As a bit of a followup to the post on the Kiwi election, I’m curious about something that became apparent on reading some of the links to NZ blogs that saint kindly provided. What possible reason could there be for the electoral authorities to prevent blogs from posting comments on election day, or posts advocating a vote for any particular party?
Elsewhere: Analysis by Bryan at Ozpolitics of the outcome and the scenarios under which Clark forms a government.
NZ Law requires that there be no electioneering in any form from midnight on the night before polling until the polls close and you can cop a hefty fine for breaching the regulation. That includes, advertising, published commentary, etc, etc. One of the great rituals of NZ elections is the often frenzied dismantling of hoardings etc in the twilight hours of election eve and the notion that you might have party workers offering how-to-vote advice outside the polling booth is a complete anathema.
Of course, there’s nothing to stop blogs displaying comments posted prior to election day so it all seems a bit pointless in the electronic age….
Do they have compulsory voting, Geoff?
No. In NZ, it’s compulsory to register to vote but not to exercise it.
Might be wiser just to follow the Tasmanian model and ban electioneering and “how-to-vote” from close proximity to the ballot booths. Sounds like their law has been over-taken by technology and is now a restriction on speech more than anything.
That’s interesting because in the UK the big focus of election day activity is getting out the vote.
“ThatÄôs interesting because in the UK the big focus of election day activity is getting out the vote.”
They vote on a weekday don’t they? In NZ it’s a Saturday so, as in Australia, there are fewer distractions. And exhortations to vote are permissible. Just not who to vote for……..
Here in NZ It was also legal to drive in cars with streamers of your favoured party colours on election day – as long as your drive is silent – ie without megaphones or pamphlets.
I can’t confirm it, but someone suggested bumper stickers were a problem as well. Now that’s crazy.
What are they expecting outside polling booths if they display material? Punch ups?
A Jedi mind control spray cunningly infused into hoardings?
It looks to me like nothing more than a terrific way of making political parties clean up after themselves.
I’ve seen some when I’ve worked on booths, David.
I’ve always liked the idea of ‘blackout’ regulation of coverage elections – we used to have it until sometime during the Hawke/Keating period. Though in Austrlaia – from memory – it was blackout of political advertising. I like the idea of extending it to public comment and analysis at least in principle, and that would therefore loogically include blogs.
It’s appealing because I would guess that, like a ‘cooling off’ period in finance decisions for instance, it may reduce impluse decision making.
On the other hand this is all guesswork. And I expect there are lots of difficulties in implementing such a regime. So that might take one back to a ban on politcal advertising. Even there, no doubt there are various issues drawing lines between what is and isn’t within the spirit of the rules. And also a presumption against hopping in with the heavy hand of the state unless you have a good solid idea that you’re actually going to make things substantially better not worse.
So I guess I’m with you Mark, but not because I can’t see the sense in the regulation. It’s just that it doesn’t cross my threshold of it being clearly worthwhile.
Rules out the possibility of post-election cross-party bonking too! I believe young Mark’s been propositioned when handing out how to votes!
PS – a New Zealander has given me this site for the latest discussion. http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/
Well, to me, Nicholas, the fact that in most elections these days, so many people make up their mind on polling day is a pretty powerful argument against preventing campaigning.
Here’s an interesting and encouraging snippet: David Farrar’s blog shares the fact that there are no fewer than 21 Maori among the 122 MP’s provisionally destined for the next NZ parliament. There are the 4 Maori Party MP’s (who hold 4 of the 7 seats specifically designated for Maori) but there’s also 10 Maori amongst the 50 Labourites, 3 out of 7 NZ First, 1 out of the 6 Greens and believe it or not, 3 out of 49 Nats. Maori are about 15% of NZ’s population.
That’s right Geoff, and its strategic. Maori can register as Maori seat voters, or as general voters. 15% is substantial, and thus every party has an interest in appealing to the demographis. Hence, larger numbers across the board than you might expect.
Mind you, thats 17% of the MPs. So close enough.
I say we adopt the NZ electoral system. Ours blows.
Geoff: MMP has led to most parties making an effort to select Maori candidates and give them good list placings to ensure Maori representation (and hence Maori votes). The same applies to women, gays, asians, Pacific peoples, and other groups that have not traditionally been represented in our Parliament. The big exception to this is National, which overwhelmingly selects dead white males, and somehow manages to ensure they get all the high list spots.
BTW, if you’re after a good NZ political blog, I suggest my one: No Right Turn. As you may be able to tell from the name, I prefer a broadly left-wing perspective.
As for electoral systems, New Zealand is slowly adopting Australian-style STV for local body elections, and there’s still a large number of people who think we should have taken that road rather than MMP. But there’s also very broad agreement that MMP is far superior to what we had before it – precisely because it ensures permanant minority government and thus limits government power.