it up. Internet age and all. Doesn’t take long.

          • Paul 7.1.1.1.1

            You’re spinning Matthew. Who’s paying you to spend so much time trying to diffuse all this bad news for the government?

            • Matthew Hooton 7.1.1.1.1.1

              John Key pays me through Crosby Texter for every word I write here. (Or I could just be sitting here at work, bored, waiting for a 7pm conference call with a foreign client on something unrelated to NZ politics, surfing the blogs to fill in time. You choose which is more likely.)

          • Tracey 7.1.1.1.2

            you were interested in the real data after you made your fairly even comment, why not before? It seems you, like many from all sides of the political spectrum are interested in facts when they support your view and like making them up when they don’t. How does that serve the electorate?

  8. Ian 8

    you guys are just miffed cos KFC doesn’t travel through the post ,that well. You should have used vouchers.

    [lprent: Stupid troll – read the policy and pull your arse out of 2008. Otherwise I ban you (again). Can’t really be bothered with trolls who are so thick they can’t learn new lines to run. ]

  9. tricledrown 9

    Ian and mathew are having a titford moment.

  10. Dumrse 10

    No fucking wonder the blog is written by a non descript entity, it’s full of shit or lacks some very important references. Show the evidence that National deliberately chose a postal ballot to disenfranchise people who have no fucking letter box or, don’t know where it is. And, explain to us how the disenfranchised can walk to WINZ blindfolded but wouldn’t have a clue what a big red post box looks like. Grasping at straws. How about some detailed analysis on the votes. IE, percentage of eligible voters who voted. Compare and contrast with the last general election…… Some real meaningful numbers, oh! hang on a minute, that won’t look good will it.

  11. lurgee 11

    Less likely to stay at one address for a long time, so less likely to receive their ballot paper.
    Less likely to live somewhere NZ Post delivers to, so less likely to receive any mail at all.
    Less likely to use the post office in any other part of their lives.
    And so on.

    I think you are drawing a very long bow by claiming this is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise a segment of the population, and the reasons that you offered above, while valid, over look the problem that they will apply almost equally to every method of holding a referendum.

    Surely these voters are less likely to be on the electoral roll, full stop, so no form of referendum will effect them? And less likely to go along to a polling station to vote, as they didn’t bother showing up in 2008 or 2011? And unlikely register for any dubious online referendum?

    What did you have in mind as an alternative to a postal ballot?

    I’d really like it to be a Massive CONSPIRACY but I think you;re just being silly.

  12. Papa Tuanuku 12

    while y’all are debating the numbers that voted in the broke areas, you miss the larger, more fundamental point. we voted in the 90%’s against asset sales. now that is news. why are brown people more anti sales than whites?

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 12.1

      Good question Papa Tuanuku – ‘less brainwashed’ comes to mind.

      • swordfish 12.1.1

        Confirms the only ethnic breakdown I’ve seen in polls on partial privatisation.

        A February 2011 Research New Zealand Poll found Maori/Pasifikas (they lumped them in together) opposing National’s plans by 57 to 34%, compared with European/Pakehas who were evenly split 46/46 %.

        It’s the ONLY Poll I’ve ever seen where the Oppose/Support options were close (Total Sample: Oppose 47 / Support 45 %). So, small sample size (and possibly faulty methodology) leads to questionable overall findings (given it’s clearly an outlier). But, the ethnic differences appear to have been sound.

        Here (scroll down to near-bottom of page – http://www.researchnz.com/media_releases_2011.html )

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Put our most vulnerable first
    Don’t forget whānau and communities most at risk, says the Green Party, as the Government lays out its three-phase plan for Omicron. ...
    12 hours ago
  • Boosting our immunity against Omicron
    With Omicron in the community, it’s vital we all do our bit to help to slow the spread, keep each other safe and protect our health system. One of the most important ways we can reduce the risk of Omicron is to get a booster dose as soon as we’re ...
    18 hours ago
  • Equitable response to Omicron vital
    The Green Party supports the Government’s decision to move Aotearoa New Zealand to traffic light level Red at 11.59pm tonight, but says its success will depend on the support that is made available to the most vulnerable. ...
    4 days ago
  • How we’re preparing for Omicron
    As countries around the world experience Omicron outbreaks, we’re taking steps now to ensure we’re as prepared as possible and our communities are protected. ...
    7 days ago
  • What’s Labour achieved so far?
    Quite a bit! This Government was elected to take on the toughest issues facing Aotearoa – and that’s what we’re doing. Since the start of the pandemic, protecting lives and livelihoods has been a priority, but we’ve also made progress on long-term challenges, to deliver a future the next generation ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Tackling the big issues in 2022
    This year, keeping Kiwis safe from COVID will remain a key priority of the Government – but we’re also pushing ahead on some of New Zealand’s biggest long-term challenges. In 2022, we’re working to get more Kiwis into homes, reduce emissions, lift children out of poverty, and ensure people get ...
    2 weeks ago

  • Government announces three phase public health response to Omicron
    Reducing isolation period for cases and close contacts at Phase Two and Three to 10 and seven days Definition of close contact required to isolate changes to household or household like contacts at Phase Three Increased use of rapid antigen tests with test to return policy put in place for ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    16 hours ago
  • New Ambassador to Thailand announced
    Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta today announced the appointment of Jonathan Kings as New Zealand’s next Ambassador to Thailand. “Aotearoa New Zealand has a long-standing relationship with Thailand, celebrating the 65th anniversary of diplomatic representation between our countries in 2021. We also share much in common at regional and multilateral levels ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    18 hours ago
  • Government’s Family Package continues to deliver for New Zealanders
    The Families Package helped around 330,000 families in its first year - more than half of all families with children in NZ These families received an estimated $55 per week more from Families Package payments in 2018/19 than in 2017/18, on average Families Package increases to the maximum possible Accommodation ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    20 hours ago
  • New Zealand retains top spot in global anti-corruption rankings
    Justice Minister Kris Faafoi has welcomed news of New Zealand’s ongoing position as top in the world anti-corruption rankings. The 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index released by global anti-corruption organisation, Transparency International, ranks New Zealand first equal with Denmark and Finland, with a score of 88 out of 100. “This is an ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 day ago
  • Testing improvements see New Zealand well prepared for Omicron
    New Zealand’s PCR testing capacity can be increased by nearly 20,000 tests per day to deal with a surge in cases as part of our wider COVID-19 testing strategy, Associate Minister of Health Dr Ayesha Verrall said. “We have continued to adapt our public health response to safeguard the health ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • 5,000 portable air cleaners for schools on their way
    As schools are preparing to return, Education Minister Chris Hipkins has announced 5,000 air cleaners have been ordered for New Zealand schools. “As we know, along with vaccination, testing, good hygiene and physical distancing, good ventilation is important in minimising the risk of airborne transmission of the virus that causes ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 days ago
  • New Zealand to move to Red from 11.59pm today
    All of New Zealand will move to the Red setting of the Covid Protection Framework (CPF) at 11:59pm today as Omicron is potentially now transmitting in the community, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says. “Nine COVID-19 cases reported yesterday in the Nelson/Marlborough region are now confirmed as Omicron, and a further ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Mandatory boosters for key workforces progressing well
    More than 5,785 (82%) border workers eligible for a booster vaccination at 6 months have received it so far, COVID-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins says. “That’s a really strong uptake considering we announced the requirement the week before Christmas, but we need to continue this momentum,” Chris Hipkins said. “We ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • NZ to move to Red
    Nine COVID-19 cases reported yesterday in the Nelson/Marlborough region have now been confirmed as the Omicron variant, and a further case from the same household was confirmed late yesterday. These cases are in a single family that flew to Auckland on 13 January to attend a wedding and other events ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • New Zealand to provide further help for Tonga
    Aotearoa New Zealand is giving an additional $2 million in humanitarian funding for Tonga as the country recovers from a volcanic eruption and tsunami last weekend, Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta and Defence Minister Peeni Henare said today. This brings Aotearoa New Zealand’s contribution to $3 million. “This support will ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Quarterly benefit numbers show highest number of exits into work
    The Government’s strong focus on supporting more people into work is reflected in benefit figures released today which show a year-on-year fall of around 21,300 people receiving a main benefit in the December 2021 quarter, Minister for Social Development and Employment Carmel Sepuloni said. “Our response to COVID has helped ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • Northland to move to Orange, NZ prepared for Omicron 
    Northland to move to Orange Rest of New Zealand stays at Orange in preparedness for Omicron All of New Zealand to move into Red in the event of Omicron community outbreak – no use of lockdowns Govt planning well advanced – new case management, close contact definition and testing rules ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • RNZAF C-130 Hercules flight departs for Tonga as Navy vessels draw nearer to Tongatapu
    A Royal New Zealand Air Force C-130 Hercules has departed Base Auckland Whenuapai for Tonga carrying aid supplies, as the New Zealand aid effort ramps up, Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta and Defence Minister Peeni Henare said today. “The aircraft is carrying humanitarian aid and disaster relief supplies, including water ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • New Zealand prepared to send support to Tonga
    New Zealand is ready to assist Tonga in its recovery from Saturday night’s undersea eruption and tsunami, Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta and Defence Minister Peeni Henare said today. “Following the successful surveillance and reconnaissance flight of a New Zealand P-3K2 Orion on Monday, imagery and details have been sent ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Aotearoa New Zealand stands ready to assist people of Tonga
    The thoughts of New Zealanders are with the people of Tonga following yesterday’s undersea volcanic eruption and subsequent tsunami waves, Foreign Affairs Minister Nanaia Mahuta says. “Damage assessments are under way and New Zealand has formally offered to provide assistance to Tonga,” said Nanaia Mahuta. New Zealand has made an ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Record high of new homes consented continues
    In the year ended November 2021, 48,522 new homes were consented, up 26 per cent from the November 2020 year. In November 2021, 4,688 new dwellings were consented. Auckland’s new homes consented numbers rose 25 per cent in the last year. Annual figures for the last nine months show more ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Report trumpets scope for ice cream exports
    Latest research into our premium ice cream industry suggests exporters could find new buyers in valuable overseas markets as consumers increasingly look for tip top quality in food. Economic Development Minister Stuart Nash has released a new report for the Food and Beverage Information Project. The project is run by ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Honouring the legacy of legendary kaumātua Muriwai Ihakara
    Associate Minister for Arts, Culture, and Heritage Kiri Allan expressed her great sadness and deepest condolences at the passing of esteemed kaumātua, Muriwai Ihakara. “Muriwai’s passing is not only a loss for the wider creative sector but for all of Aotearoa New Zealand. The country has lost a much beloved ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Have your say on proposed changes to make drinking water safer
    Associate Minister for the Environment Kiri Allan is urging all New Zealanders to give feedback on proposed changes aimed at making drinking water safer. “The current regulations are not fit for purpose and don’t offer enough protection, particularly for those whose water comes from smaller supplies,” Kiri Allan said. “This ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Planting the seeds for rewarding careers
    A boost in funding for a number of Jobs for Nature initiatives across Canterbury will provide sustainable employment opportunities for more than 70 people, Conservation Minister Kiri Allan says. “The six projects are diverse, ranging from establishing coastline trapping in Kaikōura, to setting up a native plant nursery, restoration planting ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago
  • New Zealand congratulates Tonga's new Prime Minister on appointment
    Minister of Foreign Affairs Nanaia Mahuta today congratulated Hon Hu'akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni on being appointed Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Tonga. “Aotearoa New Zealand and Tonga have an enduring bond and the Kingdom is one of our closest neighbours in the Pacific. We look forward to working with Prime ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    3 weeks ago