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.
because each of those parties only got one vote.
The total votes would get counted for each party as before. If two of the national voters also voted for labour and one labour voter also voted for national there would be a tie and the tie break process would be invoked. Presumably since there are enough seats to accomodate both parties both parties would get equal seats because they got equal percent of the votes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting#:~:text=Approval voting allows voters to,consider to be reasonable choices.
This page basically says that this is only used for finding the most popular candidate (e.g. voting for a Mayor or Pope). There is no example that I can find on how you might take the votes from an approval voting system and assign seats in a parliament from those results.
Ok, let’s step away from my example where I’m trying to show abuse, and instead look at a normal looking vote.
100 voters. 5 political parties: Greens, Labour, NZ First, National, Act.
This means there are:
There are 137 votes total cast by 100 voters.
Let’s say there are 120 seats like in our parliament. How do you allocate the seats to the parties based on the above votes?
I explained that to you.
Right now we apportion the seats according to percentage of the vote. We would do the same thing.
you take the total number of votes and the votes each party got and you apportion seats according to what percent of the total they got.
Same as we do now.
You threw me off by telling me in my other example that rhere would need to be a tie breaker for third. Why? Lets assume there are 190 seats. If we apportion by votes, doesn’t this mean National get 50 seats, Labour gets 40 seats, and the 10 Legalise Marijuana parties get 10 seats each?
Honestly at this point there is no sense in continuing this conversation because you just willfully misunderstand what is being said. Party votes are decided on a percentage of the votes basis and that will not change. There will be threshold and that will not change. It’s just that you don’t “waste” your vote because you can give your vote to more than one party and they will get a percentage of that vote. It’s as simple as that.
You continually, willfully, dishonestly, and maliciously present ten parties as somehow consolidating or trading their votes to combine them and that’s just dishonest. Each party will get a percentage of the total votes. They are not allowed to add them up and say “see we now have enough votes to get more seats”.
I’m sorry, you seemed willing to explain and I genuinely do not understand why my concerns aren’t valid (though you have certainly done your best to try to explain it so thank you for that). I suspect I may just not really get it, but the approval voting wikipedia page just assumes it’s only used for picking a top candidate so doesn’t help at all. I even tried getting chatGPT to explain it to me but it told me:
I apologise if you got the impression I was faking stupidity, I assure you it’s genuine.
We apportion seats according to percentage of votes casts. We would use the exact same method. Why is this so confusing to you? Count the votes cast, count votes for the party, take a percentage. You continually keep saying that the “sub parties” will be able to transfer their votes to the “parent party” and allow the parent party to get more seats. That’s not allowed now and it won’t be allowed under this system.
So yea I don’t believe that you are genuine at all. I think you are wilfully and disingenuously misunderstanding something I keep repeating over and over again.