3 Months Out: Who Are You Voting For?

"...the fact is that we used to have the reputation of being some kind of an antipodean Noah's Ark, which would from within its quite isolated, preserve, spawn a whole new world of realistic human kind. Now, the fact is that we know that that is not achievable. We know that if the nuclear winter comes, we freeze, we join the rest of you. And that means that there is now a total denouement as far as any argument in favour of moral purpose goes. It is a strange, dubious and totally unaccepted moral purpose which holds the whole of the world to ransom.

There is another assertion of the good moral character of nuclear weapons which holds that they are the armour of good against evil. The argument of the Crusaders; the people who took to arms. The evil which cannot be defeated by persuasion or example must needs be suppressed by annihilation. The obvious difficulty here is that evil has declined to be subdued; evil has not accepted annihilation.

The church and its representatives have been going at it now for 2000 years - and it persists. Every attempt to subdue it strengthens its resolve to arm itself further. And the will of the good in weaponry's terms is corrupted by the terrible force of the weapon, into the will of the evil."

Snap poll, reply in the comments. Also, name-that-orator.

Comments

People old enough to actually remember who the orator was (i.e. people old enough to vote, ironically!) need not apply.

Voting is a waste of time

It's people like you who get Labour into power. I'll be voting National - Don't agree with absolutely everything, but you never will. Far better than anyone else in my opinion!

I'm glad *somebody* took the bait...

None of your business.
PS: Little debate in my family, is it illegal (or do you get fined) if you aren't registered?

Yes, it is illegal not to register to vote if you are a New Zealand citizen. In practice, they don't bother looking for those who don't.

Here's the thing:
"Under the Electoral Act 1993 eligible electors who don't enrol can be prosecuted."

So it didn't use to be compulsory (indeed, non-landowners weren't franchised!) but now it is.

The interesting thing is though:
"Unlike in some countries, voting is not compulsory in New Zealand."

Elections New Zealand do check for households that have no registered voters, and they use things like the LTSA database to check for eligibility. So, if you're paranoid about a possible fine you can enrol, ask for your name to be off the public enrolment register and then simply not vote on the day.

If you don't ask for your name to be taken off the public register you'll probably get a little more junk mail from companies who get details from there, but that's not a huge issue.

Also, finally just note that while voting might be a waste of time, strategic voting can make a big difference in MMP (not like in first past the post, like with the Social Credit party). For instance, if you hate all politians, vote for the party you think will get closest to, but not under, 5% (or who will have one local candidate). This ensures you lower the percentage of all the other parties, while making jack all difference to the power of the party you're actually voting for.

Or you could vote for Winston Peters, who never fails to be entertaining. What I'd love to see this election: Labour with a minority being forced to go into collition with Winston or Don, or both. That would be hilarious.

David Lange.

Sheer logic: Labour has done wonders for our country *now*, but none of what they've done has equipped New Zealand for the future. National looks to provide for the future of our country, our generation.

Rob: Labour won't get into power this election.

Alyx: {Lange, Kirk and Savage} or {Holyoake, Marshall and (gasp) Muldoon}. Which set has had the greater impact on New Zealand's national (heh) identity? Which has 'equipped New Zealand for the future'? Tell me the second and I'll respect you a whole lot more.

Holyoake, Marshall and Muldoon. National hasn't had decent policies until Brash came in. They brought in NCEA and then were (Thank God) removed from power. However, Labour didn't have the balls to reverse the idea, and instead poured millions of dollars into a system that, in all honesty, has raped New Zealand's youth. f--ked them good and hard. That's what I mean by not equipping the future. Labour has got welfare down *now*. Unemployment is down *now*. And then they go and build up a system where people don't understand the qualifications they're getting, and therefore aren't equipped to go out there and get decent livings. It'll result in people going on welfare, people becoming unemployed, and all those rates will rise up again. Labour hasn't thought long-term.

Will the Tories 'reverse the idea'?

Policy is to revise the system, revert it as much as possible, but obviously, looking at it logically, the amount of money time and resources that have been poured into NCEA, they can't just 'reverse the idea'.

My karma is currently 312, and my average rating is 3.12

That's pretty cool.

So they'll form a committee, and make some token changes. You know, change 'Not Achieved' to 'Fail' and pronounce it fixed. Cool. Ironically not unlike the changes it underwent in 2000.

Now, speaking with hindsight and as the only one here who 'transcends the 2001/2002 bridge(!)' I have to say: it ain't that bad, and it's getting better. I mean, for every NCEA horror story they can dredge up I can pretty much match it with a story about how the grades were allocated for 6th form certificate. That's certainly something which often gets overlooked - I suppose it doesn't matter too much in a decile 10 school.

I always forget. Is decile 10 better than decile 1? Or is it the other way around?

And Dom, you're probably right. But I'd still prefer a National willing to make small changes, than Labour.

Question: Name your perfect government system.

HOW ABOUT:

"an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.

... But all the decision of that officer ...

... must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs.

... but a two-thirds majority ..."

BECAUSE:

"Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out swords ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!"

Oh look.. he's trying to be funny.

...and succeeding spectacularly.

Oh, look: Alyx is being sarcastic. Again. Ha.