Early Epsom voter says forms are biased

Email
Print

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 7:00p.m.

The Electoral Commission says it's a coincidence

The Electoral Commission says it's a coincidence

By Mihingarangi Forbes

When we go to the polls this weekend there will be two columns on your voting form to fill in: The party list and the candidate list.

Each party should be represented equally, so is it a pure coincidence that the Epsom voting form has some odd formatting that appears to highlight some parties?

Margot Nicholson is a lawyer and Epsom voter who voted early.

“I had expected to see them all in a line, but in this case there was one party at the top a gap, then another party, and another gap and then a group of all the other parties,” she said.

“It just happened to be that the top was ACT, and the other National, which made those two parties stand out. That surprised me.”

Margot says she felt “anger and shock”.

Other early Epsom voters had mixed opinions.

“I could see how National stood out more,” one said, while another claimed that was “rubbish”.

But Epsom - and in particular the two parties at the top of this list - have courted and received a lot of attention this past fortnight.

Margot says the issue has national significance.

“I think it's a real worry particularly for the Epsom seat. I’m concerned about it being a fair process, and I’m really concerned it will have an impact. I’d like the form changed all the blanks deleted and all the names the same,” she said.

So why do ACT and National stand alone on the forms?

The Electoral Commission says it's a coincidence. It says all voting forms have the candidates on the right in alphabetical order, then match their parties on the left.

Margot says the two should not be linked.

“I think the essence of MMP is that people can vote for the individual and for a party. It's quite valid they are separate, and that link between the two actually causes confusion.”

The Green party suggests the forms could be randomised to prevent this issue again, as long as the cost wasn’t too much more.

But Margot is concerned about the election in two days time.

“Who knows what impact this could have, but why take the risk that this could have a significant impact?”

She's made her concerns known with the Electoral Commission and will take it further if required.

“I would like to see those forms changed. If it is impossible to be changed, then I would like people to be informed that the form may influence their vote.”

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

25 Nov 2011 05:18p.m.

Lachlan wrote:

It's funny reading all the National party supporters saying this is a non-issue and people should not be voting if they do not know which box to tick. I have one question: would this also be a non-issue if Labour were at the top followed by a space and then the Green Party, with all other parties lumped below? I think there would be an outcry. It's also a fact that a percentage of voters are undecided on the day, and make their minds up when they vote. People who are strong right or strong left supporters do not always seem to grasp this. There ARE people who are in the middle who are not extremely biased one way or the other, and for these people the order CAN and WILL make a difference.

25 Nov 2011 05:10p.m.

Judy wrote:

Why don't you check your facts before publishing a non-story. The format of the voting form is proscribed in the Electoral Act 1993. If this woman is a lawyer, then she's not a very good one. The party list will be different for every electorate. I found this online, this is what is says under Section 150:
On the part of the ballot paper relating to the party vote the name of each political party that has submitted a list in accordance with section 127 (not being a political party that has submitted a list that has been rejected under section 128) shall be shown.
(10) The names of the political parties that, pursuant to subsection (9), are required to be shown on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the party vote, shall be arranged so that—

(a) where the name of any such political party is shown, immediately below the name of a constituency candidate whose name appears on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the electorate vote, the name of that political party shall be shown on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the party vote in a box that is aligned with the box that contains, on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the electorate vote, the name of that constituency candidate and the name of that political party; and

(b) where the names of any such political parties are not shown on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the electorate vote, the names of those political parties shall be shown in alphabetical order on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the party vote, with each such name being placed after the names of the political parties shown on that part of the ballot paper under paragraph (a) and in a box that is aligned with an empty box on the part of the ballot paper that relates to the electorate vote. The legislation is online here.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM309641.html

25 Nov 2011 03:37p.m.

Sam Boggs wrote:

If you can't figure out which box to tick - go back to school and learn to read. Really how is this a story?

25 Nov 2011 02:08p.m.

Debby wrote:

Oh I see the usual ad hominem comments from the Right! Now I actually see the form, it's blatant... esoecially as the excuse about the candidates being in alphabetical order does not wash...

25 Nov 2011 12:01p.m.

AJ wrote:

This is unbelievable. How is this even a story?? If you are sufficiently idiotic to be confused by the layout of the form, then you really shouldn't be voting. This woman and reporter should really declare their loyalty to the left before bombarding us with their jaundiced views in the week prior to the election.

25 Nov 2011 11:07a.m.

Matthew wrote:

And if the parties didn't line up with the candidates I suppose the complaint would be it was confusing which party they were in. If you are unable to find the candidate and party you want on the paper because the layout is alphabetical, or the occasional gap "forces" you to vote for the wrong party then maybe you shouldn't really be voting anyway.

25 Nov 2011 08:50a.m.

Bevan Findlay wrote:

If your vote is able to be influenced by page placement, then you probably haven't thought about it enough to be choosing our leaders. Whatever way it is arranged has potential confusion. Unless you want to put the two vote lists one after the other (not in side-by-side columns), disconnecting the lists would be confusing.

25 Nov 2011 02:42a.m.

Alison wrote:

I noticed the same for Wigram when I voted last week, very strange indeed. The columns should not be related in any way.

25 Nov 2011 01:54a.m.

Anon wrote:

What a joke. Anyone who votes based on the layout of the form is an idiot Looks like another liberal conspiracy (because surely half the country can't want the same thing, right?)

25 Nov 2011 01:20a.m.

Maddy wrote:

The candidates are in alphabtical order, and the parties they belong too lined up alongside them. This will probably b the case across the entire country. I see no problem with this. With ACT and National parties standing out so much as they do, it makes it really clear where not to put your ticks.