STV upside down
It is difficult to nut out how Single Transferable Voting (STV) actually transfers the votes and the effects on voters and candidates.
Using Whanganui District Council and New Zealand government info, this is how I've sussed it.
There were seven candidates standing for position of Whanganui mayor in 2016 elections. Substituting the first past the post tick for an STV first preference, the election wouldn't have been won outright, because no candidate polled more than 50 per cent of the vote as required with STV.
The process in that case, with STV elections, is that the lowest polling candidate's name would have been removed.
The second preferences of all the electors who voted for that candidate would have then been distributed to the remaining six candidates.
This process would have been repeated - five candidates next time, then four etc, until a candidate had received more than 50 per cent of the total votes cast, and would be the winner.
Hamish McDouall with 6745 votes - 2900 ahead of his nearest rival - was the clear winner under FPP. However, under the STV system, he would have had to have another 1862 votes to reach the mandatory 50 per cent. The next candidate would have needed 4762.
But 4405 electors voted for the four lowest polling mayoral hopefuls, meaning 4405 second (and possibly third and fourth) preference votes to be distributed to the remaining candidates. Because Hamish only needed another 1862 votes, it could have been possible for Hamish to win the election at that point.
If he had won at that point, the preference votes of the 4405 electors who voted for the four lowest polling candidates would have decided the outcome of the election.
The 12,808 voters who voted for the top three candidates wasted their time and effort ranking their voting preferences.Apart from their first preference vote, the rest of their preferences were not taken into account.
I can't say what I think of STV - the editor won't let me use swear words.
What do you think? Let me know - phone me on (06) 281 3616.
JOHN CARSON
Springvale
Wrong delivery
Delivering for New Zealand sounds like something special, something good, something of value ... hopefully, something better than mediocre pizza.
But what has been delivered from National is an absolute scandal in housing availability and prices, homelessness on a scale never before seen in New Zealand, increasing inequality, and dangerous stick-in-the-mud action on climate change exacerbated by an outdated, car-oriented, transport policy.
If the National Party is proud of this achievement in less than nine years, they certainly must not be allowed to continue stuffing up more of our beautiful country.
Remember, this is the "Brighter Future" they promised New Zealand last election.
This Government has instead delivered a country a lot less than 100 per cent pure and is encouraging an accelerating percentage loss by supporting more polluted rivers, courtesy of increased stock and irrigation. And they appear deliberately blind to the connection.
To facilitate this environmental destruction they have under-funded the Department of Conservation, ensuring there is less chance of DoC disagreeing with decisions and not submitting on the Ruataniwha irrigation scheme or the seabed mining off our coast.
The "delivery" is nothing more than runoff from the bull paddock - which could be useful fertiliser if it wasn't destroying our waterways.
JOHN MILNES
Whanganui
Paying for river
Regarding the Wanganui Chronicle story about river obligations on September 4, it is my understanding that the river now belongs to Maori and it is also my understanding they received a payment.
So shouldn't it be their responsibility, not Horizons or Whanganui District Council - which is us ratepayers. Hope you get it sorted.
J M J MORRIS
Whanganui
Threat to reefs
We have a group of emotional people trying to convince us that seabed mining off the coast of Patea, my home town, will be the end of most of the species that inhabit that very large area.
Years ago I fished out there and 11 kilometres is a long way, then you have to go another 11km to be in the mining area.
The currents head down the coast and when Waipipi was in progress the conversation was that there was an estimated 250,000 tonnes of sand drifting down the coast every year, so that is where this little plume will head - down the coast and out to sea, nowhere near the reefs. The biggest danger to the reefs is the mud that goes out to sea from the rivers.
That could possibly reach the reefs and is going to become extreme with all this logging that is happening.
Bianca Mitchell should know the difference between education and indoctrination; she is using indoctrination.
G R SCOWN
Whanganui
