The low voter turnout in last year’s election is concerning, but is making voting easier , by postal or electronic voting, for example?
Graeme Edgeler doesn’t think so:
The shared experience of voting is an important part of fostering a democratic society. The sense of democracy as a community undertaking would be lost if we were able to stagger the election over two weeks. I very much doubt there would be more than a minimal effect on voter turnout, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the decline in civil society I think it would precipitate actually lead to decreased interest from the politically disinclined.
We vote because we think we should. Others vote because they see us vote and think they should. We vote because when we were younger our parents took us with them when they were voting and it was solemn and seemed important. We vote because there’s one day every three years when voting is what you do – what everyone does. And even though this election saw a reduction in turnout, making the day less special is not going to turn this around.
He was responding to the Electoral Commission’s suggestion that postal voting be used for referenda but I support this view for all voting.
It is a public process and a communal one which ought to take place in the community?
Homepaddock 
I wouldn’t mind betting its less voter apathy but more a form of reasonable contentment born of better communications so that most of voters know the Golden Goose has been plucked in a fairly evenhanded way.
The seniors have the most generous Super in the world, the students have close to the most generous loans in the world, Maori have a voice and a big budget, the beneficiaries have inflation adjusted benefits, families have a generous WFF to exploit and workers have ACC and legislation offering some of the best employment protections in the world.. what’s there to vote for?
JC
LikeLike
JC – I think you’re on to something here.
LikeLike