The Dunedin City Council decided its decision on whether to keep the Single Transferable Vote system or return to First Past the Post should stay on the table until it receives more information.
The decision has to be made by September 12th but a review of the ward system won’t be held until next year and councillors want to know if both the voting and ward system can be reviewed at the same time.
Dunedin residents voted for STV for council elections but Labour imposed this system on all of us for health boards and it hasn’t worked. Health board elections are a farce anyway because the majority of the board is appoitne, and elected or appointed the Board is responsible to the Minister, not the people in its area.
But STV made the elections even more of a farce. It works best in big electorates so did away with wards but in areas like Otago, Dunedin city voters far out-number the three and a half rural Districts together. It also requires sufficient knowledge of enough of the candidates to make an informed choice and few if any of us have that.
I knew enough about six of the candidates in last year’s election to vote for only two of them – and I discovered later than my positive view of one of them was misplaced.
STV proponents say the system means no votes are wasted and gives those elected more of a mandate. But in the first health board election under STV one person gained a place on a board with a 19th preference – that doesn’t seem like a very good mandate to me.
June 24, 2008 at 9:42 am
Properly implemented, STV is a much better system than first past the past.
A few years ago, Wellington elected a Mayor from a big field with less than 20% of the vote (and that on a low turnout). That’s hardly a mandate either.
First the Post is only of any use in a two-choice situation. After that, it becomes rule by the largest minority, which is why we dumped for electing MPs. The largest minority had a bogus mandate most voters didn’t support.
Where STV can get into trouble is in the implementation. For best democratic outcomes, the multi-member wards should see at least 5 people elected from each. But it works almost as well with as few as three, provided the political make-up of the ward is fairly homogenous. If it isn’t, there will be lot of unhappy people around.
Getting to know the candidates is a challenge under any system. I don’t see how electing 5 from a ward under FPP would be any easier than electing 5 from a ward under STV. You still have to vote for 5 people and STV is going to see every vote count while FPP wastes most votes.
I can appreciate that rural wards large in land area but small in population, who used to have their own rep, would be grumpy in a new system where they were folded into a larger area and outvoted by a nearby urban area. I can’t see a solution to that that doesn’t violate the premise that all votes should be equal in value. The last thing we want is a democratic set-up like the US Senate where 16% of the voters elect 50% of the members thus perverting legislative outcomes ever after.
As for someone gaining their quota on the 19th preference, that – to me – highlights the strength of STV. Voters were able to cast a ballot that still had value after 19 rounds of preference allocation. First past the post would have given the largest minority a win and ignored all other votes.
If you’re among the majority of voters thus ignored 9and most people will be), STV *has* to be the better system for anyone who stops to think about what their vote is really worth.