This is a summary of the Future for Local Government report - He piki tūranga, he piki kōtuku.
Recommendations that stood out to me were reducing the voting age for local elections to 16, implementing ranked voting (STV), and increasing the term limits to four years.
Also, not mentioned in RNZ’s summary is the recommendation that the number of local councils is reduced from 80 to about 15.
I understand that but humans will always bias from top to bottom when ranking and whoever gets the lucky draw to be near the top will get a higher ranking.
yes. All candidates (or parties) are listed. You check as many as you want. If you are indifferent you can check none or all. At the end of the day all the checkmarks are counted and whoever gets the most wins. In the case of party votes all votes for all parties are tallied and their seats are apportioned accordingly.
No everybody gets the same number of votes. You can use all or none or some of your votes. Just tick the candidates you like. Tick all the ones you like. Don’t tick the ones you don’t like. Super simple.
Print them randomly per voting paper. Not as hard as it sounds in this day and age.
There is no way this would be accepted by the general public.
No I think that would be very hard even in this day and age. It’s not like these are printed on a printer or anything, they come off of a printing press.
Why not?
Because you are giving a side a bigger share of seats if they have more parties.
Your system is called Approval voting and is generally only used for voting individual candidates, not for parties under an MMP like system because of hte potential for abuse.
You think it’s a fair system because everyone gets to vote for whoever they like. This is a nice theory. However, here’s what happens:
One party (say, Labour) registers 100 new parties and lists their candidates across them, asking Labout voters to vote for all of their subsidiary parties. Suddenly Labour voters get 100 votes, and National voters get 1. National might be the preferred government for 60% of NZ, but their 60% support only gets them 1.5% of the seats.
But of course National sees what’s happening and they register 1,000 parties! Now it swings back the other way, voting ballots have 20 pages to list all the parties. and everyone stops bothering with voting.
Only if they get the votes.
it would work even better for parties.
Are you talking about candidates? The candidate with the most votes would win. Only one candidate would win.
Or they just vote for the parties they want.
I am not, and I’m not sure how you got that impression.
It would not, because of the abuse I outlined in my previous reply
I got that impression because you used the word candidate.
You outlined a scenario where there would be an infinite number of seats in the parliament. It’s a set number and seats are divided according to votes.
When I said candidate, it was when I was saying it’s normally only used for candidate voting, not for parties like yours saying it was good for.
If you go and read it again with the knowledge I was talking about parties, hopefully you’ll see what I was getting at. It doesn’t create infinite seats, but it does create infinite votes.
Ok I addressed the party issue as well. Just like there is only one candidate that can win there are only a limited set of seats in the parliament.
The votes are tallied. The party with the most votes is allocated their seats. The party with the second most votes is allocated their seats and so on until all the seats are filled. There would have to be a way to settle ties but that’s not that difficult.
The sheets are already ordered randomly when printed - you’re arguing about t something that’s already solved
(or so I’m told! I haven’t actually compared yep voting ballots beside each other, but I understand this is already the status quo)
Personally, I’m opposed to the idea of ticking someone I only kind of like that’s in a major party, likely to get many votes - I like that with STV, the ranking is very clear
Edit: Replied to wrong comment…