Introduction
We strongly support the adoption of STV for the 2004 local body elections. STV is widely regarded as a voting system which provides for significant viewpoints to be represented in general proportion to their level of popular support. It works equally well where there are organised parties or opinion groups, where all the candidates are independents or where there is a combination of both.
This submission particularly focuses on the advantages of STV for Porirua and addresses any perceived disadvantages.
Advantages
Representation of minorities
Porirua's population is 20.5% Maori and 23.7% Pacific Island ( City Profile, May 2002). Under our current FPP system we have one Maori councillor (7% representation) and 2 Pacific Island councillors (13% representation). Maori and Pacific Islanders are therefore underrepresented.
STV can be expected to increase the representation of Maori and Pacific Islanders. This is because candidates are elected as soon as they attain the STV quota through first or subsequent preferences (see page 26 of STV taskforce document). In a ward electing five councillors, the quota would be just over 16.6% of the valid votes cast. In a ward electing 3 councillors, the quota would be just over 25%. Therefore a candidate with strong (ie: lots of first preference votes) but minority support can be elected before a candidate who is say, the third preference of a larger number of people.
Better reflection of voter's wishes
Under FPP and under the current Porirua City wards voters have either 3 votes or 5 votes depending on which ward they live in. Each of these votes is of equal value, despite the fact that you are unlikely to feel equally strongly about each of the candidates you vote for. Under FPP there is also the risk that your vote for your second or third preferred candidate might end up defeating the candidate you prefer most. Therefore, if you feel really strongly about one candidate, the best thing to do under FPP is to only vote for that candidate.
Under STV, you're able to rank candidates in your order of preference, and under no circumstances can a later preference count against an earlier preference. So the voting system much more accurately reflects your wishes. There is no need for tactical voting.
No splitting of the vote
Under FPP, if two candidates stand each representing the same minority opinion or grouping they risk splitting the vote between them and thus neither of them being successful.
Under STV, voters of that minority grouping or opinion, could rank these candidates 1 and 2 and the votes of the least successful of the two candidates would be transferred to the other candidate, giving them the potential to be elected.
In Porirua, this has reduced the number of people putting themselves forward for election, because of the risk that they would split the vote with other like-minded candidates and therefore, that none would get elected. Therefore, under FPP have been presented with a more limited choice of candidates. Under STV, there is the potential that more people will put themselves forward as candidates giving voters a wider choice.
Majority Mayors
Under FPP, as soon as there are three or more candidates for the Mayoralty there is risk that the successful candidate will be elected with less than 50% of the vote. Under STV, the winning candidate must receive over 50% of the preferences. In Porirua the last time more than two candidates stood for the Mayoralty was 1995. In that case John Burke was elected with just 41% of the vote.
It's interesting to note that STV has somewhat different effects for electing one person than it does for multiple people. For multiple people, as described above, it will help ensure that minorities get represented, where the larger the number of seats, the smaller the minorities that can get represented, although not out of proportion to their size. However, when using STV to elect one person such as a mayor, STV will tend to result in the election of a "middle of the road" person that may not have the greatest first preference support, but will have some level of support from most people. So we are most likely end up with a mayor that most people are at least comfortable with.
Perceived disadvantages
Voting too complicated?
The directions to voters are clear and straightforward. All you have to do is rank the candidates in order of preference on the ballot paper.
As the voting instructions in the bill explain, "You vote by placing a 1 beside your first-choice candidate, a 2 beside your second preference, a 3 beside your third preference and so on. You may express as many or as few preferences as you wish."
What happens after you vote is more complicated but just as we buy Lotto tickets without knowing how the Lotteries Commission computer works, we can use STV without understanding the counting process.
Millions of voters in Ireland and Australia have taken part in STV elections and not found it too difficult. In cases where STV has been experimented with in mock-ballot surveys in Britain, the respondents appear to have had little difficulty in mastering it.
We also note that as the DHB elections will be using STV, voters will be having to use the STV system of voting in any case.
Regional Council decision
The Regional Council has recently made a decision not to adopt STV for the 2004 election. This might be seen as a reason for the Porirua City Council to also take this position. However, the Regional Council decision is based on the fact that they have constituencies which only elect one or two members and under these circumstances STV's effectiveness in providing proportionality and diversity of representation is reduced. STV is regarded as working best with wards from 3-9 members. Given that we have 3 and 5-member wards, the Regional Council's reason for not adopting STV is not a good reason for the Porirua City Council not to adopt STV.
Cost
The STV Taskforce has estimated that for a local authority the size of Porirua the indicative extra cost of running an election under STV will be just over $20,000. We submit that this is a minimal extra cost in order to adopt a voting system that is fairer and provides better representation for minorities.
Practicalities
Presumably, the Council will once again seek to contract out the management of the election to a specialist contractor who will most likely be running other STV elections at the same time. The Department of Internal Affairs has developed STV counting software which must be used under the Local Electoral Act 2001 so there is no need for the Council to develop its own software. The Council will also be required to be involved with the DHB elections which must use STV. Therefore, there are no practical reasons why STV cannot be adopted.
Conclusion
The Mana branch of the Green Party strongly supports the adoption of STV for the 2004 Porirua City Council election. We wish to make a presentation to the Finance and Administration Committee in support of this submission.
