Friday, August 21, 2009

ZenTiger YES, NO WON

YES! NO WON. Some of my initial thoughts:

The referendum was non-binding. That means the government will only listen if it believes in democracy, not because it has to. Your call John.

John Key thought the question was confusing. However, he's apparently good with numbers. 87.6% John.

With 87.6% voting NO, it looks like the people too stupid to understand the question were the ones who would have voted YES :-)

Any referendum achieving a greater than 50% turnout can be judged a success. We hit 54%, a solid result. Many people would not have voted because the referendum was non-binding and John Key had already signalled he wasn't interested in listening to the outcome. On that basis alone, a solid result.

Bradford is apparently trying to count the abstaining votes as all belonging to the YES camp. Bradford is either deluded, or her nose will serve as a second harbour bridge by morning.

4 comment(s):

Madeleine said...

Is Bradford going to declare the Mt Albert election invalid and First Past the Post as the legitimate voting system then too? What would adding the abstaining votes to the last general election do to the Green's percentage of the total vote?

That is what her argument entails.

graham roberts said...

What would adding the abstaining votes to the last general election do to the Green's percentage of the total vote?

5.31%

I.M Fletcher said...

And what makes Bradford think that those who did not vote would vote her way? They may all vote No.

I bet if the shoe was on the other foot - if the Yes had won by a large margin - and Baldock had come out and said that he had really won because the abstaining votes would have counted in his favour, Sue would have laughed him out of town.

ZenTiger said...

Or smacked him around the ears.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.