The rich have never been friends of democracy, so its not really surprising that there is a rich guy in The Press today advocating for people to be able to "choose" to remove other people's right to vote:
Starting with local body elections we could make a change that would enable voters to demand better performance from our politicians.So, basicly instead of electing candidates, Gil Simpson wants his friends to be able to choose to strip you of the vote and representation, in favour of unaccountable technocrats who will never face election, and therefore never be forced by fear to act in your interests. And note the ominous "starting with". Its a fair conclusion that he wants this not just on a local level, but a national one as well.
In Canterbury we have some experience of this by commissioners being appointed to ECan. At the time there was a protest campaign to describe this as the government taking away our democracy.
Why should the government do this? Perhaps we should have the democratic right to ask the government to appoint commissioners?
I suggest that on every local body ballot paper an additional candidate is created which says "Appoint commissioners". The local citizens would be democratically choosing, if in sufficient numbers, an action for the government to take.
This is a deeply undemocratic idea, but all too typical for our undemocratic rich, who see our involvement in government as a nuisance which keeps it from being "responsible" (to them).
If you don't like the democratic choices on offer, you have two options: you can refuse to endorse any of them (which is a political statement). Or, you can make some better ones, either by running for election, or by getting someone you agree with to do it. And if they fail to get sufficient votes (as the party of rich pricks perennially does), then that's democracy. Seeking to overturn democracy and strip other people of their representation is not a democratic response.
[Hat-tip: Rebuilding Christchurch]