LGNZ president Sam Broughton told Morning Report part of the reason for low turnout was voters having to deal with postal voting in the digital age, or not having access to polling places and not knowing the candidates.
The Electoral Commission should run all the elections in a standardised process across the country, he said.
“One of the key recommendations is that we should return to having a polling day, as well as the open voting beforehand,” he said.
These are all worthwhile things, but won’t change things much. The one change that would massively lift turnout is allowing people to return their voting paper via the Internet.
By this I don’t mean Internet voting, which is where you vote on a website, and your vote is recorded and tallied over the Internet. I mean simply using the Internet to deliver your ballot paper to the Returning Officer.
Every resident gets a voting paper with a unique barcode that identifies them (so verifies they are enrolled). What I propose is that once they have completed it, they can take a photo of it on their phone, and then either e-mail the ballot to the Returning Office, or upload it via a website to the returning officer.
This is in fact more secure than relying on the post, as you get a receipt acknowledging it has been received.
And this method has actually been in place for the last few general elections – it is how the vast majority of NZers overseas vote in a general election. I estimate over 200,000 New Zealanders have used this method to vote in general elections.
Postal voting is a dying mechanism. Booth voting can help, but you’re still going to have much lower turnout than general elections, as the stakes are less. You need to make it as easy as possible to vote, and sending in your ballot via the Internet (which is not Internet voting) is a tried and tested method we have used for the last four or more general elections.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
By this I don’t mean Internet voting, which is where you vote on a website, and your vote is recorded and tallied over the Internet. I mean simply using the Internet to deliver your ballot paper to the Returning Officer.
Every resident gets a voting paper with a unique barcode that identifies them (so verifies they are enrolled). What I propose is that once they have completed it, they can take a photo of it on their phone, and then either e-mail the ballot to the Returning Office, or upload it via a website to the returning officer.
This is in fact more secure than relying on the post, as you get a receipt acknowledging it has been received.
And this method has actually been in place for the last few general elections – it is how the vast majority of NZers overseas vote in a general election. I estimate over 200,000 New Zealanders have used this method to vote in general elections.
Postal voting is a dying mechanism. Booth voting can help, but you’re still going to have much lower turnout than general elections, as the stakes are less. You need to make it as easy as possible to vote, and sending in your ballot via the Internet (which is not Internet voting) is a tried and tested method we have used for the last four or more general elections.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders
6 comments:
I don't believe that the problem is the voting procedure. It is simply a lack of trust in the way councils are run and uncertainty as to what those running for council will actually provide to the community.
There seems to be such a limited debate and discussion, leading up to elections, to provide clarity to voters around what those running for council actually stand for. People simply have a sense of "why bother". I don't think that changing the voting system will improve the voting numbers that much.
I am totally opposed to encouraging voting just for the sake of it. The only merit is that a large random turn out provides some dilution to block voting by easily influenced and organised gullible groups, as the maori insurrection movement. Reporting of council affairs is now very limited. And few subscribe to or read full newspaper content. It is absurd to push the public to vote on a photo and a few lines of self composed, guarded, unrevealing piffle. Despite a moderate interest I am almost completely ignorant of local council activity, and of local councillor attitude and action .There is some scope for a PIJFund with grossly revised conditions to provide some cover. Council staff are now so infiltrated and partisan it is unsatisfactory for council to produce newsletters.Those genuinely interested and informed, the only ones who should vote, can be relied upon to navigate mild difficulty to exercise their vote.
People who had never voted previously rocked up to Polling Booths asking why Ardern's name wasn't on their ballot papers.
People like that swayed the previous election giving us the worst PM and the worst Parliament ever.
We only need people making a sensible conscious vote.
No one has given a relevant answer to why a low turnout of sensible civic minded voters , who comply with voting requirements is not an excellent and democratic option that gives a real life result .
The biggest slight one can deliver is to not give of ones time - the problem is not one of numbers voting (quantity) but one of quality. People have lost faith in a) the system and b) the integrity and motives of those they are asked to choose between.
If you could acheive would be fine. but always prone to some very organised group, such as insurrectionist maori, facilitating directed brain washed simpletons to block vote in great numbers Counter action is not possible because advertising for is refused or not supported and the cancellation slur of racism would be applied to near every opponent and statement,
Post a Comment