On election day, I woke up with little voice. There was nothing sexy about it. Nobody would be calling on me to belt out Happy Birthday Mr President any time soon.
I sounded more like a pubescent boy soprano about to be banished from the church choir because my voice was more unpredictably squeaky and wheezy than the organ bellows.
This state had not been the result of me chanting "Chippy! Chippy!" or even "Back on track! Back on track!" at election meetings.
No, it was caused by me talking too much during a long overdue catch-up with a friend.
On Saturday, I was already in a bad mood because my usual election day ritual had been spoiled by no booth in my Broad Bay community, requiring me to find my way to either Portobello or Macandrew Bay to vote.
Presumably, such booth allocation was made to save money because too few votes were cast in Broad Bay, but I wonder about the carbon footprint of such changes.
I biked, but how many of those who would normally have walked to the booth hopped in a car this time?
In making advance voting so easy and commonplace, have we lost something of the sense of occasion and community which can accompany election day?
Am I the only person who enjoys voting locally because invariably I meet up with someone I know or haven’t seen for ages?
There has been considerable discussion about the need for election day rules on campaigning to align with those applying during the two weeks of advanced voting.
The independent electoral law review panel, due to report to whoever might be the minister of justice next month, proposes changes there.
But is there a need to look at how much influence publicly reported political polling may have during that fortnight of voting too?
The dramatic way polls are reported, particularly on television, where diagrams of how poll results would play out in the House are presented with considerable hyperbole, often with scant attention to the proportion of undecided voters (or those unwilling to divulge preference) can give the impression of a fait accompli.
As Massey University School of People, Environment and Planning associate professor Grant Duncan says, a series of opinion polls can reveal trends and serve a purpose as public information.
But they are not suitable for forecasting.
One result taken out of context can be misleading, he says.
In a The Conversation piece he wrote at the beginning of this year, he pointed out "opinion poll results can have self-fulfilling or ‘bandwagon’ effects on people’s voting behaviour.
"People might want to back a winner, or not waste their vote on a party that is polling below 5%. Or some might vote for a party other than their favourite, with an eye to post-electoral negotiations".
It would be interesting to know what Winston Peters feels now about the Bill he proposed in 2000 to ban publishing of political polls within 28 days of an election. It did not find favour with many politicians (or media outlets).
Later, the then attorney-general Margaret Wilson issued an opinion such a ban would be inconsistent with the right of free expression under the Bill of Rights. Call me old-fashioned, but imagine if the big bucks spent by news organisations on political polling were spent on better and early analysis of party policies.
On the issue of big bucks, what is the bet there will be no changes made to rules around party donations? The panel proposed restricting donations to enrolled voters and capping it at $30,000 an election cycle and reducing the amount of anonymous donation allowed.
The big spenders in this election would hate that.
By the end of election night, I had resorted to cooking to distract myself from trying to understand Prime Minister-elect Christopher Luxon’s promise to deliver to every New Zealander.
What will a National-led government deliver to anybody serious about equity, reducing carbon emissions or improving water quality; who doesn’t believe locking up more people will cure crime, or that we can afford tax cuts, and that tackling public health issues like alcohol, fast-food and sugary drink consumption is important?
And, if it is right to index government benefits to the cost of living and not to wages, why does that not extend to superannuation? Oh, maybe that would make old people reluctant to vote for you. I could go on, but there is little point.
My election night baking results were a batch of dense muffins, only palatable served with butter an inch thick, and an orange cake with a similar consistency which would require burying in whipped cream.
It kind of made sense.
- Elspeth McLean is a Dunedin writer.
