Glad you’ve enjoyed the discussion – as have I! Feel free to tell your friends about the blog

And I think the coverage might be more balanced if there are yes votes (to counter all the many no votes there will obviously be).

Either way I have actually enjoyed discussing this issue with you so thanks for humouring me.

That’s not what I’m saying at all – so I hope that’s not what you were suggesting.

All I’m saying is: if you support the law there’s a movement suggesting you should vote yes (to show that support) instead of not voting.

Showing support for a law by not showing support for a law doesn’t make sense to me.

That’s what I think your “non-vote” is. I don’t think it serves any purpose whatsoever – it’s likely your votes will be written off as people who couldn’t be bothered voting because they were too busy watching Shortland Street.

As far as I know there isn’t any analysis of why people don’t vote in any given referendum so it’s not like the powers that be will ring you and say “by the way what was your reason for not voting?”

If you don’t support the law then of course don’t vote. That makes sense.

My push for yes votes is only for people who support the law. Obviously I wouldn’t try to change the minds of anyone who didn’t support the law or didn’t care either way. That would be impossible and a waste of time.

I’m sure you’ll continue to complain regardless of the outcome of the referendum. So your T-Rex logic of course makes sense.

Everyone has the right to bitch about shit they could have changed. That’s freedom of speech isn’t it?

“The yes vote campaign isn’t about winning anyything it’s about showing that the smackers are just a vocal minority and MANY, many NZers support the law.”

Then you don’t need yes votes to showcase a minority, just a low level of “no” votes at the end of it. It will still highlight low voter turnout, or low levels of awareness and vocality amongst certain groups. But I don’t think voting or not voting makes an opinion out to be a minority or majority.

So tired of the debate over the necessity to vote. I haven’t missed an election yet, but I have encountered the opinion that if you aren’t going to vote you should at least vote for labour, for the rest of us. This is possibly the least democratic idea I’ve heard. At least when you place a vote willingly, no matter the reason you’re exercising your rights. Stifiling the ballot with an unwanted vote is useless to everyone.

To suggest that I have forfeited my right to complain is also unneccessary. Given the option to vote for either G.W.B or a T-Rex, I may complain when G.W.B drops bombs or when the T-Rex chews the Vice President in half. I won’t feel guilt or remorse that I should have voted for boms over chewing, or vice versa. Show me some logic that these complaints are unjustified.

“Believe me, you’re not going to win this referendum by much, if at all.” – No shit I’ve already said that. I’ll repeat that there’s no way to “win” this referendum. The yes vote campaign isn’t about winning anyything it’s about showing that the smackers are just a vocal minority and MANY, many NZers support the law.

“that is a completely uninformed statement.” – Can you say how that statement is uninformed? It’s just paraphrasing what National MPs in the select committee said when they supported the law change. Feel free to actually read about the law you’re commenting on: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/?document=00dbhoh_bill6844_1

“Although to be fair when I said “wanting the law changed back” I should really have said “wanting the law changed”. – Now that I understand. But it’s very different to what you orginally said and I stand by my comment about “changing the law back” being indefensible.

“Too many people assume anyone that disagrees with them by definition is wrong when the case is often that they are simply approaching the question from a different view…” – I don’t think you’re wrong. I just hold a different view to you. As a blogger I think you should get used to the idea that people are not going to agree with everything you say. You should embrace differing opinions.

Jackson I do agree that as a nation we SHOULD be over this stupid debate. I’m definitely over it. And I do think the fact that the law works should mean we shouldn’t be still talking about it after all this time.

But the fact is if supporters of the law stay silent then the only voice heard is that of the smackers.

Do you really believe that the ‘non-vote’ (for lack of a better term) count will actually be considered a vote in support of the law?

Or do you think it will be a) ignored or b) embraced by the smackers and used to further push their agenda?

Also it’s worth considering that your taxpayer money is paying for a referendum you’re not taking part in.

Your last point I could agree with because I do believe we need change in regards to what questions are allowed in a referendum.

But to me supporting a law that stops child abusers getting away with child abuse is more important than stopping stupid referendum questions.

In any democracy there are as many responses to a question, as many reasons to vote, as many reasons to tick a certain box et al as there are people. Choosing not to vote is a totally valid—and in this case excellent—way of expressing your belief. Not only about the question but about the entire debate about smacking as a whole. As Daniel points out “the image you want to project is that we as a nation are past this discussion.”

Sometimes silence is the best option. A cacophony of ill-informed voices does not make the quality of the debate or the understanding thereof any better.

Clearly CIR are—as they currently are in our legislation—impotent. Not voting is also a sign that you want change.