Referendum tool helps sort out options

Confused about the referendum on electoral systems? Not sure which one to opt for?

Legal Beagle Graeme Edgeler has come up with a referendum tool which could help you work out which system is best for you.

He explains about it here.

If you want to skip the explanation, the tool is here.

As you click on each question, the tool ranks the options based on your answer.

I did it very quickly and finished with Supplementary Member ahead followed by First Past the Post then Preferential Vote, Mixed member Proportional and Single Transferable Vote was a very distant fifth.

8 Responses to Referendum tool helps sort out options

  1. johnsonmike says:

    As a good little Nat, how could you have come up with anything else but SM, the most undemocratic of the five on offer and the party’s preference since 1992?

    🙂

    Like

  2. homepaddock says:

    Better representation for people rather than parties makes the number and size of electorates a prime consideration for me.

    National has deliberately not taken a stance on the referendum because it is willing to work with whatever voters decide.

    Like

  3. johnsonmike says:

    My preference has always been for STV, as this system is the only one that allows voters to decide which candidate will win, rather than give the decision to the parties.

    You rank the candidates in the order you want them to win. It means that someone the party has dumped to the very bottom of the list can still win if enough voters give them a 1. It also means candidates the party wants to win but who are unpopular with voters can be defeated by ranking them last.

    This is why it is the most unpopular system for parties.

    Like

  4. homepaddock says:

    The problem with STV is we’d have far fewer and much larger electorates. There’d be only four or five for the whole South Island which would erode local representation even more than MMP does.

    It would also require people to know far more about candidates than most could or would to make sensible decisions.

    Like

  5. The problem with STV is we’d have far fewer and much larger electorates. There’d be only four or five for the whole South Island which would erode local representation even more than MMP does.

    Not necessarily. STV is proportional. If you’ve got a 5 seat electorate, then 16.7% of the vote (only five people can get 16.7% or more of the vote) is enough to get someone elected. A part of an electorate (e.g. rural farming communities, small towns) will be able to have enough votes to choose one of those five, over the whole country, that more than now (as there would be more electorate MPs than now), and while 15 people were fighting for the votes of the 75% of urban voters in an electorate (with enough votes to decide 4 out of 5 MPs for your electorate), one good rural candidate could focus on everyone else and still be elected. And could keep getting re-elected on the same votes no matter what the urban voters want.

    Like

  6. homepaddock says:

    It doesn’t work well with health boards, Graeme. Dunedin candidates are far more likely to get elected than those from Central, North or South Otago.

    I think most, possibly all, of the ones from the smaller centres were sitting members who’d been appointed then stood at a subsequent election rather than being elected first.

    Like

  7. It doesn’t work well with health boards, Graeme. Dunedin candidates are far more likely to get elected than those from Central, North or South Otago.

    No. But that’s likely because many people in rural areas feel they will be better represented by particular Dunedin candidates. Rural voters probably have enough votes to election one-and-a-bit people to the District Health Board. If they choose to elect someone from Dunedin, you’ll have to take that up with them!

    Like

  8. Of course, for many people, local representation will be much more important in an MP than in a health board member (why do we even elect them , anyway?), so it may differ. You might have one election where there’s no-one rural elected, and people will remember it at the following election and take it into account when they vote. And then at the election after that, other candidates might realise they’re missing out 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: