Perhaps Mr Palmer never considered that these informal votes might actually be caused by using two completely different voting systems on the same voting ballot paper? One could that FPP (First Past the Post) was to blame for the informal votes.
Mr Palmer is aghast at how a candidate who gets the most votes could be defeated by the transferring of votes from unpopular candidates.
It is quite simple to understand - getting most votes could simply mean getting 39 per cent of the vote (far from a convincing majority support) as Mayor Hamish McDouall received last election. So 61 per cent of voters could think he is the worst choice ever.
Using STV, the wasted votes that were given to the worst performing mayoral candidate get another chance to count, and the second choice of those voters goes toward ensuring one candidate for mayor has the majority support of voters.
Mr Palmer quotes the United States system. Hillary Clinton did, indeed, get more votes than Donald Trump, but Trump was elected president.
I agree with Mr Palmer, that is not fair - but that is because the US uses FPP and is the reason why New Zealand rid itself of FPP in 1996 because in 1978 and 1981 the Labour Party got more votes than the National Party but the National Party won both elections.
STEVE BARON, Whanganui
Skills pay bills
Free tertiary education (as promised by Labour) robs today's poor for tomorrow's rich. Kiwi taxpayers already pay for 84 per cent of the cost of tertiary degrees.
It's not more tertiary degrees that NZ wants it's more skilled and competent workers in the manual workforce.
Beef up apprenticeship courses and bond successful achievers to NZ's workforce to at least two years.
MAUREEN J ANDERSON, Tauranga
Hair shocker
Who ever cuts Israel Dagg's hair needs to go to a hairdressing school or be sacked - a real shocker and he is not the only one.
GARY STEWART, Foxton Beach
Scary fact
An offical information response from the Ministry for Primary Industries regarding 1080 aerial spread on farms shows no withholding period required for the slaughter of livestock for human consumption.
So why is there a four-month to eight-month withholding period for deer from bush areas that receive aerial 1080?
If 1080 is so toxic for deer to have a withholding period before slaughter and consumption, then for farm animals, who have come from the same area, to not have the same withholding period before going to the works is nothing short of criminal.
MERV SMITH, Bulls
Political point
Is there a journalist or a member of the public who could tell me what the difference between political correctness and political cowardice might be?
F HALPIN, Gonville