These letters to the editor published in the New Zealand Herald and North Shore Times Advertiser may give some ideas for writing letters to editors of your local newspapers.
Kim Walker — New Zealand Herald, August 2nd
Your contributor, Mr Rudman (Rudman's City), can't grasp STV and yet all Australians and people who have voted in Australia in the last 10 years understand it, love it, use it and find it appalling that it is not used here. Australians know it as a preferential system. The voter rates candidates according to their preference. The preferred candidate wins. Hey, Australians write numbers even bigger than a hundred. Mr Rudman's insinuation we couldn't, is an insult first, and second a measure of his own intelligence which perhaps explains why he can't grasp it. Our voting population has shrunk because our system is only democratic when two candidates stand.
STV is successful because candidates stand on their merits and whoever is most preferred by the electorate, wins. A candidate doesn't negotiate a Left or Right exclusive ticket in a back room, the electorate decides. So people vote because it counts. The principal is very simple. Who needs a referendum?
All New Zealand's main centre mayors are unwanted by the majority of the voters in their electorate. They will not easily shift to a system that will see them dumped, as they would be in Australia. For example, John Banks would not be mayor of Auckland under STV as neither Matt's nor Metiria's supporters preferred him.
Elections in Australia, and there are twice as many as we have, eg local councils, state legislature, federal parliament, and the Senate, are not expensive. We could have their electoral offices cost the procedures to be used here, so these unwanted mayors can't present a fudged cost as an objection. Rejecting STV because of ignorance, misrepresenting its cost, and insulting our intelligence, is disturbing.
Lynne Serpe — New Zealand Herald, August 16th
I was pleased to read Keith Rankin's editorial on how STV voting deserves a fair trial at local government level. How disappointing that on 25 July the Auckland City Council voted against switching to STV -- almost two months earlier than it needed to make a decision. The Council even voted against an amendment which would have allowed for public consultation up until the September 12th deadline.
So there is really only one way for STV to get that fair trial: a binding referendum where the voters decide.
During an oral submission to the Auckland City Council where I spoke about the benefits of STV, I was asked "What is in it for me?" by more than one Councillor. They did not seem interested in the fairness and simplicity of the system. They did not seem interested in giving voters a greater choice and having a Council more representative of those who vote. They did not seem interested in having a majority Mayor.
Auckland City residents should start signing the petition calling for a referendum being circulated throughout the city. Let the voters choose — not the politicians just interested their own survival at the polls.
Stephen Todd — New Zealand Herald, August 16th
Under STV, the surplus votes of successful candidates and the votes given for excluded candidates are transferred strictly in accordance with the voters' wishes, as expressed on their voting papers. In no way will a vote be transferred to a candidate whom individual voters have not marked with a preference number.
In addition, votes are not transferred to lower choices until the fate of the higher choices have been settled, either as elected or excluded. It is this feature of STV that gives voters the confidence to vote for whom they truly want, not for whom they think will win.
STV eliminates that scourge of democracy, the tactical vote, and ensures that as many voters as possible are represented by someone they helped to elect. As time will tell, STV is fairer to both the voters and the candidates who put themselves forward at elections.
David Parker - North Shore Times Advertiser, 3 September
Dear Editor
The North Shore Times Advertiser (27 August) says that the "proposed new STVNvoting system ... is turning out to be a big yawn for North Shore residents."
Well the attendance at the meetings certainly has been tiny. But does your
conclusion follow from this?
These meetings are not designed to make the decision on the voting system the
Council will adopt. They are not even designed to gauge public opinion on the
relative merits of First Past The Post (FPP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV)
voting systems, as your report would tend to suggest. They are, according to the
Council's own leaflet, intended "to help you understand the difference between
the two voting systems".
So the fact that hardly any one has turned up for the information meetings might
simply mean that the difference between the two systems is very easily
understood. Anyone who is interested in the subject doesn't need to give up an
evening when reading the Council's leaflet only takes about two minutes.
There is no big mystery about STV. Quite simply, STV delivers a Council that
better reflects the wishes of the voters. STV is as easy as 1, 2, 3.
Regards
David Parker
