Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

So did anyone ask why it is that, while to most observers Wellington has a dynamic and successful economy (and measurably the highest average income in the country), a preponderance of the mayoral candidates consider the city to be 'broken' and requiring the transfer of large sums of public money to construction companies in order to fix. (Airport runways, tunnels, highways, conference centres and the like).

In Auckland, this only applies to District Health Board elections. Good question to ask candidates.

welcome this sort of candour from politicians. I’ll be voting for everyone, although in what order, I’m still not sure, but this sort of information from candidates is very helpful in understanding where everyone fits.

I, too, will be rank-ordering all the candidates – and putting the lowest number against my least-favoured candidate – for both the mayor and councillor elections.

Back at your STV posting, you were asked “is it illegal for candidates to send out how-to-vote cards in New Zealand, or is it just not common practice here yet?”

From my reading of the relevant Act and Regulations, this aspect of campaigning is not covered. Therefore, if it is not expressly prohibited, then presumably it can be done.

Given that we have postal voting, candidates could include on (the reverse side of) the “Vote-for-Me!!” leaflets their helpers put in our letter-boxes, their recommendation as to who we should give our second, third (and perhaps, in some cases, depending on circumstances) subsequent preferences, to. As you say (in most cases, I suspect) they know more about the candidates opposing them than us punters out here in Voterland do.

We must, of course, keep in mind that, in New Zealand local elections, 85% (give or take) of candidates are Independents / No party. It’s not like in New South Wales, for example, where most candidates are “grouped” (whether the groups be local or national), and it’s easy to rank the groups / ungrouped candidates on the how-to-vote cards. (I know one candidate who is having a party at his place on election night, 10 September. Condition of entry? You have to have handed out his how-to-vote cards that day.)

Failing that, there is nothing to stop candidates from putting up on their own campaign websites / Facebook pages (which they should all have) their rank-orderings of at least two or three other candidates (in their ward) whom they think they could work with, should they be elected, so as to inform our own rankings.

I have a feeling, however, that the resistance you encountered at that meeting, was at least partly to do with the fact that the candidates instinctively felt that by answering your (great) question, they would be helping their opponent(s), perhaps at their own cost. In other words, they are still in an FPP mindset. They do not yet instinctively know that a later preference can never harm an earlier preference (for themselves).

This, of course, goes back to the discussion at your STV posting, but I think I have made my point.

they are still in an FPP mindset

Yep. The sooner those folk retire from politics, the better.

I, too, will be rank-ordering all the candidates – and putting the lowest number against my least-favoured candidate – for both the mayor and councillor elections.

You put the lowest number next to your *most*-favoured candidate!

I have a feeling, however, that the resistance you encountered at that meeting, was at least partly to do with the fact that the candidates instinctively felt that by answering your (great) question, they would be helping their opponent(s), perhaps at their own cost.

I assumed it was because they were scared of either: (1) appearing defeatist; or (2) scaring off voters who might vote for them, but are against the person they name.

You put the lowest number next to your *most*-favoured candidate!

Hmm, to me, when rank-ordering candidates (in the Wellington mayoralty contest), 8 is lower than 1, but I take your point.

I assumed it was because they were scared of either: (1) appearing defeatist; or (2) scaring off voters who might vote for them, but are against the person they name.

Yep, them, too; further examples of FPP thinking. There is clearly much more voter-education to be done.

I know one candidate who is having a party at his place on election night, ... You have to have handed out his how-to-vote cards that day.

Isn't that fairly normal? Seems like every election there's a Greens party somewhere, as well as some candidate parties (and it can be fascinating seeing the houses!). Except for some more popular candidates, who have bigger parties. One of my first Reclaim The Streets parties was officially a "throw a Spanos in the works" (the local anarchist candidate) post-election party, I think. Or pre-election, it's all a bit of a blur.

Well, I'd be even less likely to vote for Nick Leggett because he sees Nicola Young as a political soulmate. This also rather backs up the Labour party's ostracism of its former member.

Not to mention that suggesting alternates undermines the whole local politics deception of politicians who last week were party members/supporters/candidates pretending to be pragmatic independents in local politics.

I've been phone-calling and doorknocking for my party's candidates, and most of those who say they don't like party politics in local politics seem to take on board the point that it gives some useful clues as to the values of candidates with labels.

I don't know of any NZ research that might show whether there is any effect of either party or local group (like Auckland's City Vision) on voter behaviour.