Which part of no don’t you understand?

The noes have it.

Preliminary results of the referendum on child discipline were:

Votes Number of Votes
Received
Percentage of Total
Valid Votes
For the response Yes 191,495 11.81%
For the response No 1,420,959 87.60%
Informal Votes 9,696 0.60%
Total Valid Votes 1,622,150 100.00%

 

The number of invalid votes cast was 802.

A total of 1,622,952 people voted which is a turnout of 54.04%.

That compares with a 26.9% (652,394 voters) turnout in the 1995 referendum on the number of firefighters.

A total of 2,059,948 people voted in the referendum on the number of MPs  and  2,056, 404 voted in the referendum on the criminal justice system. Both of these were held in conjunction with the 1999 general election.

The two referenda held in isolation got a much lower turnout than the two held with the general election. The latest one which was by postal ballot got a much higher turnout than the 1995 one which required people to vote at a polling booth.

About these ads

8 Responses to Which part of no don’t you understand?

  1. Farmer Baby Boomer says:

    This is a defining issue HP,if this government wants to keep my vote then John Key will have to do more than take a few “papers to cabinet.”

  2. homepaddock says:

    FBB – I’d never give my vote to, or take it from, a party on a single issue. When you feel this strongly you should email the PM and Ministers and let them know what you would like to happen.

  3. Peter says:

    I think the numbers you have are wrong, the number of invalid votes cast was 1,622,952. The [loaded] question posed automatically invalidates them.

  4. Anonymouse says:

    Peter – fuck off you undemocratic lefty. Which part of democracy don’t you understand?

    The point is that 1.4 million people voted in favour of smacking and probably corporal punishment at schools too!

    that is 1 1/2 times as many votes ever cast for a winning party in any NZ election ever

    Which part of WHACK! WHACK! WHACK! you liberal fucker don’t you understand.

  5. homepaddock says:

    Anonymouse, I don’t agree with Peter but he’s welcome to leave his views here.

    You are too but I’d prefer that you did it without swearing and attacking the messenger rather than the message.

  6. pdm says:

    HP this is my first opportunity to comment and I applaud your ticking of of Anonymous.

    This commenter does himself no favours with his obscenities and name calling. If he is incapable of debating an issue without such actions he is not worth reading.

  7. Farmer Baby Boomer says:

    “I’d never give my vote to, or take it from, a party on a single issue.”

    Basically I aggree with your comment HP. In the normal course of events that is a policy I follow.
    Only after looking at overall performance and considering a range of issues do I change my vote.

    But in this case we have what I consider is an extraodinary position being taken by Prime Minister John Key.

    WE have an issue of an unpopular law, one that epitimises the intrusive nanny state attitude of what many call “Helengrad”. I am sure it was high on the list of reasons why Helen Clark’s Labour was voted out. And I am sure John realises this.

    WE have had a referendum result that proves that the majority don’t approve of the law. The turn out was high for a referendum held between elections. The 88% NO vote result was consistant with most reliable polling done on this issue. So we can safely assume that the result reflects the view of a larger number than actually voted NO in the refrendum.

    ALSO it is probable that ammemdment to Section 59 would not be law if the whips had been withdrawn and MPs been free to represent the views of their electorates.

    I just find it extraordinary that John Key should be seemingly so deaf to the message the electorate has sent him twice in nine months. And the same message has been communicated by many groups and individuals since the law was passed.
    Yes HP, I could have written the PM. Others have. I’m sure you are aware of the very good, well reasoned and respectfully written efforts of Democracy Mum and Inventory2.
    I will write to John Key but really what can the words of an aging farmer add to the volume he has already received on this matter? Sent in one way or another from a large percentage of the voting population.
    There lies the frustration that gave birth to my comment yesterday.

  8. homepaddock says:

    “but really what can the words of an aging farmer add to the volume he has already received on this matter?”

    Every one counts, the more who write, the stronger the message delivered.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,411 other followers

%d bloggers like this: