Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I've heard it argued that both the 5B absolute majority and the instructions to programmers apply and to be elected a candidate must meet the most restrictive of the two slightly differing requirements
You may have heard it argued ... and it may actually make sense, reading the Local Electoral Act, but that's not how it is applied in practice. See for example the 2007 Wellington City Mayoral election (12KB .pdf).
-
The thing I am still curious about is how STV differs from the Preferential voting system using in Australian federal elections? Is it in the method used to count the votes?
The Australian Federal system uses two voting systems: STV for the Senate, and Preferential Voting for the House of Representatives.
The major difference is that STV uses multi-member constituencies (12 senators per state, although usually only 6 are elected per state in an election), and that preferential voting uses single member electorates.
When you're electing one person, STV and preferential voting are identical.
One difference between the voting systems in Australia and the STV system in New Zealand is that in Australia you have to rank everyone, or your vote is invalid.
-
What's wrong with more democracy everywhere?
Because more voting doesn't necessarily mean more democracy. That said, I don't want to diminish from your positive experiences of it and having public input into decision-making is beneficial, but I think I prefer the system where I vote for National and Local Bodies whom I can hold to account, rather than voting for the dogcatcher or Sanitation Commissioner like TV tells me they do in the US.
When you're voting for something that so few people can make any sort of informed decision about, democracy can actually suffer.
-
STV isn't proportional in the way that MMP is proportional.
In fact STV isn't necessarily proportional at all.
Well, John Cleese says STV is a form of Proportional Representation:
If a Nationwide election were conducted using STV, and everyone who supported National, voted 1 for John Key, and 2 for Bill English and 3 for Gerry Brownlee, all the way down through the National Party List, and Everyone who supported Labour had voted 1 for Helen Clark, and 2 for Michael Cullen, etc. the results would be the same as a list-based Proportional Representation election (not necessarily identical to one conducted using Sainte-Laguë, but one of the other alternatives, I forget which one, maybe Hare?).
-
(And I don't see how it can fairly be called 'proportional'- wouldn't that depend on, y'know, there being political parties involved?)
Why? Shouldn't 20% support for an individual, see the people who want to be represented by that individual be represented?
The problem with block voting for councils is that a majority can force unanimous support. You would think that when 60% of people support one group of people on a five person council, and 40% support some other people that the first lot could have three representatives, and the second lot could have two.
Under block vote, the 60% can get all of the positions. STV enables different groups of voters to be represented proportionately.
-
If elected DHBs are a good idea, why not have police boards, transport boards, tourism boards and the met service chosen by election?
A pretty good response. If my hospital isn't working well, I will hold the Government to account. The major purpose of DHBs appears to be that there will be someone for the Government to blame if things go wrong. Particularly when over half the members are government appointees.
-
I'd have done it earlier, but I figured you all knew!
-
like whether it is better or worse to number someone or not to number them. I trust you to know the law, so is that the definitive answer? If you hate someone, make sure to number all your candidates and number them last?
Yes. Absolutely definitive. I've had the debate with a lot of people (okay, like four). Some - who should know - seemed convinced otherwise. Despite knowing better, I began to question it. I thought about it a lot; Re-convinced myself; and then I emailed the STV people at the Department of Internal Affairs just to be sure; the important bit of their response:
Graeme there is no way that lower preferences can hinder the election of your higher ranked preferences.
Number everyone. Having your numbers run out is the same as not voting: you're leaving the decision up to those who do. Rank the lesser of two evils higher than the greater of two evils. This is particularly important for any STV election where you're only electing one candidate (such as the mayoral election), but it applies in multi-member elections too. Each preference is only ever used if all the higher preferences have either:
1. been eliminated and cannot possibly win; or
2. (in multi-member electorates) been elected.No matter who you rank second, this cannot hurt the chances of the person you rank first in any way. No matter who you rank 21st, it cannot hinder the prospects of the person you rank 20th. And if you want to give the best possible chance of a particular person not being elected, rank them last.
-
This week's Media7 moves on from our recent show about the Auckland Super City election campaign to look at local body races around the country.
Arrgghh. Just saw this.
STV, which the Wellington City Council uses, means that people don't have to coalesce around an alternative to Kerry to boot her out. If people who don't want Kerry vote her last, there's a good chance she'll lose.
At last last election, by the time Kerry won, on the "ninth iteration", the votes of 8436 people had stopped counting because they hadn't numbered all the way to the bottom. If instead of stopping, they'd gone the whole way through all the candidates, and voted Kerry last, Kerry probably wouldn't be mayor.
In an STV election, if there is someone you really really don't want to win, rank them last, and rank everyone else above them. It can do absolutely no harm whatsoever to the people you want to win.
-
This is all assuming that my understanding of how MMP handles independents is correct.
Tim - it appears to be. It is something that a lot of people get wrong. If anyone who does not come from a party that is contesting the party vote wins an electorate, proportionality is maintained over less than 120 seats. Independents, and candidates from parties (registered or not) that do not submit party lists, do not cause overhang.