Their chances would be better if the ballot was confined to voters who take an interest in public business.
Mass voting drives probably do more harm than good. There is a woman on the North Shore whose regular success at elections amazes anybody who has heard her at a public meeting. She knows how to make news for the suburban freesheet and I assume her name rings a bell when voters are looking through a list of strangers.
Nobody should feel obliged to vote. It is the opportunity that matters.
The opportunity is enough to ensure those elected will pay attention to voters' needs.
Those who lament a low turnout will say that the opportunity is not real unless exhaustive efforts are made to ensure everyone knows an election is on and it is important that they vote. Well, up to a point. But if somebody is so tuned out that they practically have to be coerced, what value is their vote?
It would be nice if society was one big civics seminar, but it is not. Local government is not an arresting topic of conversation unless something is going seriously wrong. A low turnout is more than likely a sign of satisfaction.
If Len Brown is returned on a low vote today I will not be questioning his mandate. He has done well enough to have no strong challenger. Were he to be defeated by some extraordinary twist, it could be on an ignorant vote like mine. Having voted for people I know for the council and local board I picked a complete unknown for mayor who said he would put Ports of Auckland back on the sharemarket.
I shouldn't have done it. The port has performed abysmally since the former regional council bought full ownership and it I think it is important to Auckland and the national economy that stronger commercial pressure is brought to bear. But no issue is more important than the calibre of a candidate. For all I know I could have voted for a clown.
That can happen when even a careless vote is encouraged. If public interest in local government is steadily declining, I'm not surprised. The decline can be attributed to the severely limited power that elected councils now possess.
They are supposed to operate under a modern notion of "governance" that says matters of policy should be strictly separated from the provision of services. It was disingenuous of Local Government NZ to cite water supplies, roads, drains and other essential services as a reason to vote. "Governance" gives elected representatives very little say over them.
Elected representatives make policy and council officers make decisions of detail. To see what policy means, read as much as you can bear of an Auckland Council planning document. Elected people are required to read a lot of plans.
Policy-making means they get to decide that water should be clean, drains should be sufficient for future demand, streets should be well maintained, trains should run on time, heritage should be protected and the like.
If they want to do anything about these things they are intruding on operational decisions that staff are supposed to make. If you are worried about a particular water main, drain or the condition of a street, the best your elected representative can probably do is mention it to the chief executive, the sole gate keeper to the organisation. Officers are answerable to nobody else.
This is why the concrete issues and intense arguments that used to put council members in the news are seldom heard any more. That is why elections no longer attract much interest. The wonder is that anybody stands.
