Lots of people have responsibilities that make attending an early evening meeting difficult or impossible.
Having the option to watch via video from home or at another time opens up the opportunity to participate to a wider audience, which can only be good.
In the candidates' meeting three years ago, I reckoned I was one of just five people under 60 in the packed War Memorial Centre concert chamber. I applaud the civic-mindedness of the older generation who show up for such events; it's also great to hear it was a more diverse crowd this time.
It is disappointing that some candidates declined to attend.
I'm struck by the digital divide in this campaign. Some candidates have no online presence at all; others are working social media hard. Yes, there appears to be a generational divide at work.
Online technology can be massively disruptive and I am curious to see what effect it may have in this election. There may be some surprises. Then again, perhaps there won't. A lot rests on whether "likes" on Facebook translate to votes on electoral papers.
Other factors are at play. There's a lot of concern about the wastewater treatment plant and the burden on rates, which I think some candidates are cynically manipulating.
Some disturbing findings can be found in Statistics NZ research on why people don't vote. A mere 5 per cent of people aged 65 and over did not vote in the 2011 general election; that compares with 42 per cent of people aged 18-24 years.
People who are unemployed and/or living in poverty are also much less likely to vote for a range of complex reasons. And so the democratic process is eroded.
The people who vote have a tendency to vote for people like themselves, whether because of unconscious bias or outright prejudice. The few candidates who are allied with under-represented groups often aren't elected, because the people most likely to vote for them are less likely to be enrolled or to vote.
Voting for someone because you recognise their name is not a good reason, although it's widely believed in local body politics that name recognition is extremely important.
This effect also benefits sitting councillors.
Having gone to school with a candidate, or played on the same rugby team, or your next door neighbour worked with them 10 years ago; these aren't good reasons to vote for someone either.
Do vote - and encourage people you know to vote - but make an informed vote.
In all this, the election for Horizons has been sadly overlooked. We have four candidates for two seats to represent the Whanganui constituency but no public meeting at which we can hear their ideas (the Horizons' candidates are invited to speak to the Wanganui Vet Club next Friday, along with Whanganui council and mayoral candidates, but this is a private meeting for members only).
I don't think enough people appreciate the importance of the regional council. Of the big, controversial land-use issues - unconventional oil and gas exploration (eg fracking), water use, water quality, agricultural intensification - these are all challenges for Horizons to address, much more so than our district council.
Let's not lazily lapse into "them and us" thinking about these issues. It can't be about farmers versus townies, after all, we all like to eat. But the management of rural land has far-reaching implications throughout the region, in urban areas as well as country, and I don't think the election of regional councillors should be left to rural voters.
I'm still reflecting on the interaction I witnessed at the market. Why do people "not care"? What would have to change to make disinterested voters care enough to make an informed vote?
-Rachel Rose is a writer, fomenter and gardener.
