Richard King (and many cllrs it seems) seem to have trouble understanding STV and therefore place it in the ‘too hard’ basket. Christchurch City Council back in 1917 ran an STV election (and again in 1929, 1931 and 1933). The name used then is much better than STV too, Proportional Representation. The name says it all really, doesn’t it?
A 1917 report to government gives great detail as to how they conducted the count (even providing the dimensions of the pigeonholes). By the numbers, the election was very similar to the last election in Invercargill. Candidate numbers were higher (which the author of the report points out made things harder) but even in 1917 (pre technology) the count was completed in 33 hours,
It is interesting to note that they conducted two mock counts with the help of the local newspaper (and got 6,000 votes). The author also commented that the 1917 election had larger than normal returns. The more candidates, higher turnout it seems though – look at Invercargill in 2010 (32 candidates, 23K voters) compared to 2013 (22 candidates, 17K voters).
For more current info about STV, check out the Dept of Internal Affairs page. The simplified explanation provided is:
STV stands for Single Transferable Vote. In its simplest form, STV means that voters are able to rank candidates in order of preference, rather than simply pick their most preferred candidate for each vacancy.
All DHB’s use STV (so the voters are capable Mr King) and our kids have been using it for years. Kids choose their Duffy books each year by ranking their preferences 1-4. Alan Swallow, a proponent of STV, used an excellent analogy the other day. For those who try to claim that the voters won’t be able to understand how STV is counted…”most of us don’t understand the inner workings of the internal combustion engine, but it doesn’t prevent us from driving”
As Alan pointed out, SDC have published their FPP/STV notice. They need to have 979 voters to ask for a poll on the voting method to take place (Nb: it only forces a poll not a change). Based on the 38,784 registered voters in 2013 we require 1939.2 signatures (we’ll call it 1940). Who’s up for the challenge?
This article hit home for me and the frustration toward the system is nearly as bad as the fears a parent has for their child. I have attended far too many meetings where I am having to explain Asperger’s to the ‘professionals’.
The full council agenda is out and the FPP vs STV recommendation is not even a separate item on the agenda.
I will leave it at that for now…something is out of whack I feel and need to refresh my mind (last time I read it thoroughly (LEA 2001) was 2009)
It has been a while since ICC needed a reminder about agenda but they have dropped the ball on the upcoming Finance and Policy agenda. It should have been available no later than 4pm Friday.
On a different subject – Mr Francis has popped his head above the parapet by commenting on an old blog post. Yes, I do believe the image is unprofessional, if not vulgar.
UPDATE: They have uploaded the agenda and it seems they are ensuring their policies comply with the LGA (that would be a good idea). It is also time for the FPP vs STV discussion. No surprises, the recommendation is to continue under FPP.
The Infrastructure agenda proposes dis-establishing the Sir JG Ward park (2 swings and a seat). Argyle Park is proposed to receive surplus equipment as is Slaney Street park and the Gore Street Park is to be maintained as a destination park. That’s Bluff covered whereas the collective ICC parks number 81, and they are suggesting 25 be dis-established and two new ones created. Seems like a lot to me and don’t ICC have a policy that requires a park within X?X metres of residential areas?
CITY TALK tonight at 8pm
Esler, Abbott, and Kett. Phew, don’t want Ludlow getting mugged if out walking alone. LOL, I must have a sick sense of humour…