Full Results for Wellington City Council

October 29th, 2007 at 2:52 pm by David Farrar

Wellington City Council has now put online the full results for its STV counts. Starting with the Mayoralty:

Kerry Predergast got 34.9% of first preferences. Now thatmay not sound much but in second place was Ray Ahipene-Mercer who had a mere 13.5%. Now what happens as the losing candidates drop off.

When Nick Kelly dropped out, the biggest beneficiary was Helene Ritchie who got 12.3% of his 988 votes, along with Carl Gifford. John McGarth dropped out on the 5th iteration and his 3,473 votes went most of all to Kerry who got 21.7% of them with Goulden picking up 14.% and then Ahipene-Mercer 10.4%. That is quite logical – mainly CR vote staying on the CR.

Goulden drops out 6th and his support splits almost four qays equally. Kerry gets 15.5%, Ahipene-Mercer 14.9%, Ruben 14.8% and Papperell 14.,5%. 10% went to Ricthie and 31% went nowhere (no further candidates ranked).

Ruben drops out 7th and Pepperll picks up 23.7% followed by Ritchie on 16.6%. Kerry gets only 11.1%. Again very logical.

Finally Ritchie falls out and 23.4% of her vote goes to Pepperll, 19.8% to Ahipene-Mercer and 17.7% to Kerry. 39% exhausted their ballots at this stage.

In the final iteration Kerry is left with 51.0% of the remaining vote, Ahipene-Mercer with 25.4% and Peperell with 23.6%. The vote share for Kerry Predergast and Ray Ahipene-Mercer at each iteration was:

34.9% to 13.5%
35.2% to 13.8%
35.6% to 14.1%
26.2% to 14.5%
37.0% to 15.3%
39.3% to 16.3%
41.7% to 18.1%
44.7% to 20.5%
51.0% to 25.4%

I don’t have the data on what would have happened if they needed a 10th iteration, with Peperell dropping out also. But looking at the other iterations, I think it would have been at least a 60% to 40% result.

Tags: Local Body Politics

This entry was posted on Monday, October 29th, 2007 at 2:52 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

13 Responses to “Full Results for Wellington City Council”

PaulL (5,235) Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Off topic, but. Do you touch type DPF? I note occasional typing mistakes that look like hunt and peck errors. The CBT that taught me to type was the most useful thing I learned at university…
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
PaulL (5,235) Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
PS: that comment related to the votes being split between four gays, who I then realised were qays, which was a mistyping of ways…

If you are using firefox there is a spell check option on the advanced page – spell check as I type. I used to have a plugin that did this, it appears that it went away last time I upgraded and got replaced by a native feature.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Graeme Edgeler (2,979) Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Interesting that on first preferences Jack Ruben and Robert Armstrong came in the top 3 in their wards on first preferences but weren’t ultimately elected (the other wards didn’t change through re-distribution).
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
David Farrar (1,754) Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
That was typed up in a Koru Club so I didn’t have the inline spell check for Firefox I normally have.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Andrew W (1,629) Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
It looks like people in Wellington are bright enough to cope with the claimed complexity of STV.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Tina (687) Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Did Chrisy Laids get a guernsey?

Sounds like the little bastard is off the teat for a while.

Good job WLG.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Sam Dixon (630) Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Andrew W – what tells you that about these figures?

We see that STV produces very few different results than if it were an FPP election (where 1 preferences are taken as FPP votes) and we see that informal votes are low but higher than under FPP in local elections.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
PaulL (5,235) Says:
October 29th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
People deal with the complexity – they fill something in. The fact that they voted tells us nothing.

As to whether it gives a “better” result than any other electoral system would be a good question.

If we care about a nice clear result, and people coalescing around middle of the road pleases everybody policies, then FPP is better.

If we care about all viewpoints being represented in proportion to their vote share, and in minority and otherwise alternate candidates, then MMP does a pretty good job. If we don’t like party lists, and parties having control (perhaps also as subtext meaning that we don’t like the minority or otherwise alternative candidates) then MMP isn’t better.

If we like to weaken parties, have something approximating proportionality, but still want candidates to have to demonstrate a local support base, then STV with multi-candidate electorates seems to be better.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Andrew W (1,629) Says:
October 30th, 2007 at 7:21 am
“If we like to weaken parties, have something approximating proportionality, but still want candidates to have to demonstrate a local support base, then STV with multi-candidate electorates seems to be better.”

Yep that’s my preference in a nut shell.

I get the impression that Labour party supporters are those most in favour of MMP and FPP over STV, this is no doubt a result of there liking for a strong party to control MP’s, and a belief that Labour party supporters are the ones most likely to stuff up their voting forms under STV.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
PaulL (5,235) Says:
October 30th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Maybe. I like MMP, don’t like STV much. I’m definitely not a Labour supporter. I don’t really understand what people have against lists – if you are supporting the party surely you also support their list? If you don’t like the list, don’t support the party.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
Andrew W (1,629) Says:
October 30th, 2007 at 9:18 am
I don’t like any system that strengthens the organisations ability to subjegate the individual, whether it’s compulsory unionism, a market monopoly or party lists.
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
philu (13,393) Says:
October 30th, 2007 at 10:16 am
how can we possibly care about local government in wellington..

when we have three years of banks to look forward to/dread..

the various vultures/sharks..and other unsavoury creatures that cluster around rightwing administrations..

..can scarcely believe their luck..

the cit-rats/banks are back..!

it’s party time again..

i wonder just how long it will be before banks rips off his latex caring/sharing/gentle mask..?

and shows the inter-generational asset flogger-offer who lurks underneath..

and how about that bhatnagar-guy..eh..?

and those poxy/vile erin brokovich ads..eh..?

he has to shoulder some responsibility for them..eh..?

tho..y’know..i can see his mindset cynically crowing about the ‘coup’ in snaring an ‘enviro-hero’..

..to help them flog their whitegoods/stereos etc..

that has to be the lame-arse advertising/marketing decision of these..the zero years..eh..?

textbook stuff..!

phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote
PaulL (5,235) Says:
October 30th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Bit early in the day to be that incoherent isn’t it Phil?
Vote: 0 0 You need to be logged in to vote

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Kiwiblog