Why I would boycott voting in NZ elections

1. Totally agree. There are times – in fact many of them – where the sheer simplicity of doing things the old school way just so happens to be the best way.

   And this is one of them.

   No to online voting.

   • The idea of online voting that could work would be issue by issue direct democracy. There’s not much point in having online voting and using it to keep on useless appendages like Peter Dunne’s Hair or the ABCs.

     Connectivity ought to revolutionise democratic processes. The parliamentary system was created in an age when semaphore was the fastest form of communication. At that time a body of public representatives was parsimonious use of resources – now it is simply elite capture.

     Of course nothing Key creates will ever be in the public interest – the man is the worst kind of traitor. But a truly participatory connected democracy would enjoy many advantages over our current barely functional system. Its day will come.

     • I do not agree with the change to move voting online or even having that option. I understand that we need to move with the times and update with technology, but there are too many risks. Security and Privacy of voters will possibly be compromised.

       I actually enjoy the current method of going to a community centre or school and ticking a box, it’s reassuring when you see others waiting in the line, and it makes it seem worth participating in. I feel like my vote actually matters.

       Whereas going online to vote, there are so many ways in which my vote for one party can be manipulated through the coding of the software to be reflected as a vote for another party.

       What happens when we shift voting online its not going to make a difference, yes it may be more easily accessible, but is it going to entice more people to use it?

       As Liberal Democracy Theory suggests there are three main categories to democracy: Constitutionally, Participation and Rational Choice. Although we have a form of constitution that dictates when and where and who can participate in the elections, we need to encourage more participation in these events not just put up an additional option for people to cast a vote. Rational Choice – yeah sorry to say but this is lacking, we have too few choices to properly make an informed decision about our society.

       Instead of shifting voting online or phasing it in, there should be more emphasis on providing online tools for everyone not just young people such as http://onthefence.co.nz to encourage political education or civics.

       I don’t think we should bench this idea completely, but be more aware and critical of the way we do things in society. Online may have its advantages, but I for one do agree to keep it as is.

2. Interesting to see the response of all the people who normally comment here that belive the last election was rigged.

   • I don’t think it was rigged, I just believe the gullible were duped, starting with “I will not raise G.S.T.” It went downhill from there.

     • Had to raise gst to cover the tax cuts for the wealthy, English said it was fiscally neutral which it was however it favoured higher incomr earners?

   • So Gosman. How do you explain the preponderance of western countries headed by ex American bankers? In our case ex Merril Lynch but in most cases ex Goldman Sachs.

   • Like who, Gosman?

   • It’s not interesting in the least.

     Try a hobby…

3. Spot on, Bomber! (And, following Katipo’s same line of thought, whenever I’ve been trying to make a bank transaction and the “system” has been “down”, I remember back to the days when we handed over our money, made the deposit or withdrawal, and got a stamp in a bank book to prove it. Simple as…… )

   • There there was the time back when, if you banked a cheque it would take three days to clear. Fast forward to technology and it only took one week

     • What replaced cheques was EFTPOS, which is *instant*, or internet transfer which is overnight if both accounts are at the same bank, or 2-3 working days if not. Not sure if there’s any pointing posting if you’re just going to make stuff up.

4. Spot on Martyn. Online voting can be manipulated so easily. Besides that there are still people out there who don’t have access to a computer, some by choice, some through many other reasons.

   So the way to go is to stick to the tried and true simple method of pen and paper to record votes, which gives everyone the opportunity to take part in an election. Not so easy to corrupt then. Although in saying that, I wouldn’t put it across the present lot of govt sewer rat ministers to fiddle with vote results, paper or otherwise! But the present means of voting would leave traces of fiddling, whereas an online system hack would be almost impossible to prove.

   • There is another element in online voting that is very disturbing (apart from the very real ability for the system to be hacked!) is the need to have some kind of identifier of the voter. In my understanding every database needs to have this ‘field’ for it to work.

     This means there must be a link between the voter and the vote cast, to ensure citizens don’t vote more than once. The follow on is that system could/will record, for whom we vote. That would be an interesting piece of information for the powers that be …

     No longer a secret ballot?

     Is there an IT specialist that can say that this can be overcome absolutely in online voting systems?

5. God no! Do NOT go anywhere near online voting.

   I’m old enough to remember the fiasco that was the US elections back when Bush got in. Remember the hanging chads?

   And that WAS a mechanical system.

   You’re enrolled on the Electoral Roll (a record), you are given ballot papers with a coded number (a record) and the papers are physically counted in the presence of God knows how many observers (a record).

   That long winded painful trail of paper ensures all votes are counted and are incorruptable.

   In the light of the kind of shysters we have in charge nowadays it is the only system to use.

   • Its been known for boxes of voting papers to go missing in transit,maybe these days there is more checks,but I do not trust this American led government,i still think of the plane landing from America and men and boxes being brought out and other boxs going back, all at election time.
     All that is needed is the number of vote papers from an area,the numbers of vote from original papers transfer onto new papers,old votes lost, new votes put in place. easy to stop enroute and do the swap. All that is needed is a few agreeable people to assist. but maybe I have a suspicious mind,with this government its hard not to.

6. Agree totally. I also am familiar with the current system ,and the 2014 election was NOT rigged or ‘stolen’. Alleging that it was only makes us look STUPID, and gives our opponents ammunition to shoot us down with.

   But, online voting is a totally different beast, and we should NOT have it, and if some Tory regime ever brings it in, we should somehow sabotage the whole process.

7. I think the whole tick a box once every three or four years is a redundant form of ‘democracy’. I agree with the article somewhat in regards to the potential of hacking into the voting system etc. But the voting system itself needs to be updated to reflect the ever increasing changes in technology.

   We no longer need to tick a box every three years, we now have the technological means to open source immediate communication with one another all over the planet. Every important decision could be an online referendum. That primitive form of democracy is being held in place by power elites to stop real democracy from becoming a reality.

   What we are allowed to bank online but not vote? Smells like BS to me.

   • Online banking isn’t all that secure either – mainly from the end-user’s position, admittedly.

     However, I’m also very, very wary of on-line voting. The opportunity for hackers to corrupt the entire process doesn’t bear thinking about.

8. Martyn,

   I agree wholly with your general thrust here, that online electronic voting is easily rigged.

   We need to retain the paper ballot but there are still flaws in the method used today in the identifier of each paper ballot cast.

   Allow me to explain,
   1/ Each voter who receives their voting papers goes to the voting centre to have their name registered by the poll staff.
   2/ This before going to the booth and filling their form and placing it in the ballot box right?
   3/ I asked the Lady (who checked if I was on the voting register,) if they can check later in a manual recount if they could identify my paper vote preference with my name?
   4/ This was so if later I could recheck to see if my vote had been tampered with and request who was my vote down as cast for?
   6/ he said no they cannot find that as every ballot is secret.

   My concerns are that when the US expert NASA programmer that developed the “vote rigging” called Clint Curtis was giving his testimony in a senate hearings under oath he was asked this same question again, he said if the paper vote has the voters details and the actual vote preference is on the ballot this is the only method to find if tampering had not occurred.

   We unfortunately need to make our ballot paper vote fool proof then and make sure next election we don’t wind up with another evil slash and burn National carpetbagger brigade or we are toast mate.

   • When you say “voting papers” in point 1 I assume you mean the voter acknowledgement form from the EC confirming you are enrolled in such and such an electorate?
     From what information I have on the counting and checking process (and I don’t know all of it) I believe it is actually possible to check how someone voted, although I can’t see any practical way to change a vote, except possibly to make it invalid. For example, if someone tampered with a voting paper, it would likely be quite obvious and the vote would likely end up as an invalid vote, rather than the party or candidate being changed. If EC staff suspected any vote tampering had taken place they would immediately alert their superiors who would investigate and contact the police if necessary.
     When someone makes a special vote because their name is not on a published electoral roll, some information is requested such as address and date of birth. Voters are not actually required to supply this but if they don’t then their vote will probably not be valid because it usually isn’t possible to establish a valid enrolment without at least an address.
     The voter must give their name (obviously), sign the form and then at the electoral returning officer’s HQ each special vote is checked to establish if the person is enrolled (in which case it can be counted) or not (it is invalid). Most of the special votes are fairly straight forward but some take longer to check for a number of reasons.
     As the voting paper number is covered by a black sticker which can be removed if necessary to assist in the validation process, it is technically possible to match a vote with a person and discover what party or candidate they voted for. However, as this is always done by a team of people and only done as a last resort to establish validation, the chances of it being misused are pretty low. As I said before there are many eyes on the whole process and the more eyes there are, the better the safeguard from misuse of the process.
     To my knowledge, the EC staff only go to such lengths if they suspect a person of multiple voting.

9. I might also point out that aside from hackers (Ashley Madison anyone?), let us remember that the GCSB now has legislation permitting it to spy on New Zealanders. The NSA undoubtedly has been doing it for years.

   This is a dangerous path we are treading.

10. It’s obvious this is Key’s end goal. Remove the queen from the currency, remove the flag, sell out NZ to US corporates via the TPPA and then change the voting system so the status quo of the TPPA will never be rocked. You can see how Key’s standard sleaze will sell it – “its’s easier, trust me…”

    • Correct there Alan.

      And while he’s selling us out, FJK in the manner you have described, will be holding his hand out for a knighthood from the very same establishment he’s attempting to alienate NZ from.

      Treasonous hypocrite much!

11. I worked at the last election. Certainly, the people I worked with performed their tasks honestly and within the rules for political impartiality. It is very hard to manipulate a manual vote process or count because there are so many eyes watching. However, can the same thing be said about on-line voting? Where are the safeguards and public scrutiny that are essential to making sure that each voter casts the vote of their choice without any intimidation, manipulation or favour? and a similar question for the vote count?
    We need a lot more information on the whole process before we can give any support to it, and thus far all we have for reassurance is essentially anonymous computer experts patting us on the head like small children and saying “trust us, It will be OK”. When I ask for information and get that kind of response I immediately start to worry.
    I also don’t think the last election was fraudulent in the sense that the process or count was falsified, but National certainly conducted a campaign based on misinformation and dirty tricks.
    But in the end, it is inevitable that on-line voting will become at least part of the election process, no matter what objections we have. It does have its advantages of course, but the risks are great and until we have more information we should be very wary of it.

12. Yes guys!

    Excellent advice.

    I think it best you all never vote again.

13. Excellent advice! – I suggest you all boycott elections from here on.

    😉

    • You go ahead and vote for Act, Andrew. It’s great when people like you waste your vote.

14. ALL OPPOSITION MP’S MUST REQUEST A ROYAL COMISSION INTO ALL POLITICAL ELECTION PROCESS INCLUDING THE FUTURE POSSIBLE ELECTONIC ON-LINE ELECTIONS PLEASE.

    https://archive.org/details/election2004

    THIS WAY WE CAN FORWARD ALL OUR EVIDENCE THAT ANY TYPE OF VOTING IS SUSPECT INCLUDING THE CURRENT PAPER BALLOT VOTING PROCESS WHERE THE COUNT IS SENT ONLINE TO THE ELECTORAL COMISSION.

    AND IT IS DURING THAT ON-LINE TRANSFER OF THE MANUAL PAPER VOTING VOUNTING PROCESS THAT MAY ACTUALLY BE CORRUPTED BY ELECTRONIC PROGRAMING CLINT CURTIS WARNS US ALL.

    THESE TYPES OF FRAUD PROGRAMING SYSTEMS, HAVE BEEN USED WIDELY BY SEVERAL OTHER POLLING COMPANIES THAT USE MANUAL VOTING BALLOT PAPER VOTING SYSTEMS LIKE WE DO IN NZ.

    SOME COMPANIES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED ARE ACTUALLY HERE OPERATING IN NZ TODAY WE HAVE FOUND.

    https://archive.org/details/election2004

    SO THIS VIDEO (1;37 HR LONG) IS MY FIRST (A) EVIDENCE FOR THE ROYAL COMMISON INTO VOTING.

    Topics presidential, election, 2004

    U.S. Congressional Forum in Columbus, Ohio, Dec. 13, 2004

    To Investigate New Evidence of Ohio Election Irregularities and Fraud

    REP. CONYERS, STRICKLAND, WATERS, TUBBS JONES,

    along with REVEREND JESSE JACKSON

    and OHIO STATE SENATOR RAY MILLER

    U.S. Rep. John Conyers, Jr, and other U.S. Representatives, along with Rev. Jesse Jackson and Senator Ray Miller, held a congressional forum in Columbus concerning new evidence of election irregularities and fraud in Ohio, the issue of Ohio electors meeting while recounts and litigation are pending, and discussed legislative and other responses to the problems.

    In a Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington on Wednesday, December 8, U.S. Rep. Conyers and other panel members found that there was enough concrete evidence of voter suppression and fraudulent activity in Ohio and nationwide to warrant further investigation and to address remedies.

    Run time 1:37:20
    Producer Joe Knapp
    Production Company Last Licks Studios
    Sponsor Joe Knapp
    Audio/Visual sound, color
    Contact Information Joe Knapp joe@copperas.com

15. The last few elections in the so-called biggest “democracy” by numbers (of people, does not necessarily translate into grey matter quotient) … have been rigged. They use ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINE and it has been proved that those can be so rigged that whatever one presses on the panel, a particular party/person gets the vote, etc. It is not rocket science….and science too is not only about rockets 🙂

16. Whoever you vote for, the government always wins. But putting that aside, I don’t see why Martyn or anyone else thinks the current system is so bulletproof.

    For a start, I don’t need to present ID to vote under my name. That means I could vote under anyone’s name, all I need to know is the address they registered under, which is even easier if I register for people who I know don’t register or vote themselves. I could spend all day going to different polling booths, and voting under different people’s names, and nobody would be any the wiser.

    My partner has worked as an election worker a couple of times. The way she explained it to me, it is possible (in theory) to identify that the same person’s name has been voted under multiple times, at different polling booths. However, as explained above, there’s no way to know whether it was the person themselves casting all those votes, or someone else impersonating them. Also, since these are all blind ballots, there’s no way to know who all those fraudulent votes were cast for, or remove them.

    It’s also possible to sabotage your opponent’s votes, by running stalls purporting to help register people to vote, then binning the forms for anyone you predict will vote for your opponents. Or you could use the personal details on the forms to mis-register them, so that someone else can vote in their place.

    Could someone have swung a close election in favour of NatACT using these sort of tactics? Definitely. Do we have any evidence they did? Not that I’m aware of. But the question I would like to ask all the champions of the paper ballot is this: if it did happen, what evidence would there be, and where would we look for it?

    • It would start at the paper ballot paper, Daniel, cross-referenced with the Elecoral Roll, where names are crossed of. Literally a paper trail.

      There have been prosecutions, with this well-known case; http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11205628

      Plus other instances of people voting more than once; http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/261901/120-voters-referred-for-voting-twice

      But with electronic voting, where is the paper trail?

      An electronic trail? Whoever controls the electronics, also controls the “electronic trail”.

      Paper voting is not perfect – no system ever is (except death – nature has got that one sussed 100%). But it seems a safer option than electronic voting which, as Ashley Madison, and this Washington Post story (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/videos-of-vote-fraud-pour-in-from-both-liberal-and-conservative-sources.html) shows.

      I am far from convinced that e-voting will be an improvement on our democratic process.

      Our best voter-turnouts occurred in 1981 (91.4%); 1957 (92.9%); 1954 (91.4%); 1949 (93.5%); 1946 (93.5%); 1938 (92.9%); et al.

      Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_New_Zealand

      Those turn-outs occurred before 1984, the year New Zealanders began the neo-liberal socially-engineered transformation from Citizens, to Consumers.

      What should be our focus is getting people engaged in politics so that they are bothered to take an hour out of three years to put a few ticks on bits of paper. If they can’t be bothered doing that, there is something seriously wrong with our democracy that e-voting will not solve.

      • The voice of quiet reason as ever, Frank…..

      • Frank:
        “There have been prosecutions, with this well-known case”

        The article you link to is about a local body election, not a general election, and the article say this was “New Zealand’s first electoral fraud”, first *prosecuted* electoral fraud of course.

        “Plus other instances of people voting more than once;”

        These are also from 2014, which means anyone else who ever double-voted got away with it. Plus, as I said, there’s no way of knowing if some else voted under their name, and as I also said, with thousands of people who never even register themselves (often out of fear of fines and other debt collection, or frivolous warrants for their arrest), organised election riggers could be registering and voting in their name. How would anyone know? I’m not satisfied with vague mumblings about “checks and balances”, what check or balance *specifically* prevents these forms of potential election rigging?

        “But with electronic voting, where is the paper trail? An electronic trail? ”

        All electronic systems can create logs of whatever they do, which could be emailed/ Tweeted/ FaceBooked/ PMed to the Queen. Lots of people could have a copy, and as with elections in general, majority rules.

        “Whoever controls the electronics, also controls the “electronic trail”.”

        Also, have you heard of BitCoin? The same blockchain encryption could be used for anonymous, peer-to-peer voting controlled by no central authority. True, like BitCoin, the software must be free code (or “open source”), available to all for auditing. That way each party (and anyone else who wants to) could hire their own ICT experts to be scrutineers. All the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) stories about electronic voting from the US (hanging chads etc) are about proprietary machines, controlled by corporations.

    • On your point about voter ID. You raise good points.
      Under current legislation voters are not required to produce identification to receive a ballot form. This has actually caused some confusion in the past. I remember two elections ago a gentleman was quite mystified when he produced a driver’s licence to identify himself. I thanked him but told him he was not required to do so and he quite rightly asked how I could be sure he was the real deal without any identification. I could not really offer any explanation,
      The only time someone is actually required to produce id is if they do a “takeaway” vote – a voting form is picked up by someone for someone else and later returned to the same polling station. The only other safeguard is that an issuing officer who suspects the voter may have previously voted may request the voter make a declaration on a small before a ballot paper is issued. If the voter refuses then they are not issued a ballot paper, although this is likely to cause some personal embarrassment and/or agro because people don’t generally appreciate their honesty being questioned, especially in front of other people in public. However, if a voter is determined to cheat there is little that can be done about it at the polling station, although there would certainly be checks done at the returning officer HQ afterwards. The system relies basically on people’s honesty and the chance that an issuing officer may know a lot of the people who come in (you are usually assigned to a polling station near your home address if possible).
      On your point about enrolment stalls. In my experience people who favour one particular party are unlikely to approach a stall run by another party in the first place so I don’t think the party helpers would want to risk throwing away a potential vote.

    • Another thing I forgot to mention about voter ID. Issuing officers now have to ask each voter who produces a voting card whether they are actually the person who’s name is written on it. Of course they always say yes. We are encouraged to retain the cards after issuing a ballot paper unless they really want them back and if we do give them back we stamp them first. In my experience probably around 80-90% of voters have their cards so that in itself does help somewhat to make it more honest. If anyone produced a voting card to me that was already stamped I would certainly be asking further questions!
      It doesn’t really change the problem of someone who really wants to be dishonest because there are always ways around the system for the clever cheats.

17. ….glad you trust the system Martyn, but sorry I’m not convinced.
    Too many holes in the current system, all to casual, and the biggest giveaway – to much MONEY riding on National to win…. Oh and how trustworthy are those Nats?….yeah, not really…

18. I fully support Daily Blog contributors not voting in New Zealand elections

    • So you don’t support the democratic process then, Matthew? I guess one-party states are more to your taste?

19. Is their any auditing of the election process, evidently in Christchurch last election Labour won the electoral seats however National won the Party vote how did that work or did voters take a $ each way?

    • Jack you asked;

      “Is their any auditing of the election process”,

      No there is not, and we already had asked the Electoral Commission.

      The voting company who were contracted would have to carry out a yearly audit but not an audit on the time of the electoral voting.

      Using someone like Deloittes who have screwed up plenty here and we don’t know if they did any operational auditing procedures using a test batch run as others do abroad

      But our concerns are,

      “No Ballot papers are counted for an accuracy against the electronic tabulation,”

      This should be done as Frank assumes rightly, to be used later, and then checked against the electronic tabulation.

      But no it is not done over the entire electoral cycle.

      So no there is no functional auditing as we said before.

      Simply the papers are tallied and data is sent by electronic tabulation to the Contracted company who is doing the vote counting and we would really be interested whoever they are and how close a partner to Government they work also.

      They use their preferred contractors, and we should be told who they are.

      There are several other companies including electionz.com Ltd who carry out some 300 voting events around NZ a year.

      They have used a photo of each ballot paper as it goes through their electronic Kodak (high speed) scanner and the vote tabulation is then recorded and the photos sent to their Vote counting centre in CHCH.

      It is a fair system I have researched this method Electionz.com.ltd.

      Being part electronic part manual paper ballot still has weakness with security but I give it the best mark of what I have seen to date.

      If we wanted them contracted for the election in 2017 I would be much happier using them than contractors we have yet to know what their systems actually are, so that is why we need a Royal Commission into the wild swings and variations that occurred during the run up and during the last election.

      Simply it leaves me uneasy after seeing how the Americans even held congressional testimony on the wild swings of their elections but here we just accept it as straight up like every thing else it seems.

      Also as we are concerned by the pollsters during that election who were even bewildered that their polls were way out as well.

20. My council is one that rejected online voting so am lucky. But when I first started voting in the late seventies voting was way more fun. You would go down to the school or someone’s garage (there were way more places to vote) and there would be a sausage sizzle and a cake stall and you would have a chat to your neighbours and friends – if you were lucky the school would be raising money with a Devonshire tea room! The world has gotten faster, a lot more boring, a lot more insular and a lot less fun.

    • I completely agree there were more places people could go and vote. As a child my parents would take me with them and show me how the voting process works and it is probably why I like the current system so much. Being in a place where you’re not just waiting in line, but actually making a contribution to your community makes you feel like you are participating for something bigger not because you are obligated to. Admittedly, the only times we get to engage in conversations with our neighbours is during mass gatherings of communities such as voting day.

      • S_Downs – you’ve hit on a very important point.

        Paper voting at a Voting Station is a community activity. The voter is participating with his/her neighbours. We are Citizens, doing our civic duty, with other Citizens.

        On-line voting is a solitary activity. It is not a community activity. It is Individualism extended to Civic duty, and as such is a contradiction in terms.

21. I am at a total loss to understand the mentality behind your reasoning Martyn. If, in an online voting scenario, you also have the opportunity of voting manually, then fine, choose a manual vote if you like. However, if the vote must be cast online, why not take up the opportunity to disprove your premise, namely that, to quote you, there is “no way America or its corporate interests would ever allow a politician to gain power that could challenge that hegemony”. If all the people who take your point of view restrain from voting, it takes on the appearance of a self fulfilling prophecy. I say ‘appearance’, because I don’t agree with your premise. But whether I agree with it or not, the point is you have a chance to see if you are wrong, and you won’t take it. And surely you would like to be proved wrong, for that means that America and its corporate interests don’t rule NZ. Isn’t that what you want?

    • SG3 – your “logic” (and I use the term in it’s broadest possible sense) is so convoluted that it’s difficult to understand precisely what you’rew advocating (if advocating anything).

      One thing I do know, using the term “if all the people” is code for pouring scorn on ideas and not doing anything.

      • My point Frank, is that by not voting, you have no chance of getting rid of the Government you do not like. By voting, you might be pleasantly surprised to find that ‘your team’ wins. This might mean having to admit that the election wasn’t rigged by US corporates after all, but hey, wouldn’t you be glad you were wrong on that one?

22. Another factor that might inhibit voting, rather than provoking abstention because of security fears, is neatly expressed by John Pilger in the introduction to one of his books:

    “….the further dismantling of…..and a plethora of civil liberties are part of the reduction of democracy to electoral ritual: that is, competition between indistinguishable parties for the management of a single-ideology state”.

23. It’s even simpler than hacking, I think we can all see a scenario of a dominant person making sure their partner voted their way. There is absolutely no protection from this at all, not even AVG

24. I guess I should own up as one who suspected the last election was rigged. I still find it unbelievable that NZ’ers would dismiss the following facts and vote for the national government. That the USA, that John Key is deeply in bed with, has been responsible for 40million deaths in the wars it has waged since WWII. That it is doing its best to start World War III in Ukraine or Syria. That the heroism of Snowden and Greenwald was not important for us all. That the pathetic NZ Government supported the corrupt US Department of Justice actions against Kim DotCom completely disregarding our sovereignty.
    I blame the media. They are all under the thumb of America and what they present is what people vote on. If they represent Muslims and Putin as evil that is what people will vote on. If they presented the truth we might have a different and better society

25. i would never not vote but it will defiantly be the paper at the polling booth,but we must try something to rein gage with the million none voters so they don’t need to leave the couch i would love to make voting compulsory and even get winz to get them filling in a voter registration because if we don’t its fuckeen national party for ever not voting is a vote for the organized crime gang called national and the pony tail pervert DON- KEY

26. Are NZ Election Results audited?

27. [Rick, your suggestion to hanging certain people is inappropriate. Please reframe your point without referencing violence. – ScarletMod]

Comments are closed.