Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 122028	2011-11-26 08:59:00	Winston Peters	Cato (6936)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1245715	2011-11-27 21:15:00	Because they're two separate ballots, printed on the same sheet of paper. This shouldn't be the case. Noting that the difference is only ~300 votes, I suspect it may be related to their method of counting - remember that they have not yet finished counting the referendum. The total isn't low - the referendum hasn't been fully counted yet. The figures you're looking at (and have quoted below) are only the advance votes, it doesn't include votes cast on election day. We should have a full count on the referendum in a couple of weeks. The current figures are only supposed to provide a general idea of the result. Which goings-on in particular are you referring to here? 1: Well how can there be two separate ballots? Surly if you voted for change you had to nominate what too for the vote to be valid. For instance if I tick the change option in Part A and leave Part “B” blank, Part “B” would invalidate Part “A”. 2: The Discrepancy between the two totals is 417 not 300 and as you agree it should be Zero. So how can that happen in an Election. Are we using Zimbabwean protocols now? 3: If the figures quoted are only the advanced votes and the full count won’t be known for a couple of weeks how come a result has been declared? 4: One of the Classic Mickey Mouse goings on was the Tea Party farce and Key supporting Act and not his own man. Why Key would prefer an Act Party member in Parliament in preference to his own man eludes me. Not the sort of leadership generally found to be acceptable. A bit like McCaw supporting France. And finally, I note from today’s paper that whilst National are celebrating a Landslide Victory and claiming the mandate of the people, it was the Lowest voter turnout for over 50 years. Given the Country’s population increase in that time it would indicate to me that an awful lot of people registered their disapproval of all the candidates by staying home or going to the beach.	B.M. (505)
1245716	2011-11-27 21:51:00	Fancy being a Labour supporter and having your party tossed further into oblivion by the lowest voter turnout in over 50 years. Imagine how many more seats they would have lost had there been a 100% turnout :) :) :)	Zippity (58)
1245717	2011-11-27 22:04:00	1: Well how can there be two separate ballots?Because there are two separate questions, with two separate answers. Surly if you voted for change you had to nominate what too for the vote to be valid.No. Part A is "Would you like a change or not?", part B is "Of these four systems, which is your preferred one?". It was even printed on the ballot paper that the questions were separate, and you could choose to answer either A, B, or both A and B. For instance if I tick the change option in Part A and leave Part “B” blank, Part “B” would invalidate Part “A”.This is incorrect. 2: The Discrepancy between the two totals is 417 not 300...I said "~300", i.e. "approximately 300" - I eyeballed it, saw it was small, and didn't bother to determine an exact figure. The important thing is the order of magnitude and the fact that it's non-zero. ...and as you agree it should be Zero.Agreed, it should be zero. So how can that happen in an Election.Like I said, they haven't finished counting. Are we using Zimbabwean protocols now? Obviously not; your argument is facetious. 3: If the figures quoted are only the advanced votes and the full count won’t be known for a couple of weeks how come a result has been declared?A result has *not* been declared. As noted on the same page you quoted your figures from, and which you obviously didn't read: Note: these tables show advance ordinary votes (excluding special declaration votes) as reported on election night. The Electoral Commission aims to publish the official results for the referendum, including the results for ordinary votes cast on election day and special declaration votes, by 2.00pm on Saturday 10 December 2011, once the official count is complete. 4: One of the Classic Mickey Mouse goings on was the Tea Party farce...If you consider this a farce, how do you view the Greens endorsing the National candidate in Epsom, or helping Labour to campaign in other electorates? ...and Key supporting Act and not his own man.Key did support his own man; he voted for the National candidate. He also supported his own party's long-term future by endorsing Act. Why Key would prefer an Act Party member in Parliament in preference to his own man eludes me.If you don't understand the reasoning behind the decision, it makes a bit of a mockery of your criticism don't you think? The reason is to keep Act alive - without any MPs, do you really think Act would stand a chance in 2014? Other than Act, who do you see as viable coalition partners for National in 2014? Not the sort of leadership generally found to be acceptable. A bit like McCaw supporting France.Your analogy is faulty, France was the opposition - Act is not, Act and National are on the same side. A better analogy would be McCaw backing the Welsh to beat France. And finally, I note from today’s paper that whilst National are celebrating a Landslide Victory and claiming the mandate of the people...Well it was - they got the largest vote of any party, ever, under MMP. ...it was the Lowest voter turnout for over 50 years.And that was their choice not to vote - if people would rather abstain from making their opinion known, they have to live with the result, whatever that result happens to be. If they actually cared who ended up in government, they would have voted. Given the Country’s population increase in that time it would indicate to me that an awful lot of people registered their disapproval of all the candidates by staying home or going to the beach.Your logic is faulty - sure, disapproval is one (fairly likely) reason, but by no means the only one. I suspect a large portion of non-voters abstained either because they were Labour voters and thought Labour stood no chance, or because they were National voters and thought National would win easily without their vote.	Erayd (23)
1245718	2011-11-27 22:23:00	Erayd said: The reason is to keep Act alive - without any MPs, do you really think Act would stand a chance in 2014? Other than Act, who do you see as viable coalition partners for National in 2014? S h i t e, a lot could happen between now and then !. Lurking.	Lurking (218)
1245719	2011-11-27 22:48:00	National Won - Labour Lost - MMP won (in that the Nats don't need to go to bed with idiots) - PERIOD!! :)	Zippity (58)
1245720	2011-11-27 22:50:00	National Won - Labour Lost - MMP won (in that the Nats don't need to go to bed with idiots) - PERIOD!! :) because they already have, Banks and Dunne and shafted their own MP's	gary67 (56)
1245721	2011-11-27 22:50:00	Also Winston Peters got back in too!	Snorkbox (15764)
1245722	2011-11-27 23:52:00	because they already have, Banks and Dunne and shafted their own MP'sWho are you thinking got shafted? Paul Goldsmith got in on the list; he didn't need to win Epsom in order to get a seat. Banks did.	Erayd (23)
1245723	2011-11-28 00:07:00	Because there are two separate questions, with two separate answers. No. Part A is "Would you like a change or not?", part B is "Of these four systems, which is your preferred one?". It was even printed on the ballot paper that the questions were separate, and you could choose to answer either A, B, or both A and B. This is incorrect. I said "~300", i.e. "approximately 300" - I eyeballed it, saw it was small, and didn't bother to determine an exact figure. The important thing is the order of magnitude and the fact that it's non-zero. Agreed, it should be zero. Like I said, they haven't finished counting. Obviously not; your argument is facetious. A result has *not* been declared. As noted on the same page you quoted your figures from, and which you obviously didn't read: If you consider this a farce, how do you view the Greens endorsing the National candidate in Epsom, or helping Labour to campaign in other electorates? Key did support his own man; he voted for the National candidate. He also supported his own party's long-term future by endorsing Act. If you don't understand the reasoning behind the decision, it makes a bit of a mockery of your criticism don't you think? The reason is to keep Act alive - without any MPs, do you really think Act would stand a chance in 2014? Other than Act, who do you see as viable coalition partners for National in 2014? Your analogy is faulty, France was the opposition - Act is not, Act and National are on the same side. A better analogy would be McCaw backing the Welsh to beat France. Well it was - they got the largest vote of any party, ever, under MMP. And that was their choice not to vote - if people would rather abstain from making their opinion known, they have to live with the result, whatever that result happens to be. If they actually cared who ended up in government, they would have voted. Your logic is faulty - sure, disapproval is one (fairly likely) reason, but by no means the only one. I suspect a large portion of non-voters abstained either because they were Labour voters and thought Labour stood no chance, or because they were National voters and thought National would win easily without their vote. I disagree, :D if you voted for change in Part “A” part “B” would have to be completed appropriately for Part “A” to have any effect. There was no option to just vote for change without nominating what too. As for the Counting in the referendum, why are all the Newspapers reporting that MMP will remain given that the counting is nowhere near finished? That strikes me as Mickey Mouse too. :confused: However, I do agree that the Greens posturing was Mickey Mouse, but not quite as bad as the “Tea Party”. ;) All of which leads me to conclude we are sadly lacking in integrity and business acumen in all the Party’s. :crying	B.M. (505)
1245724	2011-11-28 00:53:00	I disagree, :D if you voted for change in Part “A” part “B” would have to be completed appropriately for Part “A” to have any effect.What you're forgetting is that there is the possibility of a second referendum - if there is a mandate for change, then there will be a second referendum in 2014 to choose between MMP and the highest-scoring option from part B. If there is not a mandate for change, then MMP is kept, but undergoes a review. There was no option to just vote for change without nominating what too.There was - tick the box for change in part A, and leave part B blank. This was stated pretty clearly on the ballot paper. As for the Counting in the referendum, why are all the Newspapers reporting that MMP will remain given that the counting is nowhere near finished?Because the percentage of advance votes that supported keeping MMP make this almost certain to be the case - it's unlikely that the remainder of the votes, when counted, will deviate significantly from the advance ones.	Erayd (23)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10