New Zealand Election

[ainwood]

I certainly do - I tend to think our current 'precautions' whilst so limited, are something of a joke - our positive rating with regards to corruption and fraud being more a matter of scale and fortune than any great effort.

And perhaps corruption & fraud is more related to doing business? I think there will be a shake-up of the electoral process - and would welcome it. I just hope we don't need to wait until it materially chanes a result before we act.

For one, changes to the Community Services card - which will exclude the majority New Zealanders, regardless of income, from it's use.

That's not a spending cut at all - its no different to "targetted tax cuts", and little different now where people's doctor visits and local school funding are based on where they live.

Do you presume that National Party policy and intention no longer advocates the complete privatisation of health?

Yes, I do. Show me a current policy statement where is says they do.

"They are simply saying that if you need an operation done urgently and can't get it through the public hospitals, then they will simply pay the private hospitals to do the operation."

The policies will simply not pay for this promise to be fulfilled - not enough money is budgetted.

The increase in spending of 50% in health in the last 6 years, whilst waiting lists have stagnated, suggests that the health system is inefficient. Money has been budgetted to reduce waiting lists - who says this can't be done under the private system? Operations under the private system are also apparently cheaper than under the (current) public system.

Note that I am not advocating complete privatisation of health, but the current govt needs to get over its ideological opposition to the private alternatives (as recommended by the OECD).

1. I note those tax cuts are to families - higher tax cuts for lower income and/or greater number of children.

Except that its in the extreme that a young single person on minimum wage gets nothing, whilst "rich" (well, those in the top tax bracket - I don't consider them rich) get handouts.

I for one advocate tax cuts, but think neither party's particularly effective or fair.

Yep - Acts policy is better again, although I'd like to see a zero-tax threshold. The "tax cuts for the rich" mantra is one that I personally think needs to be addressed - apparently a survey commissioned found that a substantial proportion of people don't even understand that under progressive taxation, the higher-income earners pay a higher proportion of tax than the lower, let alone that they pay a higher dollar amount. It is an easy slogan for the left who would point at the numbers "They're getting $92 a week in cuts, and I'm only getting $10", conveniently failing to point out that the former pays about 600 a week in taxes, and the latter around 120.

2. Since honesty is best considered relatively, I am well aware that the Labour party has been dishonest - but I am mindful of degree and apparent intention. In all accuracy, we're probably looking at about a 3-1 ratio with National exhibiting greatest dishonesty in the last 12 months.

Well, I'd again like some specifics. I may be slightly biased, but I can remember a lot of issues surrounding Labour.

Actually this is a subject I have been considering for some time - frankly, I think public employees have no business lying to their employers, and continued eligibility for employment should require absolute honesty from them.

Heehee - never happen, unfortunately.

Recalling my earlier example, and the National party's ongoing rhetoric - the obvious intention, in contrast to promise, is to cut. The major point is fact: The National Party has lied about it's intention to cut services - as their policy shows.

Show me the policy then.

I also note that they not only intend to 'reduce the budget surplus' but also to borrow in the region of that amount more to pay for continued spending and tax cuts.

Firstly, they never said they wouldn't borrow, so calling them liars is unfair. This is where I think National got the analogy right - who pays cash for a house when you can get a mortgage? Even in accounting treatments, you write-off the costs of the assets over their useful life. Cullen will be borrowing to fund his student loans bribes

While it's obvious we cannot afford both the extra spending and cuts, does anyone wonder when this will come back to bite?

We are seriously over-taxed - surplus of 8 billion? Even cullen managed to magic-up a few billion in welfare & bribes pre-election, when he steadfastly told us we could have $0.67 a week in 3 years time!

 

[Mountain-God]

That's not a spending cut at all - its no different to "targetted tax cuts", and little different now where people's doctor visits and local school funding are based on where they live.

I think you're simply playing 'semantics'.

The National party specifically promised it would not cut services - and this is clearly untrue where the policy specifically plans for a cut.

Yes, I do. Show me a current policy statement where is says they do.

I will not show you a current policy statement which says they do, as that is both entirely besides the point, and, I think, a manipulative diversion.

Tell me how, contrary to decades of policy, and where the party membership is virtually unchanged since that was last public policy, tell me how it is you can believe they will have done such an about face?

The position has been stated publically many times, including, in newsprint letter, by the The chairman National party, during the last six months, as well as various other national party mps and members at other points.

Is it not policy? Tell that to the National party.

The increase in spending of 50% in health in the last 6 years, whilst waiting lists have stagnated, suggests that the health system is inefficient. Money has been budgetted to reduce waiting lists - who says this can't be done under the private system? Operations under the private system are also apparently cheaper than under the (current) public system.

I note the word 'suggests' which is quite different to proof.

I recall the Labour party mailer where they show such positive crime statistics - such as the dramatic reduction in - but entirely neglect to mention that at least part of that is due to non-reporting - as many people have said to me, and I have experienced, there really is little point in reporting when the police will do little to nothing about it - in fact, as I have experienced, may simply tell you to "go rattle some cages".

Similarly, the issue of waiting lists cannot be summed up so simply - for one, New Zealand's population has increased in that time.

I think a comparison of New Zealand private, and USA private healthcare pertinent, and highly suggestive

Note that I am not advocating complete privatisation of health, but the current govt needs to get over its ideological opposition to the private alternatives (as recommended by the OECD).

The OECDs interest is not the same as the citizen's interest - the OECD cannot be relied upon to recommend for anything other than it's own financial interest.

Except that its in the extreme that a young single person on minimum wage gets nothing, whilst "rich" (well, those in the top tax bracket - I don't consider them rich) get handouts.

Obviously - it's a policy to ease tax burden and other costs to families - and, presumably, to promote population growth, and reduce the requirement for immigration.

That's an issue facing virtually every 'western' nation globally - even, to some, the subjugation of a citizen culture by those of an immigrant's.

Yep - Acts policy is better again, although I'd like to see a zero-tax threshold. The "tax cuts for the rich" mantra is one that I personally think needs to be addressed - apparently a survey commissioned found that a substantial proportion of people don't even understand that under progressive taxation, the higher-income earners pay a higher proportion of tax than the lower, let alone that they pay a higher dollar amount. It is an easy slogan for the left who would point at the numbers "They're getting $92 a week in cuts, and I'm only getting $10", conveniently failing to point out that the former pays about 600 a week in taxes, and the latter around 120.

As money is another measure of power and I believe that with power comes corresponding responsibility - I have no problem with a progressive tax system. In fact, I think it honourable Up until about 6 years ago, I probably paid more tax in 10 years than most people do in their lifetime - thus, I do not simply comment from the position of the 'advantaged'.

But I do agree with your 'mantra' suggestion - there are so many such used to manipulate the voter - I note this is often used in the USA to excuse the state of health or welfare - nevermind that a fractional reduction in military spending would see the nation relatively flush

Well, I'd again like some specifics. I may be slightly biased, but I can remember a lot of issues surrounding Labour..

Cheecky - all of this is public record - so the information is widely available to both of us, if either of our predjudices might allow.

Heehee - never happen, unfortunately.

Honour is such a rare thing

Show me the policy then.

Look up the website - get the pamphlet from your doctor.

Firstly, they never said they wouldn't borrow, so calling them liars is unfair. This is where I think National got the analogy right - who pays cash for a house when you can get a mortgage? Even in accounting treatments, you write-off the costs of the assets over their useful life. Cullen will be borrowing to fund his student loans bribes

I haven't called them liers because they said they wouldn't borrow - I'm well aware and they have stated very clearly that they will borrow.

When I refer to dishonesty, some examples I recall are, to name a few:
a) The National party attempt to solicit US State Department resources toward the election campaign, and denial.
b) Brash BS re: Exclusive Bretheren.
c) 'we won't cut services'.

2. Note the semantics - for one party, something is a 'bribe', whilst it is not for another?

3. Also, the Labour party pretty clearly did not need to borrow to pay for those - as, even with the refined figures, the proposed budget remains within surplus.

4. Who pays cash for a house? If you can afford it, the smart person, since they can save tens - hundreds of thousands in interest

Regardless, such an accounting analogy is really only relevant to the tax payer no?

We are seriously over-taxed - surplus of 8 billion? Even cullen managed to magic-up a few billion in welfare & bribes pre-election, when he steadfastly told us we could have $0.67 a week in 3 years time!

While I agree we are over-taxed, as I advocate tax cuts, I don't think the last point entirely fair - as, particularly, this information was available to all parties.

You might think it raises a more important question: How is it that the National party, jumping up and down about how qualified it is, couldn't even work out there was money not properly accounted for?

Qualified for clown-school?

 

[Mountain-God]

We are seriously over-taxed - surplus of 8 billion? Even cullen managed to magic-up a few billion in welfare & bribes pre-election, when he steadfastly told us we could have $0.67 a week in 3 years time!

If I recall correctly this is about 3-4 billion over forecasts - so it's something of a surprise to everyone. And about 3 has long been earmarked for savings and debt repayment - which is pretty smart policy I think.

Also, spending up to the limit is short-sited - no one (it seems) in economics expects the surplus to continue so high - we're riding the high of a 'natural' cycle.

 

[ainwood]

I think you're simply playing 'semantics'.

The National party specifically promised it would not cut services - and this is clearly untrue where the policy specifically plans for a cut.

What cut? There is no cut! They are simply stating that those who can afford to pay for doctors visits won't get a subsidy. Government funding will increase

Tell me how, contrary to decades of policy, and where the party membership is virtually unchanged since that was last public policy, tell me how it is you can believe they will have done such an about face?

Because policies change with the times. Helen Clark was a member of the Labour cabinet that gave us Rogernomics - selling off of all state assets. Labour have now changed their stance on asset sales.

Labour initially branded Brash a rascist after his Orewa speech - then had Mallard go through and try to change race-based funding to needs-based. Policy change.

Labour had no plans on setting a final date on Treaty claims. Now they do. Policy change.

The position has been stated publically many times, including, in newsprint letter, by the The chairman National party, during the last six months, as well as various other national party mps and members at other points.

Is it not policy? Tell that to the National party.

Again - show me.

I note the word 'suggests' which is quite different to proof.

I recall the Labour party mailer where they show such positive crime statistics - such as the dramatic reduction in - but entirely neglect to mention that at least part of that is due to non-reporting - as many people have said to me, and I have experienced, there really is little point in reporting when the police will do little to nothing about it - in fact, as I have experienced, may simply tell you to "go rattle some cages".

Similarly, the issue of waiting lists cannot be summed up so simply - for one, New Zealand's population has increased in that time.

Agreed - but how are you going to estimate the effectiveness of the Health system? Waiting lists are a pretty rough measure, but its a better measure than not measuring at all.

The OECDs interest is not the same as the citizen's interest - the OECD cannot be relied upon to recommend for anything other than it's own financial interest.

And yet the labour government loves to judge its success against OECD benchmarks - but ignore their advice, over nothing more than ideology.

As money is another measure of power and I believe that with power comes corresponding responsibility - I have no problem with a progressive tax system. In fact, I think it honourable Up until about 6 years ago, I probably paid more tax in 10 years than most people do in their lifetime - thus, I do not simply comment from the position of the 'advantaged'.

But I do agree with your 'mantra' suggestion - there are so many such used to manipulate the voter - I note this is often used in the USA to excuse the state of health or welfare - nevermind that a fractional reduction in military spending would see the nation relatively flush

I actually have no problem with paying higher taxes than people who can't afford them. What I do have a problem with is being labelled selfish and greedy at the thought of getting more marginal benefit from a tax cut.

I haven't called them liers because they said they wouldn't borrow - I'm well aware and they have stated very clearly that they will borrow.

When I refer to dishonesty, some examples I recall are, to name a few:
a) The National party attempt to solicit US State Department resources toward the election campaign, and denial.
b) Brash BS re: Exclusive Bretheren.
c) 'we won't cut services'.

Mallard withdrew his allegations regarding the US resources.
Breash re exclusive Bretheren - well he didn't know it was that pamphlet. OK - he handled it poorly, but calling him a liar is unfair.
And as for "we won't cut services" - that is simply your opinion.

2. Note the semantics - for one party, something is a 'bribe', whilst it is not for another?

Well it is when cullen states in May that there is "No money for tax cuts". However, when no-one believes him, he gets behind in the polls and then starts throwing lollies around to target demographics, then it really does look like a bribe.

Yes, you can argue that National's tax cuts were a bribe - but at least they were up-front and honest about them, and announced their intentions early. Timing of Cullen's policies are the critical bits here.

3. Also, the Labour party pretty clearly did not need to borrow to pay for those - as, even with the refined figures, the proposed budget remains within surplus.

Really? You mean the figures that cullen lied about? That Clark lied there had even been a costing, let alone two? Where Cullen accused Key of attacking the integrity of the Treasury over the fiscal update finding more money, then hypocritically attacked them himself over the loans costings?

Actually, the money that Cullen had budgetted was apparently hidden in the May Budget (reserved for operating expenditure), but he used his cheap figures for that. It remains to be seen exactly what they will have to borrow (or will they just invent some more fees, levies, charges, surcharges etc to increase revenue?)

4. Who pays cash for a house? If you can afford it, the smart person, since they can save tens - hundreds of thousands in interest

Regardless, such an accounting analogy is really only relevant to the tax payer no?

Nope - it is relelvant. Who waits to save for infrastructure when its needed now? Borrow for it, and let the returns pay for it.

While I agree we are over-taxed, as I advocate tax cuts, I don't think the last point entirely fair - as, particularly, this information was available to all parties.

You might think it raises a more important question: How is it that the National party, jumping up and down about how qualified it is, couldn't even work out there was money not properly accounted for?

Qualified for clown-school?

Well, they were actually pointing out that the surplus was large enough to give everyone tax cuts, and yet Cullen would shout them down "No there isn't! No there isn't!" It really comes down to who you believe - when I see 8,000,000,000 in excess revenue being collected by a government, I think to myself that 2.9 million taxpayers have been over-taxed by around 2700 each. Even if you allow for the cullen fund - its still about 2000 too much.

I think Steve Maharey summarised the perspective of the Labour party and their socialism quite nicely:

(National) wants a future where people make their own decisions about their own money.

Too right I do!

 

[ainwood]

If I recall correctly this is about 3-4 billion over forecasts - so it's something of a surprise to everyone. And about 3 has long been earmarked for savings and debt repayment - which is pretty smart policy I think.

Also, spending up to the limit is short-sited - no one (it seems) in economics expects the surplus to continue so high - we're riding the high of a 'natural' cycle.

Too right it won't continue. Cullen will waste spend it so that surpluses are much smaller - there's no way he'd ever let there be any suggestion in the future that tax cuts are affordable!

He's already getting ready to have re-runs of his Susan Wood interview:

"Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! "

 

[Knight-Dragon]

There have been persistent rumours of voter-fraud in the elections, although its impossible to determine the extent of it. It is easy to see how it could happen though - and I think the security needs to be tightened.

To vote, firstly, you need to ensure that you are enrolled. This is a relatively simple process; just enter name, address and D.O.B. - I'm not sure how its checked and verified.

Once you're enrolled and election day comes around, you simply need to present yourself at a polling booth. You give your name, and they check your address. You're given a ballot paper, and off you go.

So how is it open to fraud?

First-up; the registration. When my wife turned-up at the polling booth and gave her name, she noticed that she was on the electroal role twice - once with her middle name included, once without. She didn't, but she could easily have gone to another booth and voted a second time.

Secondly - lack of identification. No-one is actually asked to provide identification at polling booths. You are legally required to be enrolled, yet you are not legally required to vote. If you know that a friend / relation is not going to vote, you can simply turn-up at the polling booth, claim to be them, and vote on their behalf.

Thirdly: Quick voter cards: Many people were sent "quick voter" cards in the post. These cards simply have your name and address, and the page & line number of the electoral roll that you are on. There were reports of people taking other peoples cards - quite convenient if you want to take them to a polling booth to "prove" you are who you say you are, and that you want to vote.

Fourthly: People can enroll on behalf of others. It has been reported that people have been enrolling on behalf of members of their families who are living overseas. WIth the lack of ID at the voting booths, this fraud is trivially easy to do.

So how did New Zealand end-up like this? Maybe its that we're too trusting. But when elections are as close as this one, then perhaps we need a wake-up call.

It certainly seems very flimsy to me. As a Malaysian, when we vote we have to show our Identity Cards, for identity verification. The name must match exactly with that on the electoral list in the particular district we're registered in. As well as the IC number. Once we've voted, our names would be crossed on the list.

If we'd switch districts (i.e. moving etc), we can't even vote in the next immediate election. I think I have also heard that newly registered voters can't vote in the next immediate election. These measures are to prevent parties from 'short-term moving' their supporters around the electoral districts.

And Malaysia has been accused of being non-democratic many times.

 

[Mountain-God]

What cut? There is no cut! They are simply stating that those who can afford to pay for doctors visits won't get a subsidy. Government funding will increase

Because policies change with the times. Helen Clark was a member of the Labour cabinet that gave us Rogernomics - selling off of all state assets. Labour have now changed their stance on asset sales.

Labour initially branded Brash a rascist after his Orewa speech - then had Mallard go through and try to change race-based funding to needs-based. Policy change.

Labour had no plans on setting a final date on Treaty claims. Now they do. Policy change.

Again - show me.

Agreed - but how are you going to estimate the effectiveness of the Health system? Waiting lists are a pretty rough measure, but its a better measure than not measuring at all.

And yet the labour government loves to judge its success against OECD benchmarks - but ignore their advice, over nothing more than ideology.

I actually have no problem with paying higher taxes than people who can't afford them. What I do have a problem with is being labelled selfish and greedy at the thought of getting more marginal benefit from a tax cut.

Mallard withdrew his allegations regarding the US resources.
Breash re exclusive Bretheren - well he didn't know it was that pamphlet. OK - he handled it poorly, but calling him a liar is unfair.
And as for "we won't cut services" - that is simply your opinion.

Well it is when cullen states in May that there is "No money for tax cuts". However, when no-one believes him, he gets behind in the polls and then starts throwing lollies around to target demographics, then it really does look like a bribe.

Yes, you can argue that National's tax cuts were a bribe - but at least they were up-front and honest about them, and announced their intentions early. Timing of Cullen's policies are the critical bits here.

Really? You mean the figures that cullen lied about? That Clark lied there had even been a costing, let alone two? Where Cullen accused Key of attacking the integrity of the Treasury over the fiscal update finding more money, then hypocritically attacked them himself over the loans costings?

Actually, the money that Cullen had budgetted was apparently hidden in the May Budget (reserved for operating expenditure), but he used his cheap figures for that. It remains to be seen exactly what they will have to borrow (or will they just invent some more fees, levies, charges, surcharges etc to increase revenue?)

Nope - it is relelvant. Who waits to save for infrastructure when its needed now? Borrow for it, and let the returns pay for it.

Well, they were actually pointing out that the surplus was large enough to give everyone tax cuts, and yet Cullen would shout them down "No there isn't! No there isn't!" It really comes down to who you believe - when I see 8,000,000,000 in excess revenue being collected by a government, I think to myself that 2.9 million taxpayers have been over-taxed by around 2700 each. Even if you allow for the cullen fund - its still about 2000 too much.

I think Steve Maharey summarised the perspective of the Labour party and their socialism quite nicely:

(National) wants a future where people make their own decisions about their own money.

Too right I do!

I don't think we're going to agree - I think it pretty darned obvious that the Community Services card change is a cut - I think you're playing semantics in order to redefine that fact out of existence.

I also think you're turning things into a "Labour naughtier/naughtiest " argument, and as though I've been arguing pro-Labour - recall, I didn't vote for them, and, for that matter, I never have.

I also note, re: the accusation against National for soliciting aid from the USA, that the fact is based on an audio recording - I don't know whether you refer to the Mallard retraction as a retraction of the assertions made in the recording - it remains my understanding that the body of that record, where the national party solicited aid from the US State Department, remains.

To your last point, so clearly there isn't enough, as National would not be required to borrow in order to fund the entirety.

He's already getting ready to have re-runs of his Susan Wood interview:

"Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! Cut! "

This sounds a lot like the mantra you earlier spoke of - the point I would suggest, is what your saying sounds a lot like...

 

[thisispete]

The safeguards are not half-assed.

From the Electoral Commission website:

The official results are compiled in the returning officer’s headquarters by following a logical and meticulous process. All votes counted on election night are recounted and checked to ensure accuracy. The returning officer checks the names on all special vote declaration forms against the electoral rolls and the list of late enrolments for the district.

If the voter’s name is found the vote will be counted.

If a name cannot be found, the declaration form is forwarded to the registrar of electors to check the voting qualification of the special voter. If the registrar can confirm that the voter is enrolled in the electorate the vote will be counted.

The official results process starts on the Sunday after polling day but cannot be completed until after the last legal day for receiving special votes from other electorates and returning officers overseas (10 days after polling day).

Electoral rolls are scrutinised to identify voters who have voted more than once, and to compile a list of all people who have voted (the Master Roll).

The party votes of enrolled voters who voted on the wrong ballot paper are also included in the count.

Furthermore, there are scrutineers appointed by all parties that can keep an eye on polling booths.

This does not, of course, prohibit the situation where a voter would impersonate someone else at the polling booth, but the voter card and the scrutiny of the rolls would prevent that in most cases. Plus voter fraud can carry a stiff penalty. Section 111 of the Crimes Act says

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, on any occasion on which he is required or permitted by law to make any statement or declaration before any officer or person authorised by law to take or receive it, or before any notary public to be certified by him as such notary, makes a statement or declaration that would amount to perjury if made on oath in a judicial proceeding.

Also, under section 74 of the Electoral Act, permanent residents as well as citizens are entitled to vote in NZ elections. I don't know if ainwood's South African friend is a permanent resident applying for citizenship or some other permit holder applying for residence.

It probably could do with some tightening up, but it's a policy matter - speedy voting in an environment not noted for fraud in NZ, or an overly cautious environment in which there are long queues.

An additional factor to consider is whether a requirement for photo ID would be regarded as a poll tax. Not everyone has a driving licence or a passport or a Hospitality Association of New Zealand card - would charges for these be regarded as a barrier to voting?

EDIT: correcting a spelling error, also note the South African was not ainwood's friend, but someone he read of.

 

[Mountain-God]

The safeguards are not half-assed.

From the Electoral Commission website:

Furthermore, there are scrutineers appointed by all parties that can keep an eye on polling booths.

This does not, of course, prohibit the situation where a voter would impersonate someone else at the polling booth, but the voter card and the scrutiny of the rolls would prevent that in most cases. Plus voter fraud can carry a stiff penalty. Section 111 of the Crimes Act says

Also, under section 74 of the Electoral Act, permanent residents as well as citizens are entitled to vote in NZ elections. I don't know if ainwood's South African friend is a perminent resident applying for citizenship or some other permit holder applying for residence.

It probably could do with some tightening up, but it's a policy matter - speedy voting in an environment not noted for fraud in NZ, or an overly cautious environment in which there are long queues.

An additional factor to consider is whether a requirement for photo ID would be regarded as a poll tax. Not everyone has a driving licence or a passport or a Hospitality Association of New Zealand card - would charges for these be regarded as a barrier to voting?

Thanks for the info - I've largely formed an opinion without ensuring I know very many facts - it's pretty obvious, but hand't occured to me...

 

[thisispete]

Thanks for the info - I've largely formed an opinion without ensuring I know very many facts - it's pretty obvious, but hand't occured to me...

No worries.

 

[Zardnaar]

I susprct NZ elections are reasonably above board. Sure you can abuse it if you really wanted to but I doubt it has ever overly influenced an election.

 

[ainwood]

Nice coincidence!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3419530a10,00.html

Toby the Jack Russell on electoral roll
23 September 2005

Toby the Jack Russell dog has formalised his identity as a New Zealand citizen after his owner, Peter Rhodes, successfully registered him on the electoral roll.


What began as a flight of fancy for Mr Rhodes has resulted in his dog being able to vote, and his actions highlight the need for a more scrutinised electoral roll system, he believes.

When Mr Rhodes, an aviation safety specialist, received his electoral roll confirmation forms, an extra form was supplied for people who had been "inadvertently overlooked".

At the time, he was frustrated with the Queenstown Lakes District Council's regulatory contractor, CivicCorp, and with the "bureaucratic nonsense" he had to deal with while trying to subdivide his property.

"So I thought, for the hell of it, I'd put Toby's name on it, and sign it, and see what happens."

Mr Rhodes gave his dog the full name of Toby Russel Rhodes, occupation: "rodent exterminator", and signed a squiggle, accompanied by a paw print, for a signature. He gave Toby the birth date of July 4, 1977 - his age in "human years" (his real age is four years). He expected Toby's application would be rejected.

To his surprise, Mr Rhodes received a letter in the mail, addressed to Toby, saying he had been registered in the Otago electorate and was able to vote.

"I'm certainly not trying to rock the boat. I'm just amazed that it happened. I would rather they the Electoral Enrolment Centre said, 'crikey, we have a problem here, let's fix it', than having a problem with me.

"I'm probably as concerned as they are, that the roll is obviously not as accurate as it ought to be."

Mr Rhodes said he did not use Toby's vote on election day, nor did Toby make an appearance at the polling booths.

"The only roll he's interested in is a dog roll, not the electoral roll...it's not tasty enough."

When asked how a dog could get through the system, Electoral Enrolment Centre national manager Murray Wicks said "By its owner telling a whole lot of lies.

"It's an offence, and whoever's done it will be in the hands of the police."

Mr Wicks believed Mr Rhodes had committed a number of offences, including misleading a registrar of electors, making a fraudulent enrolment, making a false declaration, "to name a few that come to mind".

The Electoral Enrolment Centre ran "a number of checks" to ensure everyone on the roll was legitimate. Mr Wicks said the system would have "eventually found something strange going on" with Toby the hunter's identity.

Mr Wicks said he did not find the fact that a dog was able to slip into the system embarrassing, and did not think the system needed to be reviewed.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Darn, I just found the same article and was about to post it.

 

[MattII]

Party vote to NZ First and electrorate vote to Democratic NZ candidate (not that it mattered much, we got the same National candidate we've had for years).

 

[thisispete]

The final results are now in. Don Brash has conceded defeat and Labour has gained another seat at the expense of National. The overhang has been reduced, so the total number of seats in Parliament is 121.

There was a turnout of 80.9%.

My guess is that there'll be a formal coalition between Labour and the Progressives, with confidence and supply guaranteed by the Maori Party and the Greens. I think a member of the opposition will be made Speaker.

 

[Nobody]

Also NZ First promissed Confidence and supply to the party with most votes. can someone explain what exactly confidence and supply is?

 

[thisispete]

A government must have the confidence of Parliament in order to govern. This means that by way of simple majority, at least 61 MPs must endorse the government. If a government cannot secure the confidence of Parliament, then there has to be a general election. Supply means the government is in charge of levying taxes and spending money. The budget presented to Parliament every year is always a confidence and supply issue.

 

[MattII]

How many of the special votes came from people who have not set foot in the country for over four years?

 

[ainwood]

How many of the special votes came from people who have not set foot in the country for over four years?

Legally? None. You need to be back within the last 3 years to vote.

In reality? Interesting question.

 

[ainwood]

I don't think that's likely - UF won't enter a govt where greens have any cabinet. I think they'll let greens go - to support & confidence only.

Well, I was close.

UF & NZF into as close-to-coalition-as-you-can-get-without-actually-being-in-coalition.

Greens marginalised.

New Zealand's equivalent of Pauline Hansen as Foreign Affairs Minister?