Opinion: Best voting system ticks right boxes

By Allan Anderson

It's a funny thing, but after every election someone finds a reason to explain why "their" candidate failed to make it.

Of recent years it has been the fashion of the political commentators (usually self-appointed) to espouse some radical change, usually on the basis that it is fairer, this reasoning designed to appeal to the innate desire for "fairness" instilled in most Kiwis. The commentators' Trojan horse usually being STV (the single transferable vote system).

The falsehood of the arguments presented by Steve Baron (Chronicle November 24, August 11) and his ilk lie camouflaged beneath the terminology they use.

In their desire to bring about change, they resort to the age-old tactic of demeaning that which they wish to change. So "discredited", "outdated", "outmoded", "unfair", "flawed" all become verbal weapons of choice - repeated ad nauseam.

While all these terms eventually burn themselves into people's brains, it is prudent to ask two basic questions:

1. What is it that voters want as the outcome to their voting?

2. Why have we got such a shambles of confusion under STV?

For Whanganui District Council, under the current FPP (first past the post system) we cast our discerning eye over the field on offer and, apart from our favourite choice, we say: "Now which 12 of this lot do we think will work together as a team for the common good?"

Then we just tick our decisions - for better or worse. Simple, clear-cut and for more than 175 years it has, generally speaking, served our community well. But now enter the academics and their convoluted, complicated STV system, touting it as "fairer".

So let's compare our own community's two systems - FPP for the Whanganui and Horizons councils; STV for Whanganui District Health Board.

2007

District Council (FPP): Informal votes 121; blank votes 489; voters excluded from the count 610.

DHB (STV): Informal votes 1745; blank votes 1022; voters excluded from the count 2767.

Fairer? I don't think so.

2010

District Council (FPP): Informal votes 144; blank votes 320; voters excluded from the count 464.

DHB (STV): Informal votes 1363; blank votes 1027; voters excluded from the count 2390.

A little better but hardly fairer.

2013

District Council (FPP): Informal votes 186; blank votes 449; voters excluded from the count 635.

DHB (STV): Informal votes 1377; blank votes 1297; voters excluded from the count 2674.

2016

District Council (FPP): Informal votes 90; blank votes 83; voters excluded from the count 173.

DHB (STV): Informal votes 1229; Blank votes 1657. Voters excluded from the count 2886.

Fair? I think not.

In each of the last four elections, more than 2000 more Whanganui voters have been excluded from the count under STV than have been under FPP.

For all New Zealand health boards (all under STV)

2007

Informal votes 100,028; Blank votes 107,478; Voters excluded from the count 207,506.

2010

Informal votes 86,357; blank votes 157,598; voters excluded from the count 243,955.

2013

Informal votes 85,832; blank votes 114,901; voters excluded from the count 200,733.

Any system that results in nearly a quarter of a million people being excluded from the process of choosing the members of their district health board should be thrown out.

So let's forget about fancy, convoluted formulae dreamed up by academics boasting more degrees than a thermometer.

STV is a rubbish system. We can be sure that Steve Hansen and his co-selectors don't use it. That's the 15 they want on the field; that's the eight they want on the bench - it is the make-up of the team that matters.

Tick the boxes - end of story.

*Allan Anderson is a former Whanganui district councillor and former Whanganui District Health Board member