Dialogue: Proposed system offers fairer voting alternative

Legislation that could lead to fairer local elections and more representative councils has passed its first reading in Parliament. ROD DONALD* outlines the case for change.

The purpose of the Local Elections (Single Transferable Vote Option) Bill is to provide an alternative voting system to first past the post at local body level.

A crucial word in the bill's title is "option." The bill will not require councils to adopt STV, but it will give territorial authorities, regional councils, licensing trusts and their communities the choice to change.

STV was described as the thinking person's proportional representation in the 1992 electoral referendum. Although it scored only 17 per cent compared with MMP's 70 per cent, it still beat first past the post.

MMP is the best voting system for Parliament, but STV is preferable for local bodies because it works well whether candidates are independent or in parties. STV is fairer than first past the post. It is designed to ensure that all significant viewpoints are represented in proportion to their level of popular support.

In contrast to first past the post, where the largest voting bloc can often win all the seats with a minority of votes, STV gives significant minorities, whether ethnic, geographic or issue-based, a fair go. Because more votes count, the level of wasted votes is reduced and, because voters get what they voted for, it encourages higher turnouts.

STV encourages positive voting. Under no circumstances can a second preference reduce the chances of your first choice winning. In contrast, under the present multi-member ward system, you are faced with tactical voting choices. It is quite possible that the vote you cast for your second choice could be the vote that defeats your first choice. This could never happen under STV.

Best of all, STV is simple to use. 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."

And that's it for the voters. It's not difficult or scary. What happens after you vote is more complicated but that's the returning officer's problem and computers have taken a lot of the hard work out of the STV count.

Deciding who wins seats with STV is also straightforward. A quota is calculated to determine the number of votes a candidate needs to win a seat.

For a mayor or in a one-seat ward, it is just over 50 per cent of the vote. In a two-seat ward it's just over a third of the vote. In a three-seat ward it's just over 25 per cent and so on.

If no candidate reaches the quota in a one-seat ward or mayoralty contest, the lowest-polling candidate is eliminated and the second preferences of those who voted for that candidate are reallocated. Bottom-polling candidates drop off until one wins an absolute majority.

A similar procedure applies in multi-member wards. The extra feature is that if an elected candidate wins more votes than they need, the surplus is transferred to other candidates in proportion to the voters' subsequent preferences. This process not only ensures that all votes carry an equal value but it helps to deliver a proportional result.

The procedure for adopting STV under the bill is just as straightforward. In the year before a local-body election, a council can resolve to change to STV. By collecting signatures from 5 per cent of enrolled voters the public can also demand a referendum on STV.

Once STV is adopted, it stands for the next two elections.

If you are thinking, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" I would argue the present system is very definitely broke.

As Graham Bush, former associate professor of political science at the University of Auckland, says, "If there is one voting system worse than single member first past the post, it is multi-member first past the post."

All too often we wind up with minority mayors and unrepresentative councils.

At the 1998 local body elections, in the 54 mayoral contests where there were three or more candidates, 40 of the winners were elected with less than 50 per cent of the votes, 24 of these with less than 40 per cent and 4 of these with less than 30 per cent. In Napier only 24 per cent of the voters supported the winning candidate.

Elections for councillors also produced distorted results. In 1998, the Wellington Alive Team won 39 per cent of the seats with only 33 per cent of the votes. Fifteen of the city's 18 councillors were elected with less than half the vote and, as a consequence, a huge 62 per cent of the votes across the city were wasted.

STV is used widely in Australia - for the Federal Senate, for some local bodies and for the lower or upper houses in most states.

STV is also used for all public elections in both Ireland and Northern Ireland and has just been recommended for local-body elections in Scotland.

The introduction of the bill is timely. While Local Government New Zealand is endorsing STV as a viable option for local authorities and the Government has signalled it will be an option in its new Local Election and Polls Bill, STV would not have been available until the 2004 elections. Now councils and communities can tell the select committee considering my bill they don't want to wait that long.

The Government is also considering the introduction of optional Maori constituencies for councils. While I support the intention, STV offers a better way to improve Maori representation at local-body level without some of the drawbacks of separate Maori wards. STV will also offer improved representation for other significant ethnic minorities, particularly Pacific Island communities. The Maori Constituency Empowering Bill does not.

Strong support for the first reading of the bill (an 81 to 39 vote) confirms that most parliamentary parties are committed to voter choice, fair representation and enhancing democracy. It is now up to voters to make the most of this opportunity.

* Rod Donald is the Green Party co-leader.