International Cat Speculators Since 2006

The fun never stops. NRT responds to DPF pulling him apart on election fraud.

He does this by putting on a red nose and a funny hat and shooting water pistols at his opponents.

I can’t think of a system more open to abuse than one with no eligibility check for enrolment, no proof of ID for enrolment and no proof of ID for voting.

Let’s look at the facts here. According to the Justice and Electoral Committee’s Inquiry into the 2005 General Election, a total of three cases of enrolment fraud were detected during the 2005 election.

Wow, they detected 3! Great Job!

All were reported to the police.

Possibly owing to the offenses not being committed by cabinet members?

21 cases of dual voting were discovered during the 2005 election, and these were also reported to the police.

Ooh, 21. Police called. Ah.

The conclusion is that voter and enrolment fraud in New Zealand is relatively rare.

This is about the point that we start… well, polite people would laugh. If we had only 3 cases of rape found last year, would Mia tell us that our “rape culture” was over? No. This is the sort of comment the left seem to love making – one that cannot possibly be taken seriously.

Despite this, the National Party (and its mouthpieces like DPF)

I always thought it was the other way around…

insist that we must require physical ID at all stages of the electoral process. Here’s what the Electoral Enrolment Centre had to say about that:

One possible solution to dual voting and other forms of identity fraud during the enrolment and voting processes is to require voters to produce proof of identity before enrolling and voting. This option might reduce the relatively small incidence of electoral and voter fraud. However, requiring proof of eligibility might result in more people choosing not to vote. The Electoral Enrolment Centre told us that requiring a person to produce proof of eligibility when applying to enrol or vote would create a significant barrier to participation. Voter turnout has generally decreased since the 1987 general election, and such a requirement might result in further decline.

Which is of course the point.

Funny thing: how many people get to work via car, and had to get a licence to do so? How many people have to provide ID to a bank in order to get a bank account?

All driver, all bank account owners have to provide id.

NRT clearly thinks voting should be less protected than the money in his bank. Reminds me of the people who complain when they can’t use the word “password” on their logins.

But while we’re talking about barriers, how about the EFA? How about having to register as a third party? How about having to understand a law that the Electoral Commission is struggling with? That’s a barrier, and it’s simply on persuading people on who to vote for. Imagine that – people have to jump through hoops to spend money on public pronouncement of views, but could just walk into a polling booth and vote without the slightest proof that you’re allowed to!

But it’s not just about reducing turnout generally, but about reducing turnout amongst those more likely to support the left.

Hm yes. Have to admit he’s got a point there – the poor and uneducated do tend to vote for Labour.

The blunt fact is that the poor are less likely than the rich to have the required forms of ID or be comfortable dealing with bureaucracy, and thus less likely to be able to vote under such a system.

May I suggest Mr Idiot go into the communities of South Auckland, and ask the kids there where they’ve been. Many have been to the Islands – and that requires a passport.

Think about that.

Also in South Auckland, all people asking for health care above GP level have been recently asked to prove, with ID, that they are ineligible for healthcare. I don’t see IS complaining about that, in spite of the fact it was on the news.

Oh, did I mention that’s public healthcare? (See, this is why there are so many corpses on the roadsides in Manakau.)

There’s not much you can do in this country without ID. Apparently the one thing you should be able to do is vote.

Which is exactly what National wants. This isn’t about preventing fraud – which is virtually nonexistent in New Zealand

Yes, because we all believe that the 3 people that tried it last time were all caught.

– but about disenfranchising the poor by stealth.(The Republicans in the US are particularly bad at this as well. Kevin Drum has some good stuff on it here and here).

I believe the case on this is about to be laughed out of the supreme court. Pity it got that far.

Unlike those on the right, I believe in democracy. One person, one vote, regardless of wealth. I think it is vitally important that every eligible voter – every New Zealand citizen or resident – is able to express themselves on election day and have their say in who gets to govern us. Obviously, our electoral authorities should take precautions to prevent fraud, and they do: every enrolment is cross-checked, and dual voting is easily detected and the votes disqualified. Those checks are reasonable and justified. What is not justified is erecting barriers to democratic participation in an effort to shift the result. National’s friends in America may think that is acceptable electoral politics; New Zealanders do not.

Again, laughable comments. Take a poll of New Zealanders and I am 100% certain that you will find a large (think S59) majority of people would support IDs for voting.

It’s true that duplicate voting and some enrolment frauds can be detected, but not all can. If I walk into a polling booth and say I’m “X” and I produce no ID to prove it, why should I be able to vote in the name of a person, just on my say-so? My bank won’t let someone claiming to be me withdraw money on those terms, why should my valuable vote be any different?

I’m on the right. People on the left start and end their debates by telling how “bad” the right is. Believe that if you will. Look at Obama vs. Clinton and you see what happens when both sides do that.

But please, don’t tell us that we don’t believe in voting, when we’ve all got a “Don’t Vote For Labour” banner on our blogs!

Fact is, we’re actually quite honest guys. We want the system setup so that no one can accuse us of winning power by fraud – because stealing $800,000 from the public purse is far from the only way to steal elections.

Update: Tumeke! covers similar ground in this post.

The blunt fact is that the poor are less likely than the rich to have the required forms of ID or be comfortable dealing with bureaucracy, and thus less likely to be able to vote under such a system.
– well Idiot/Savant ain’t never been poor before obviously because all the WINZ beneficiaries – and I do mean all of them – all have ID. If they didn’t they wouldn’t get a bean. Poor people, WINZ clients or not, deal with bureaucracy especially that low-level front-of-house paperwork and admin more than the wealthy. Now that’s more than likely – that’s a fact. I’ve been there, I know. It’s time to hit that middle class assumption on the head.

The only groups in that low income demographic who are substantially “less likely” to have ID are: 1. the over-stayers and the foreigners who can’t speak English properly or at all. 2. prisoners just released from Prison. 3. the absolutely destitute homeless addicts, desperately mentally ill people and recluses who do not want to be or cannot be helped by the social services agencies (and most of them probably should be institutionalised for their own well-being). The first lot shouldn’t be able to vote at all anyway because they aren’t or shouldn’t be citizens (if their English is really that bad), the second lot can get ID in less than a fortnight, and the third group are at the point where they are actively avoiding “the system” in all its guises and do not want to vote. So the amount of people that in a position where they can’t get ID is near zero I would think.

Comments on: "I Don’t Believe In Democracy (Apparently) or Banking" (1)

  1. […] 29, 2008 by scrubone As predicted, the Supreme Court threw out the ridiculous case against the law that requires voters to present […]

Comments are closed.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: