Congratulations 48%

[avgas]

I think it also demonstrates intellectual laziness because the person concerned hasn't bothered evaluating every political party to find the one that is the best fit.

On some accounts I would have to agree with you. Lazy people don't vote. For the very simple reason that they don't do much at all.

But as for voting for "best fit". Red rope, Blue rope or soft, padded green rope? They can give you just the right length if you wish. You hang anyway.
So isn't voting for "best fit" also a cop out?
Its kinda like playing a game you know your going to lose. What was the definition of crazy again?

So not voting is not ALWAYS intellectual laziness. Sometimes its a case of knowing the options, where you choose to walk away.
Many people have left NZ for much simpler reasons.

[avgas]

You can make your vote informal, all of those are counted. We have a long list of informal vote types, including 'NO SUITABLE CANDIDATE', although I've seen some good pictures drawn too

So it would appear that you've twisted the truth. For the record, did you cast a ballot, informal or otherwise?

Interesting. So without sounding like a complete simpleton........what is stopping them putting "other" on the form?
Apart from the obvious of giving people the choice.

[shrub]

On some accounts I would have to agree with you. Lazy people don't vote. For the very simple reason that they don't do much at all.

But as for voting for "best fit". Red rope, Blue rope or soft, padded green rope? They can give you just the right length if you wish. You hang anyway.
So isn't voting for "best fit" also a cop out?
Its kinda like playing a game you know your going to lose. What was the definition of crazy again?

So not voting is not ALWAYS intellectual laziness. Sometimes its a case of knowing the options, where you choose to walk away.
Many people have left NZ for much simpler reasons.

Not all options are rope, and in fact some are the opposite of rope.

[mashman]

I'm going change my name to "none of the above"
and start a party called "tick this box".

cunning, very cunning.

You can make your vote informal, all of those are counted. We have a long list of informal vote types, including 'NO SUITABLE CANDIDATE', although I've seen some good pictures drawn too

So it would appear that you've twisted the truth. For the record, did you cast a ballot, informal or otherwise?

heh. I'll consider that for next time, although I'd prefer a single box at the bottom of the paper listing "No Confidence".

For the record. I cast my ballot otherwise, I enrolled to vote and became part of the non-voter turnout stats.

[imdying]

Interesting. So without sounding like a complete simpleton........what is stopping them putting "other" on the form?
Apart from the obvious of giving people the choice.

People are cattle. The idea is to get them to pick a party. Give them only parties to choose from, and that's what you'll get. Apart from those that already actively want to vote informal.

Another way to look at it is that it'll show up the big holes in democracy.

Democracy doesn't work. Just like over populating the planet. I expect the masses will catch up with reality some time. I'm interested to see what usurps it.

[steve_t]

I voted Green because they while I didn't like of their policies, there were none that I was really unhappy about whereas I couldn't say the same about any other party, and in fact Act, National and to a lesser extent Labour all had policies that I rejected outright.

LOL. I had quite a few people say that to me - "I voted Green because I didn't want to vote for either Labour or National."

Me: "So, it wasn't because you liked their policies?"

Them: "I don't know what policies the Greens have but I don't want to sell our assets and I don't want to borrow any more money!"

[mashman]

Not voting is essentially an anarchistic act because you are deliberately rejecting all forms of social control available. It could be seen as a very passive demonstration of anarchy in that you aren't actually doing anything, or if an active decision it's the most extreme because you are intentionally rejecting not just the political parties but the very democratic system itself.

But not voting is in most cases a cop out because there is no perfect party: there never has been and there never will be. I think it also demonstrates intellectual laziness because the person concerned hasn't bothered evaluating every political party to find the one that is the best fit. Even in a MMP environment most people still think in terms of National and Labour, and left and right. One of the characteristics of most modern representative democracies is that the left and right continuum is very fuzzy and parties ideological positions change constantly.

I voted Green because they while I didn't like of their policies, there were none that I was really unhappy about whereas I couldn't say the same about any other party, and in fact Act, National and to a lesser extent Labour all had policies that I rejected outright. And while all the parties had some good ideas, I think the Greens had more of the best ideas than their competitors and accepted most of the other parties better ideas (e.g. capital gain tax). Right now New Zealand needs new ideas and fresh thinking more than ever in our history, but sadly the only parties weaker than National in that area are Act and NZ Future. Our government.

Interesting. It would seem that the highlighted above would be the best fit description of why I voted the way I did. Although I was rejecting policy, the policital parties just happen to endorse those policies. Are we still living in a democracy? I do not believe that we are and on reflection have my misgivings as to wether we ever truly have. Perhaps I'm overly principled in that respect, where there is no perfect party, I can't? won't? vote for any party just because I have the right to. As mentioned in another thread, DSC was probably at the top of my small list (Top being DSC and Greens, with Nats and Labs very much at the bottom), DSC being the closest to what I hold dear for society, but their economic policy still has a fundamental flaw in my eyes, heh. Don't get me wrong, I was disillusioned at an early age and went through the can't be arsed phase under the guise that nothing had changed and never was likely too, dismissing politics entirely.

I realise that it takes a parliament to run a country, not just the govt of the day, each party supposedly helping the other out in the areas where they may lack policy/knowledge etc... naive or what and probably THE major factor of why I reserve my right not to cast my vote, or at least 50 - 50 political system v policy. Parliament is not the place to be backscratching imho and I'm now done with the pretence of the financial system to boot. If they start offering online policy refernda (referendums?) then I'll be in like flynn... but I doubt I'll ever endorse any party in good conscience.

[Edbear]

People are cattle. The idea is to get them to pick a party. Give them only parties to choose from, and that's what you'll get. Apart from those that already actively want to vote informal.

Another way to look at it is that it'll show up the big holes in democracy.

Democracy doesn't work. Just like over populating the planet. I expect the masses will catch up with reality some time. I'm interested to see what usurps it.

I wonder if you realise how profound that statement is..?

[Mental Trousers]

Change it to what? State what they could have changed it to?

At best all they could have done was get labour in instead of National. Perhaps it was a case they agree with neither?
You might benefit asking "why" rather that stating what you clearly do not understand.

As mentioned earlier - people have voted in governments while others did not (vote). If history tells us anything, eventually it gets to a point where these people (that did not vote) make their intentions very clear.
Unfortunately innocent people usually die after.

If I gave you a choice between a red rope or a blue rope, to hang yourself with. Which would you choose?

What to change to is not what I'm talking about. But lots of people submitting an empty ballot paper says a hell of a lot more than being stuck with in with the apathetic lot.

People have.
It counts as the same thing. So apart from making someone feel better achieves nothing.

No way. Lots of people putting in empty ballot papers has influence. It shows the Politicians and Parties that there's a significant number of people who aren't catered for, so then they have to find out why.

People who don't vote couldn't be arsed getting out of bed.

[imdying]

I wonder if you realise how profound that statement is..?

I don't think it's quite right. Maybe it should be more like, "Once the average standard of living gets to a certain level, democracy no longer works"?

That's based on the assumption that the rising rate of apathy is attributable to an excess of happy campers (or fat sheep if you prefer) rather a population that simply doesn't expect their vote to make a difference? Not that it matters I guess, the nett result is the same.

[Robert Taylor]

The personal rate is 10.5 to 33%. The top personal is lower than the Netherlands, Norway, Australia, Sweden and Germany. It's also higher than Palestine, Iceland, Jamaica, Mexico and Kazakhstan, so we need to follow their lead.

Corporate tax rate is 28% and it's lower than Australia, Germany and Japan but it's higher than Sweden, South Korea. Personally I think the corporate tax rate is about right and the personal is a bit low, and that's a big reason why the government struggles to balance it's books. The only problem is we have been fed the doctrine that the only way to grow is to cut tax and that we are paying too much tax for decades now so common sense will never prevail and we will always have governments that go broke in order for you and I to have enough money to buy more shit that we don't need. I know a lot of people look for tax cuts to improve their circumstances, but personally I prefer to either cut my cloth or lift my income by making myself more valuable and productive.

Sweden had socialist cradle to the grave welfare Governments for a few decades and over the last few years that has been rolled back bigtime because it was unsustainable. Now they are doing very nicely with a right wing Government. They also didnt make the mistake of joining up to the Euro currency

[Ocean1]

...The personal rate is 10.5 to 33%. Corporate tax rate is 28% ...

So the reason for this:

...the corporate sector, who paid less than 1/3 as much tax as private individuals.

Is that the corporate sector, (otherwise “business”) earned a lot less than private individuals, and in fact they paid substantially more tax per dollar earned than did those private individuals.

But hey, I’m sure they’d be happy to pay more. Perhaps they could reduce wages and salaries, that way they’d be able to pay that 28% corporate rate on income that currently contributes only about 20%.

[SPman]

However votes are now in, with National (the party you voted for)

cough.....splutter........choke!
How dare you sirrah!

[slowpoke]

The personal rate is 10.5 to 33%. The top personal is lower than the Netherlands, Norway, Australia, Sweden and Germany. It's also higher than Palestine, Iceland, Jamaica, Mexico and Kazakhstan, so we need to follow their lead.

Corporate tax rate is 28% and it's lower than Australia, Germany and Japan but it's higher than Sweden, South Korea. Personally I think the corporate tax rate is about right and the personal is a bit low, and that's a big reason why the government struggles to balance it's books. The only problem is we have been fed the doctrine that the only way to grow is to cut tax and that we are paying too much tax for decades now so common sense will never prevail and we will always have governments that go broke in order for you and I to have enough money to buy more shit that we don't need. I know a lot of people look for tax cuts to improve their circumstances, but personally I prefer to either cut my cloth or lift my income by making myself more valuable and productive.

Actual tax rates only tell half the story, where's the info on tax threshold's, average earnings, GST rates, etc?

Cut your cloth however you like but you won't bridge the gap to the 20-30% higher average earnings they make in Oz. Fact is our wages are shameful, regardless of taxation, and no matter how "valuable and productive" you make yourself (there's a doctrine if ever there was one) the return for effort is miserable.

So why didn't you just turn in an empty voting paper?? Means a hell of a lot more and actually has an affect. Not voting at all states nothing.

You can write or not write whatever the hell you like on a voting paper, but unless it's filled out correctly (ie boxes ticked) it just goes in the "Not Yet Competent" bin. Nup, I'll stick with no vote rather than a "you're too stupid to fill out a form correctly" vote.

Sorry but your opinion doesn't sway my reasoning, it's my message and I'll send it how I like.

Trouble is we don't just have crap political options we have crap political reporting. Our talking heads (I refuse to all them journalists) are more concerned with some bullshit tape about nothing than insightful investigation or reporting.

[shrub]

Sweden had socialist cradle to the grave welfare Governments for a few decades and over the last few years that has been rolled back bigtime because it was unsustainable. Now they are doing very nicely with a right wing Government. They also didnt make the mistake of joining up to the Euro currency

*cough* bullshit *cough*. The economy was outperforming most of Europe with GDP growth in 04 of 4.1%, 2.9% in 05 and 4.2% in 06. In 06 GDP per hour was the 9th highest in the OECD at USD $31.00 ph. How does that demonstrate unsustainability? And in 2010 the left wing Social Democratic party had more seats than the right wing Moderates, but the moderates were able to form a coalition government.