It's election time, who brought the pizza?

I find myself sitting at my computer, at 9.30pm the day before the New Zealand general election - completely mystified as to who I will vote for tomorrow.

I am a strong believer in democratic process (and currently a public servant*), so I will be voting; but currently I'm thinking about flipping a coin - or since there are so many parties - rolling a die.

The issue I have is that policy 1 from Party A is quite good, but I don't agree with policy 2; so I look at Party B and quite like the look of policy 3, but worry about policies 1 and 2; and so on.

It would seem that no party is quite leftcentredright for my ideals.

I can think of two possibilities why:

1. I'm highly unusual and/or strange: Definitely a possibility, but if that's the case I'm unlikely to change in time for voting tomorrow;
2. I don't fit party policy: Also likely, as regardless of your political leaning, I'll bet you have never heard a speech on 'supporting the up-trodden well paid, educated, middle class, single, white male minority class'. Because if you did, it would be either for comedic value, or that person would be being booed off stage.
   

I also find myself slightly saddened by the plethora of placard waving volunteers (or are they?), that have stood on traffic islands, across Wellington city, braving gale force winds, to proudly proclaim their chosen political party on a cardboard sign**.
It seems, after over one hundred years of democratic process, New Zealand's political parties have finally managed to rise to the lofty levels of pizza street advertising.

Could I have some policy with my pizza please. Hold the tomato.

Please excuse me while I go find a die to roll.


* As a public servant I am constrained by the Public Service Code of Conduct, hence no actual political parties mentioned in this post
** At least four political parties did this

Wondering out loud

And now from the political news desk, Me.
This may be a one-off post, as politics isn't usually something I dabble in; and I warn you there is controversy ahead (yes really) which is why it may be the first and last post. However now for the news...

Sarah Palin, the new deputy for John McCain is almost a Republican dream-boat:

• Miss congeniality at a beauty pageant
• Married to pro sports person
• One child in the army
• One child disabled
• Member of the NRA
• Anti-abortion
• Pro death penalty

If it wasn't for daughter Bristol things would be hunky-dory (this should test her anti-abortion stance at least). http://www.stuff.co.nz/4677901a12.html
(was that controversial?)

But it isn't abortion or lack thereof that I'm questioning, that issue is infinitely large and emotive and I'm not qualified to comment.
(safe here)

My question is purely based on logic (Vulcan's beware):
How can you support the death penalty, yet not support abortion?
(hey, that sounded controversial)

Abortion - noun - "any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy."
Death penalty - noun - "a sentence of punishment by execution."

From the above definitions it could be implied that abortion attempts to improve the life of the mother by terminating a pregnancy; whereas the death penalty attempts to improve society by terminating an individual. Which may sound similar; but they aren't; or are they; no definitely aren't-are. Which one was correct again?
(argh controversy again)

I have another question:
What about grace* and mercy?
(and more controversy, end it now!)

Just throwing ideas out there.


* Grace is a Christian concept of favour and forgiveness for the undeserving. And you thought abortion was a tricky topic...