Wellington City Council is right now conducting a postal referendum on whether to retain the STV (Single Transferable Vote) electoral system used at the 2004 and 2007 council elections, or go back to the FPP (First Past The Post) system used before then.
The result will be binding for the next two city council elections, 2010 and 2013.
I’ve just mailed my vote back and I ticked STV, despite my earlier misgivings about the potential for confusion caused by having what seems at face value a complicated voting system being used for city council (and health board) elections but not by Greater Wellington Regional Council (which has stayed with FPP).
What changed my mind in favour of STV was the independently produced brochure that came with the ballot paper explicitly making it clear that STV is a more democratic system, as it generally achieves proportional representation of voters’ wishes. FPP is, in the brochure’s words, “less representative.” I knew that, of course, but I also needed reminding.
Additionally, STV must by law be used for the district health board elections in any case, and they are the ones least suited to it because of the huge number of candidates few people have heard of. As STV will still be used for those elections, it will be less of an issue if also used for the city council election.
I urge every Wellington voter to vote and return your ballot paper, however you vote. The electoral system we use is a fundamental part of the democratic process, and the more people who vote, the more credence the result will have.
Ironically, the referendum is being conducted using FPP!
One issue that worries me about this referendum is that the voting paper is turning up in a garish envelope that looks like junk mail from the likes of Readers’ Digest. It has a big yellow shield on it that says “STV v FPP VOTE OFF” in big shouting letters. It arrived in my letterbox with a lot of other mail and lots of junk mail and I almost threw it into the recycling bin with the latter, despite knowing the referendum was imminent and wanting to vote in it.
Your vote must be returned by Saturday September 27.
12 Comments
September 7, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Ironically, the referendum is being conducted using FPP!
Given that there is only two choices, wouldn’t the outcome be the same regardless?
September 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm
No, because FPP is a simple majority, and STV allocates votes until it gets an absolute majority. You could have a different result under the two systems, even with such a simple question.
Not that I am sure it matters.
September 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I was just about to to agree with Garrick, but on thinking about it Poneke is right. In a two-choice STV election, it is possible that even in a dead heat of first preferences, people might disproportionately forgo a second choice, resulting in the second choices deciding the outcome. That’s a silly and unlikely outcome, but it could happen.
Two options is a sort of degenerate case where FPP and STV are likely to yield the same outcome but they aren’t strictly the same.
September 7, 2008 at 6:02 pm
The WCC call centre doesn’t seem to be ready for the referenda.
I rang them yesterday to ask what the process for someone who is currently out of the country and won’t be back until after the end of the voting period. The person I spoke to first told me I could fill the form in for the absent voter then. When I pointed out the form said that would be illegal, checked with a supervisor and said it would be illegal.
Neither she, nor her supervisor, could tell me what would be legal
They suggested I ring or email the returning officer during the week.
September 7, 2008 at 7:00 pm
No, it couldn’t. You only go to second choices when you get rid of something’s first preferences. For example, in a three person race where no-one gets an outright majority, you kick off the third placegetters votes and distribute to those voters second preferences. There are no preferences to redistribute until you kick one off
In a two person race you could go to the second preferences of both, but we don’t. In a two choice system, the result is the same between STV and FPP. On the first count someone wins, or there is a tie.
September 7, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Thanks Graeme. You encapsulated my thinking. In a two person (or choice) race there can only be an absolute majority or a tie.
Found an explanation on the Internal Affairs STV site:
Electoral. Maths. Hurts.
September 8, 2008 at 11:01 am
[...] Poneke has voted for STV in the Wellington referendum, despite earlier calling it a failure. [...]
September 8, 2008 at 12:20 pm
There is a serious problem with single councillor wards.
If your councillor is appointed to an RMA Hearings committee then you can no longer discuss with him or her any applications or other RMA matters which may come before him or her to be heard.
One solution is to have the Hearings all run by Commissioners.
But the other is to have a minimum of two councillors per ward to ensure people do not become disenfrachised on RMA matters.
This does not apply to hearings on Proposed plans or Plan Changes – just applications.
September 8, 2008 at 5:08 pm
The biggest problem with single councillor wards is that they are not elected proportionally under STV (or FPP). The system used for 1 member wards and mayoralties is Prefer PV which is 50% + 1 required for election. Wards under STV get the best results with 3-9 positions.
Also, on Owen McShane’s point above. When your local councillor is appointed to do a hearing, they are not there as your elected rep, they are there as a hearing commissioner. ie. It’s not a political role. The only way to avoid this issue is as he suggests, is to appoint outside commissioners to all hearings.
Go STV in Wellington btw! Mayor Kerry is quite incorrect to say it hasn’t delivered diversity. Wellington elected an 18 year old at its first STV election who simply WOULDN’T have been elected under FPP. Last election three men aged over 60 were replaced by three women in their 30s. This is exactly the sort of changes we need in local government in NZ – and STV is the way to deliver such diversity.
September 10, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Hi Anita:
We also are overseas until after September. Can you post and let me know what you find out about how people in our posotion can vote?
Thanks,
Gordon
September 22, 2008 at 11:07 am
Hi all,
In British Columbia, Canada, we’re having a second referendum on STV next May (58% voted in favour the first time, but the government had imposed a 40% minority veto). I’d love to see the public awareness/public education materials used in the Wellington referendum. If anyone could scan them and email them to me at info@stv.ca, I’d greatly appreciate it.
May 14, 2009 at 7:07 am
A Two-Vote Electoral System Proposed
The need for electoral reform resonated with me. While the Single Transferable Vote concept was not acceptable to BC Voters, I believe it would be a mistake to give up on electoral reform. I believe first-past-the-post voting system is wrong because it allows disenfranchisement and encourages voter apathy.
I would support a simpler electoral reform, such as a Two-Vote electoral system. The province would be divided into 43 constituencies which would elect two representatives. The ballot would allow a Voter to choose their top candidate using the traditional “first-past-the-post” method, and allow a second vote for Voter’s alternative choice of a political party or identified independents. Simple rule, between your two votes, you can’t vote for the same party twice (unless you wish to register an abstention).
This simple binary voting system would not be as perfect as STV, but would result in a legislature that is more representative. Knowing you have two representatives to choose from in your constituency would encourage greater voter turnout because their votes would matter and result in increased representation.
Could you support simpler Two-Vote electoral system?