What, the current Maple Leaf flag? Not at all, in my opinion. I’d put it up there with the very best flags in the world, right next to the Scottish saltire.
I’m neither Canadian nor Scottish, by the way.
I completely see the point of changing the New Zealand flag, but there is one unique thing about the current flag that’s going to be a bit of a shame to ditch: it is, I think, the only nation flag with multicolored stars. That’s kinda cool.
Aruba and Burundi also have outlined stars. Morocco and Israel have “frame” stars in which the field color recurs inside them.
Ethiopia also has the Solomon’s seal/star device since 1996 in its official flag (but a version with no device is popular in private use).
I assumed they were talking about the old flag. The new flag is, indeed, one of the best national flags.
As a rugby fan, I like the fourth one. However, I think the fifth one does a better job of nodding to NZ’s political history. I feel compelled to point out that only the second one meets RNATB’s First Rule of Flag Design: a small kid should be able to draw it accurately. But whatever.
Ignorance fought! The Dope rides again!
I knew about Morocco and Israel, but what I meant by “multicolored stars” was non-field colored.
The more generally accepted rule is “a child should be able to draw it from memory.”
I think accuracy is a bit much to expect, especially from a small child. It’s more important that it be recognizable. Good flag designs are recognizable even if they’re not drawn accurately. A blue-and-white mishmosh in the canton and a bunch of red and white stripes make for a perfectly recognizable U.S. flag.
I think all 5 of the proposed designs pass the test, though 1 and 5 barely make it.
That’s a good argument for the Hypnoflag, then. It’s very distinct, and easy to draw badly. I don’t hate the Red Peak, but it’s a little too generic and vague, isn’t it?
Well, the easiest to draw isn’t always the best choice. I mean, look at Libya’s firmer flag. 
(It was green. Just…green)
I think “generic and vague” are excellent descriptions of the red peak design. It’s just…blah.
The hypnoflag is so cool.
No. 1 I quite like. I think the southern cross is distinctive, links to the old flag, shows the brotherhood with Australia. It’s a bit busy. I reject no. 5 on the basis that it’s the same but red white and blue which is boring as hell and overdone, while the introduction of black into No. 1 is distinctive.
No. 2 I think is abysmal. I understand that Kiwis may see some symbolism in it but to the rest of the world it looks like yet another flag with an essentially generic geometric pattern. It says nothing. And the colours are boring as hell, see above.
No. 3 I think is very good. When I think of the best flags in the world I think of flags that have strong, simple, meaningful and distinctive shapes that cannot be mistaken for any other country. To me, Canada has the best flag in the world for this reason. Ten years after the introduction of this flag ever person on earth would be able to recognise it.
No 4 I think is even better than no. 3 except in one respect; it’s a bit too busy.
I’d be pleased with 1, 3 or 4. I am stunned that no. 2 was added by popular acclaim; to me it is generic dreck.
Because I believed that the ‘winner’ of the first referendum (which would subsequently challenge the existing NZ flag) was to be the design, of the five, that simply gained the greatest number of votes, I challenged your contention that the process was ‘rigged’. I thought it flawed, but not exactly rigged.
I had been following this whole ‘flag’ process quite closely, so I don’t know how I missed the fact that the first referendum is to be decided on the basis of a preferential vote. (I was aware that the poll required the listing of preferences and I couldn’t understand why this information was being sought.)
In my defense, I don’t think it was purely my lack of erudition as much the fact that up until very recently, the process had not been well publicised. But now it has - well, sort of. Taken to its extreme it’s quite complex, and still unlikely to be completely understood by the layman.
So, in light of this, I have to tell you that I entirely agree with you that, either through design or ‘serendipity’, the process could be said to be, if not ‘rigged’, then definitely skewed.
Initially, when the four finalists were unveiled (and before the fifth choice was belatedly added) there was much public comment around the fact that the two ‘white fern’ designs, apart from one colour changed, were identical, and that this would halve their chances of being chosen.
(It was this perception that consolidated the misconception that it was a first past the post vote.)
However, under preferential system, rather than having its chances halved, these two designs effectively each have their chances doubled - in that any voter who chooses either ‘white fern’ as their No.1 choice is (in my view) very likely to have the other ‘fern’ as their No.2 choice. And, in the preferential process there is very likely to come the point where all the ‘No.2’ votes from one will tip over into the other.
I’ve never been one to subscribe to whacky conspiracy theories but in this instance it does make you wonder. As I said above, I cannot know whether it’s serendipity or ‘design’.
One other point of interest, under this ‘system’, is that the voter does not have to rank the whole five candidates. You are able to rank only one if you wish.
So, if a voter, for arguments sake, favours only one design and nothing else, then it’s obvious that ranking any more than just that one is tantamount to voting against yourself.
However, all this might in the end be merely academic - the polls continue to show that well over half the voting-age population don’t want the flag changed anyway.
I would rank the black+fern+Crux design highly and the red+fern+Crux design low, myself. But then, I’m not from there.
As an Aussie I fully support NZ in their desire to get a new flag that doesn’t have the union jack on it. I hope that we do the same thing before much longer.
Personally I like the first one of that 5, but that’s just visually with no sense of Kiwi heritage at all.
Just so latecomers to this thread like myself don’t have to go back and look around, here’s the link to a page showing all 5 candidates.
Personally, I don’t care for #3. I’m not a Kiwi; I don’t know how much national pride is taken in either the fern or the Southern Cross.
I’d choose #1, has old, new, and black.
I dunno, I really don’t have a problem with it, we have a British heritage after all. I wouldn’t have any qualms dropping it should a pleasant alternative creep out of the shadows though.
Agree that number three is not very visually appealing - I would like to see a Koru on the flag, but I don’t think this one is done very well. here are some other representations - culturally in NZ the Koru does carry a lot of significance, (similar to the Silver Fern) -it is a spiral shape based on the shape of a new unfurling silver fern frond and symbolizing new life, growth, strength and peace
The Silver Fern is also important in NZ history
for example
Silver Ferns are also representative of “trails” and “guides”.
As an aside - there was also a serious proposal to change the NZ flag to one featuring a silver Fern back in 1998 - so this is hardly a recent development.
As to the Southern Cross - I can’t speak for NZers, but I can speak for myself. I do feel an emotional connection to having it on the flag - much more so than the Union Jack and things like “Pride of the South Pacific” or similar thoughts are brought about by having it there. I said earlier on in the thread - I also like the continuity of keeping the Southern Cross on on the flag
For me - I wouldn’t say I have a problem per-se, it’s more a case that I think a Silver Fern or Koru is far more representative of who we are now, more than anything else
That is more properly put as “Some of us” not “We”, shouldn’t it (23% of Kiwis are foreign-born, after all*, and less than a third of those are from the UK - plus the Maori etc.)? Makes it kind of exclusionary, privileging one heritage over others.
Although you could argue the same for the koru also being a “Some of us” heritage thing, I guess, even though it’s seemingly been adopted across the board now.
The fern or mountains is much more neutral in that regard, I suppose.
*Just to add, I find it astonishing that there are almost as many South Africans as Australians in NZ.
There’s no getting away from the fact that NZ language, government and so on are UK derived no matter how many other ethnicities may now be there.
That doesn’t mean that the nation as a whole—or the non-British minority—must give paramount significance to British heritage on a symbol of national identity.
You could make the same statement about any former colony.