Courtesy of nzherald.co.nz
http://tinyurl.com/3ledg3g
Kiaora. As far as I am concerned, I will have better things to tweet about on election day. I will of course go to my local community hall to cast my vote, I don't have to as long as I am a registered voter of which I am.
I would like to share however a problem that I encountered with an electoral representative who came knocking at my door. He introduced himself, but I had already sighted his electoral identification card attached to his shirt.
He had asked me my name of which I told him, he then told me he had come to update my electoral registration details as I was not registered, as I was on his list but he also said as he looked at his list, "sorry I don't have my glasses". I replied I was registered and that my details had never changed.
http://tinyurl.com/3ledg3g
Editorial: Opinion is free in internet age
7
comments
5:30 AM Sunday May 29, 2011
Photo / Natalie Slade
Anyone old enough to remember the era before television doesn't need to be told that it utterly altered the nature of political campaigning.
Politicians once touted for votes at crowded town-hall meetings, where issues were debated, hotly and in detail. But the rise of television in the 1960s ushered in the era in which appearance became more importance than substance.
Ever since the silver-tongued David Lange slaughtered Robert Muldoon in television debates before the 1984 snap election, campaigns conducted in the glare of television lights have regularly, and often disapprovingly, been described as "presidential".
This year's general election looks like marking another sea change in the political process as electoral law comes to grips with the impact of the so-called social media - in particular Facebook, Twitter and blogs.
The Electoral Commission this week warned that Twitter and Facebook users face fines of up to $20,000 if they use their accounts to campaign on election day.
Material posted on social media websites is covered by the same strict rules against electioneering on election days that require electoral hopefuls to clear-fell their forests of hoardings before sunrise on polling day and ban Saturday newspapers from covering an election on the day it occurs.
But in treating social media in the same way as election hoardings or news stories, the law fails to acknowledge the seismic change technology has wrought on the landscape. Mr Peden says that somebody tweeting on election day "to influence how somebody votes" will be breaching the Electoral Act. But Labour MP Labour Party MP Chris Hipkins points out that a tweet or Facebook post made before election day, but quoted or replied to on the day, could imperil the person who made the original comment.
Matters become even sillier when you consider that websites with campaign material are (and may be) left up on election day - but it is illegal to add material or advertise the site.
Mr Peden deserves no criticism as an individual; he simply applies the law. But to say, as he does, that he "senses" that New Zealanders "like campaign-free election days" is a long way from being good enough.
When the National-led Government repealed Labour's Electoral Finance Act in 2009, and replaced it with amendments to the existing Electoral Act, it retained - and refined - an exemption for electronic publication of "personal political views" for which no one was being paid: thus the blandishments of PR mavens come under the purview of the law governing election advertising, but a blogger does not.
It is well past time that the laws governing the expressions of opinion on election day were similarly revisited. The policy thinking that lies behind such laws takes a pen-and-ink view of a cyberworld environment.
It also - and this is a key point - takes a rather patronising view of the credulity of the average voter. The sheer volume of online opinion has made the cybersavvy into sophisticated and discriminating consumers of opinion.
The same argument holds true for what online commentators are fond of calling the mainstream media. There is no good reason for banning the reporting of legitimate political news that might be of enormous importance to an election just because the clock has ticked over from election eve to election day. Reportage on election day does not have a more corrupting influence on democracy than it would have the day before, particularly when old news is, quite legally, read long after it is posted.
In short, restrictions on political coverage one day every three years make no sense in a country that purports to have a free press and politicians who should be called to account. There is a legitimate argument for creating an ad-free zone around polling stations and for banning the wearing of party T-shirts or rosettes in the draughty school halls where the votes are cast.
But the day is past when voters need, want or are entitled to expect, one day in a thousand, protection from ideas that are legitimate on any other day.
- 7comments
- The old sage (New Zealand)03:03 PM Sunday, 29 May 2011The days of the politician debating and answering questions in a public hall are long gone. What you get now is a carefully contrived state of affairs in that the party member can promise the earth and make outrageous claims with no right of reply or questioning from the floor. What questions are allowed are to be in written form only and suprise, suprise! Only the patsy ones come to the top. No honesty there.
5 likes - Aklr In Exile (Napier)
- 02:02 PM Sunday, 29 May 2011This I am sure is the result of what happened in Canada when electoral results were being tweeted before being formally announced.
The internet is once again being seen as a problem and not a solution. New Zealand has been slow in embracing the internet and government is the worst. I have heard a rumour that Anonymous took down the NZ Parliament website- more proof (if true) that our Government likes to swagger around claiming first world status while maintaining third world standards.
Recently, Labour and the Greens have started having online public meetings on Twitter. I can almost guarantee that the first few people who suggested this move probably got laughed at, but these meetings draw in more people than you'd get at a public meeting.
Attempting to gag Twitter is to be frank, ridiculous. The Electoral Commission should set up their own Twitter account that sends electorate updates to hashtags (ie #Epsom) so that people can search by electorate and get updates. As for internet campaigning on the big day, I wouldn't worry. If parties don't tweet that day, no-one will retweet. Delayed retweets are often outdated so are often ignored. Be in the Stream or be irrelevant.4 likes - Rodney (Howick)02:02 PM Sunday, 29 May 2011Technology has left electionering in the dark ages. The NZ government has no control or authority over any other country. Therefore any electioneering done from outside NZ cannot be made illegal.
If for example a foreign based website had hour by hour updates or canvases for any political party, there is absolutely nothing that the NZ government can do because it simply isn't an offense in the hosting country. You should see where I'm going on this ! Even a foreigner ( or anonymous Kiwi) can flout NZ law from an overseas jurisdiction where it is legal.
So Mr. Electoral Commision, You are onto a hiding for nothing because tech-savvy people can easily bypass you without any fear of prosecution.4 likes - Gandalf (St Heliers)01:01 PM Sunday, 29 May 2011There should be no electioneering on election day. If we remove all restrictions on election day advertising you will get massive inflammatory lying rhetoric from large organised groups, a real problem as there is no time for a right of reply. The whole election will become a total farce, and a shouting competition.
Tv and newspapers are easlly contolled. The main NZ internet media sites like this one can be controlled, facebook and twitter is a challenge but the impact of electioneering is perhaps less on sites like that. Just giving up on the election day rule is a big mistake.
4 likes
- Alan Wilkinson (Russell)01:01 PM Sunday, 29 May 2011Excellent editorial. Patronising nonsense from the serial bureaucratic control-freaks. A tweet is illegal but thousands of party workers can shepherd their flocks to the ballot boxes. What a farce.
13 likes
- stuart munro (South Korea)01:01 PM Sunday, 29 May 2011You are confusing the passive and the interactive media. People find political content online if they look for it. Newspapers and TV are frequently consumed for other reasons. If people seek out political commentary independently,that is one thing, but polluting ordinary channels with it is something else altogether.
The present restrictions on electoral coverage are the product of an age of greater political maturity, when temperence and discretion were characteristic of parliament, instead of tittering inanity and non-performance.
2 likes - pclarebu (428)01:01 PM Sunday, 29 May 2011I am sure they would have to distinguish between a tweet giving of a personal opinion as opposed to someone seeking to "influence".
I see a lot of people giving of their opinion without any obvious intent of influencing anyone. In fact I rarely see anything from the general public who actually tries to influence anyone. I don't think it will be a big issue.
Secondly in may cases I see personal conversations going on - and the fact that others can see such personal conversations is no more than the modern equivalent of chatting in public in a palace where other can overhear your conversation.
The law is for a specific purpose and I think any prosecutions would have to prove that - that purpose was being contravened. General chit chat on line would not be covered by that I am sure. We are NZers after all we surely still have some collective sense.2 likes
I would like to share however a problem that I encountered with an electoral representative who came knocking at my door. He introduced himself, but I had already sighted his electoral identification card attached to his shirt.
He had asked me my name of which I told him, he then told me he had come to update my electoral registration details as I was not registered, as I was on his list but he also said as he looked at his list, "sorry I don't have my glasses". I replied I was registered and that my details had never changed.
The electoral representative then said to me, "Look let's just get on and do this" with his pen and board at the ready. Well I became irate and I told him NO! and I closed my door in his face. I expected him to leave my property but instead he stood at my lounge window, and was yelling out at me. So I yelled to him to get the F*** off my property or I shall call the Police. He yelled if you don't update your details you will be fined seven or eight hundred dollars...I called 111. Luckily I had a friend over visiting at the time and she told him to leave as I was talking to the Police. He duly left my private property, my safe haven and I explained to the Police what was happening. They asked me "Do you want us to send a unit" I said its ok he has left now but they told me they would log my complaint as is the procedure.
I rang the electoral commission and was duly put through to this rude uncouth representative's supervisor and if you recall I earlier stated he said he did'nt have his glasses, well it turned out he had got the wrong person. They had asked if they could call me back, I said no my number is a confidential one BUT I would like a headed letter back from them as I informed them I had called the Police and they had logged my complaint,
I did receive a letter from the electoral commission with an apology and that this person will never again come into my property. Its not my fault the idiot did'nt wear his glasses...Fool!
