From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Referendum '92
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:10:26 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.162218.1@elec.canterbury.ac.nz> earl@elec.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> 
> Could someone knowledgable out there please confirm or deny the 
> following:
> 
> I have heard (through heresay, pub gossip, whispers of treason
> and from several "informed" bogans) that in the referedum, all
> votes not cast - i.e. those too apathetic to vote - will be
> treated as a vote for the continuation of the present
> first-past-the-post system. 
> 
> Is this true? Or are just the votes for CHANGE compared with NO 
> CHANGE ?

The government will interpret a low turnout as evidence of a lack of desire to
change. That isn't in the legislation, but we must remember that they do NOT
wat change and - being Tories - will use EVERY possible excuse to frustrate
it.
 
I'm ano exhibiting any political prejudice in saying this. The statement above
is based on long experience with the trick politicians employ to get what they
want......

If they want it, it goes through the house under urgency in hours. If they
don't want it, we get the referendum we are getting.
 
It is also worth noting that the government's own referendum legislation
(Citizen's Initiated Referenda) has not been passed yet - and may well never
be. Further, the legislation precludes petitions for referenda on questions
already put. 
 
This sorry excuse for a referendum - which it isn't really anyway because it is
not binding - is designed to defeat change not only on September 19th. It will
also be used to preclude anyone who wants to petition for a referendum asking
an honest, straight-forward question of the either/or variety considered to be
the normal way of doing things. 
 
They will say:' "Sorry, we already spent $5 million dollars on a referendum on
that topic". 
 
I am not being defeatist, but I am saying that if people want change - for the
better - then they must singled-mindedly vote for change and ONE of the
alternatives. I think MMP has the best chance of being that ONE and of being
of benefit to NZ. 
 
If we have a lowish turnout and a fragmented vote for the other options, the
politicians will be able to chose which of the other options THEY like and put
it to us in the referendum next year. They will likely chose PV, because that
would mean they would never again have to worry about any third party winning
even one seat in Parliament.

They have put so many safety nest for the present system into this process
that only a single-minded effort on the part of voters will see and change -
for the better.
 
The only problem is - the Business Roundtable opposes change and no other
large-scale funder is funding the campaign FOR change, so people like Phil
Saxby and the Electoral Reform Coalition are getting mortgages on their houses
and selling raffle tickets in order to print a few thousand bumper stickers.
They aren't entitled to funds from any quasi-governmental slush-pot because
what they are doing is poltical - even though it completely NON-PARTISAN like
Greenpeace or Forest and Bird (which can be VERY political indeed!).

SO! If any one reading this *really* want to help: Phil Saxby 569 7933 (in
Wellington) or Rod Donald at 49 Aynslee Tce in Chch ( I foget his phone
number) or Tony Hartnett in Auckland - should be in the book in Titirangi.
 
The MPs have paid, full-time staff to get their "anti" view across. Also, the
news media focus on the MPs and print evry thing they say: Simon Upton on
Friday, Tony Ryall on Monday, another on the saturday in between.....just
putting their views and getting them printed faithfully becasue they are MPs.
The opposing side in Parliament has been either too busy or simply not quick
enough to respond.
 
The effect is of 70 MPs using taxpayers money to travel the country and access
the media with the mesage that change is a bad thing. The supporters of PR do
not have access to these resources on anything like the same scale.
 
But Kiwis seem to lack the focus to mount any sort of campaign on their own.
They are so busy in the new world of the Employment Contracts Act - working
longer hours, being more strssed, they have less and less time to think and
act on subjects like these.
 
Crap? It works for me. That is what happened to me.
 
Steve
 
-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.