Improving Local Body Election Turnout
November 1st, 2007 at 9:09 am by David FarrarThe turnout for the local body elections was 41% of those on the electoral roll, down from 46% three years ago. This suggests a real disconnect.
One thing which may help improve turnout is to allow voting via the Internet, as Peter Griffin advocates. I certainly support this and it should be used in 2010. Those who raise security concerns should look at the lack of authentication with current voting. No ID proof needed to enrol. No proof of ID to cast a vote in person. No authentication for postal votes.
But I think the problem goes far beyond how people vote. I think it comes back to basic questions about whether people really make informed choices for local body elections, as oppossed to merely going off name recognition.
I probably follow the politics of my local city council, regional council and health board more than 99% of the population. Yet even I often am having to vote for people on the basis of how well written their 200 word official blurb is, or on a faint impression of them.
So let us look at a system which does work fairly well – electing Parliament. Why does that get a far higher turnout and reflect a better informed choice than local body? Well, partly because one is making far simpler choices, on far more information.
Basically we get asked only two things every three years. Which party do we prefer, and which which person do we want as our local MP? Now over the three year cycle there will have been a political story every day on TV, and two or three in the print press. Even the most turned off from politics person gets enough saturation to be able to have a party preference. They can use this as a candidate preference also.
Now look at what we ask for local elections? We expect people to choose not only a Mayor, but select or rank three city councillors, half a dozen regional councillors and half a dozen DHB members. Hell, if I struggle on making informed choices for all of these, no wonder so many don’t vote.
So it occurs to me the trick is to keep it simple stupid. Have smaller wards with just one Councillor per ward. People are asked to simply select the person they most want as their local body representative. That will be a lot easier for voters – most people have at least one candidate they know enough about to select. It also means the local Councillor is the sole representative for that area – so people know who to go to for assistance or issues.
Now there would be two ways to do this. Using Wellington as an example, one would split the five City wards into say 15 wards and each suburb would effectively be a ward. So I would vote for one Thorndon Councillor instead of three Lampton Councillors.
Another way would be to merge regional and local councils, and if you had one Council for Greater Wellington, then you’d have five wards in Wellington City, two or three in the Hutt, a couple in Mana, one in Kapiti and one in Wairarapa.
I’d abolish DHB elections. They’re a sham and just about deluding the public into thinking there is local control, when in fact all major decisions are made by central Government. DHBs are just fall guys.
So in my ideal system, you’d be asked to make just two selections. Who do you want as Mayor of Wellington and who do you want as the local Councillor for Thorndon/Lampton? If that is all people are asked, I predict you’ll get a significantly higher voter turnout, and just as importantly far more informed decisions.
Related posts:
- 2010 Local Authority Elections Inquiry Submission
- Voter turnout and systems
- Local Body Elections
- Local Body Elections
November 1st, 2007 at 9:29 am
David – I don’t think internet voting would help at all. Postal voting was introduced in order to get more people to vote but it has the opposite effect. Allowing people to sit at their computer to vote for 30 names when all they have to do now for the same is tick a box and post an envelope won’t help I don’t think.
I agree with you about the one councillor. I can’t see why my ward which has 1 MP needs 5 councillors.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 9:49 am
Yes, good idea.
Vote:In greater Auckland we also have to vote for the Auckland Regional councillors and often the liscencing trust as well! Like you I can vote for mayor & councillors & some community board members easily, but know very little with the other votes.
Will one single city for all of Auckland cure voter apathy?
November 1st, 2007 at 9:52 am
Ward voting works for the Waitaki District Council: one ward covering the major town and surrounding area which elects 6 councillors; and three country wards, one of which elects two people and the other two elect one each.
It seems to work for the rural bits of Dunedin but the ODT is constantly reporting frustration in the urban area where people want to be able to vote for or against candidates across the urban area not just in their ward. This is probably because the urban wards are artificial divisions and the urban bit of the city council is small enough to allow voters to know enough about people and issues throughout the whole urban area. Small artificial wards can lead to good candidates missing out because they’re competing in one ward while mediocre ones get through in other wards wehre the competition isn’t as tough.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 10:13 am
Actually without DHB elections, the nonsense about saving money by gutting local services would occur without any check. A acase in point , of blood testing diagnostics in both the Hutt Valley and Auckland. And elected people can make a difference, however much they are confronting “a system”. Some boards focus on their support for professional staff development and standards because of this. As much as governments agreeing to operate within todays global market and we still have elections at this level.
I don’t often simply say amen when Peter McCardle says anything – even if he gets my vote sometimes, but the idea that creating one super council for Wellington will actually achieve anything – yeah right. It’s just the mentality of growth by takeover – and it’s inconsistent with local accountability and decision making being made locally. It’s a truism but the cost savings made by such enlargements come at the expense of smaller areas (centralisation of Head Offices in Auckland and Australia an example) – which is why these ideas are promoted by those in centres who tax all of us locally and yet seek to dominate administration centrally.
Vote:It’s no different to the culture of all empire builders – they promise to gain power end then they betray people who are then powerless to change anything back.
November 1st, 2007 at 10:23 am
I would go with a slightly different system:
Single Non-Transferable Voting in wards. Each ward would elect around 5 councillors, but each elector would get one vote.
The council would be large – 30-40 people. But it would be the current regional councils. No DHBs, no city councils etc.
However, the councils would elect amongst themselves representatives for the DHBs (there would be 12 just like there are 12 regional councils), Police District Boards (that would have a similar mix to DHBs, and would essentially choose regional priorities) and maybe a few other boards.
It would be simpler for the voter and more reasons to vote as the one council would had more powers.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 10:28 am
There is merit in what you say David about one Councillor per ward. I know people who deliberately try and ‘balance’ their votes (left/right, gender, age etc.) and then wonder why we end up with a strange ineffectual mix. Votes for local bodies don’t really seem to matter as they all are happy to increase spending and there are no measures of their performance. Reducing numbers of Councillors or particulalry in urban areas increasing the size of Counci through merger will also make it matter more and complement the one Councillor/ward approach.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 10:29 am
What cost cutting SPC? Rates and health spending keep going up faster than inflation. It’s easy when it’s someone else’s money.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 10:32 am
What ever you do have the same system for all in your region.
In Hastings we had to tick for the District and Regioanl Councils and rank i, 2 , 3 etc for DHB. I stuffed up my papers and probably had invalid votes in all cases because of that and bet I wasn’t on my own.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 10:33 am
Missing. The. Point.
I’m not going to vote for some Auckland SuperCouncil if the candidates on offer are as piss-poor as the lot I didn’t vote to put on the North Shore City Council this time around. There seems to be a lot of hang-wringing about form and style, as opposed to a meaningful discussion around function and substance (neither of which seem to be in great supply at the moment).
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 10:40 am
I used to be religious about voting but, not being in one of the cities the media coverage of local candidates and focus on their individual policies has been lousy, they just seem to be a pack of Noddy’s interested in “community” and “togetherness” etc.
Vote:As far as I can tell none give a damn about efficient use of the ratepayers money and seem to be happy to let council staff to as they like.
When we have had people standing in the recent past advocating efficiency they have failed to get elected.
November 1st, 2007 at 11:01 am
I used to be religious about voting but, not being in one of the cities the media coverage of local candidates and focus on their individual policies has been lousy
It’s been lousy everywhere, including in the cities. Electronic media didn’t even bother, and print coverage was the most lightweight I have ever seen.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 11:01 am
The Froggies have the right idea They have a Mayor and Council for every 300 people. That way the people know their representatives.
They make decisions only and outsource the work to commercial operators on a competitive tender basis. No great paper pushing machine that we have to pay for.
Very simple very effective as anyone who have lived there knows.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 11:03 am
The Froggies have the right idea They have a Mayor and Council for every 300 people.
No wonder they are in such economic strife. The whole of France is a make-work scheme.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 11:17 am
I think more would vote if they felt their vote would actually mean something. All the time we are told how important our vote is but time and time again it seems like central and local government do as they wish anyway. Look at all the referendums held and are ignored. Look at the call for submissions, which is only window dressing to palcate the natives and the arsholes still do what they like. Look at the numbers that were against the smacking bill but of course the tossers ignore public opinon. If you want a higher voter turnout then give us democracy, TRUE DEMOCRACY not the bullshit they serve up at the moment. Many have said to me why vote it won’t make a difference, sadly I have to agree.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 11:21 am
I’ve been working up some thoughts on this and rather than repost them as a long comment, they’re over on my blog:
> LAWS179: “Improving our local democracy”
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 11:37 am
This is going to sound rather idiotic, but before being concerned about the numbers voting maybe they should actually put something up there worth voting for?
Honestly, it is difficult to tell one bag of runts from another – anyone you vote for will despite their best intentions turn up to have staying in power and screwing as much for themselves as they can at the top of their agenda. Look at Labour over the last 9 years, started off great with the noblest intentions and look at where they are now.
I’ll vote in Local Body Elections again when there’s actually somebody with a clear, workable plan and the gumption to get there standing.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 11:40 am
davemc – speak from a position of knowledge, not ignorance. France has the highest productivity of any major country.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 11:56 am
This probably runs counter to the prevailing approch which is that, because their are so many idiots on councils, don’t give them control over anything important.
Historically I think people standing for councils were of a higher caliber because councils had control over things that were more visibly important to the voter, today much of their power has been taken by central government, councilors are left with running the sewerage system and trying to find things to do that make them look important, QED only busy bodies need apply.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 11:59 am
Sam, What is your unit of measure for productivity for France?
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Great idea but Amalgamation tends to make it unworkable. Imagine if Auckland became a Super City (Actually a mega disaster) then you would have one anonymous Mayor and with a population of over a million you would need to have about 120 words to ensure you had a “local” (one per 10,000) to vote for.
Vote:120 councillors?
This is why the French have a Mayor for every few hundred people and only five water companies run all the water and sewage on competitive franchise basis.
They understand the difference between infrastructure efficiency and democratic effectiveness. Auckland needs more councils and fewer groups running businesses and planning roads etc. Quoting the large number of mayors without the small number of infrastructure companies is misleading.
November 1st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Peter McCardle would agree OS, he is all for local deals between councils to get services done more efficiently etc – but fails to see why this should mean no local democracy/councils.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 12:36 pm
As you say DHBs (and health boards) are nothing but a cunning plan to allow Central Govt to throw their hands up in mock horror/concern and blame someone else. Complete waste of time.
Also does anyone know what Community Boards do?
Valid point about not knowing councillors. Ironically they probably have more relevance to day to day life than central politics but I, like (I suspect) many take little notice or interest in it.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
The problem for those ‘splitters’ proposing more smaller Councils is that corporatisation or privatisation of the infrastrucutre providers appears politically a no-go. You would also have to re-write the LGA to limit the functions of Local Government rather than the current power of general competence (ironic, huh?). Of course that would be no bad thing. A more implementable route may be fewer councils and more community boards (which is what I think deanknight above advocates on his blog). Councils providing some economy of scale for transaction management and community boards making decisions about local priorities. Still have to get local government out of extracting rates to support poor ‘investments’ and non-core activities.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
From my observations of the French system it works well because the people all know their local reps and can speak to them one on one about problems. So those who are most effective get elected.
As I and other have said the infrastructure is way more effective than ours and French infrastructure companies are so good they run operations all over the world.
Rather than our army of useless highly paid report writing clerks the French bulk contract out to get the best service at the lowest price.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Postal voting has had the unintended consequence of making the whole democratic process anti-climatic. Voting ought to be a celebration of democracy where we exercise a right and a freedom most people don’t enjoy. Further, if you need a experiment that points to the abject failure of STV you need look no further than the local goivernment elections. Given the current level of knowledge, we should stick with FPP for local elections in the meantime. Here is my idea to get participation levels up: Combine local and national elections on the same day every three years fixed by legislation Make that day a tri-annual public holiday akin to Christmas day (i.e. ALL the shops are shut) which we make a celebration of our right to vote.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm
david Baignet – my source is the OECD http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Default.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL
- the measure is the standard one, GDP per hour worked.
France is the highest productivity of any large country, its Low Country neighbours, Ireland, and Norway are the only ones doing better
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pm
interestingly, our local body election turnout is higher than the Congressionl and Senate elections in the US (the mid-term ones) and not much lower than the Presidential turnout.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Given both parties represent big money and both candidates are probably, or soon will be, millionaires it’s hard for many Americans to see themselves being represented in the “democratic” process by them.
Here, in the local council elections it’s simply hard to see how one can make a difference – because there are no party tickets or competing programmes.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I lived in the US for two years in the late sixties and can remember most of it.
Vote:It soon became clear to me that the apparent lack of participation is because they are “democracied out”.
There is virtually never a day when you are not subject to a campaign. There are local City elections and County elections and the State elections and the States have two Houses, and a Governor election and the Federal Elections and they have two houses and the Presidential election. Then there are school boards and sheriffs elections and judges elections.
Then as if that were enough there are all the primaries. If you counted up the number of times an American city votes each year rather than the percentage in any single election I believe a very different picture would emerge overall.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I’m with GD and Owen….The French system seems so logical and the only viable answer to the current mess.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 3:52 pm
I do not think that internet voting will make any long term increase in voter turnout. In fact I am not sure if that is the goal… Are we not trying to elect people to do a specific job rather than reach a certain percentage of people doing so… The fact that people have the option or franchise to vote is not really in question here.
We either make it compulsory to vote or accept a person not voting for whatever reason; yes perhaps we can make the forms easier or more information available on the candidates but unless we set a specific target of participation, good luck to the person determining that.. we have to accept that some people do not want to vote
If you have to.. what about rewarding behaviour to get people to vote in local body elections… if you vote you go into the draw to get your rates paid for the year or discounted local body services, imagine if you could get off one free parking ticket a year !!. Or maybe you have to prove you voted to get a library card or other local body service…
Is it a better result if we force people to vote ?…
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Participation rates in local body elections has little to do with structure actually.
In Greater Auckland one could dramatically reduce the number of Council politicians and adopt single member constituencies which would aid in knowing who these Council politicians are but probably wouldn’t boost turnout. Incidentally this was tried for the Auckland Regional Authority which used Parliamentary boundaries for a while – turnout wasn’t up.
Turnout in local government (like that in the US) is actually rational. If you don’t pay rates directly you probably won’t be voting. None voting can also be used to send a political message.
In Auckland City for example leftwing voters stayed at home and by consequence decimated the leftwing elected representatives. A leftwing Council (and a tactically adopted Mayor) were an embarrassment to leftwing voters. Interestingly the numbers voting for Citizens and Ratepayers was less than the achieved in 2004 their worst ever result. Thus what we see is what we know with FPTP electoral systems – they exaggerate.
In response to my friend Owen McShane (who I usually agree with) the last thing Auckland needs is more local government. What he is representing is the subsidiary argument which says power should be exercised as locally as possible. However this power in the US is legally constrained with a culture that regards government with suspicion. That isn’t the case here.
What we need is a flatter simpler structure that is legally constrained too. The easiest way to do this is to constrain its revenue raising ability. One could also make the use of the power of general competence subject to some direction.
I also think we should be able to adopt the Executive Mayoralty model (with a deputy elected as nominated by the Mayoral candidate). If there is to be a focus on Mayoral contenders why not make it a real job rather than a figurehead one as at present.
The Council would then operate as a proper check on the administration of the City, approve budgets, senior staff appointments and make by-laws. Any serious inability to pass budgets or make appointments could result in the appointment of a Commissioner to replace either the Mayor or Council or both in EXACTLY the same manner as exists now.
We should maintain a system of local community boards and incentivise real delegation, this would allow tweaking of standardised plans and City services for local conditions. These boards should be able to impose a Board levy (upto a maximum) for local projects.
Contrast this with the current system. Figurehead mayors. Parttime Councillors who have utterly confused roles and totally conflicting duties. Fulltime staff who really run things. And Community Boards which are usually useless.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Anyway – crime not so out of control after all?
Vote:http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=603
November 1st, 2007 at 5:20 pm
No Sam. Using the old “y-axis doesnt start at zero trick might fool a few but not round here. This just shows that crime has been totally out of control under both Labour and National.
Re local body elections I agree with simplifying them and reducing further the number of representatives expecially community booards and amalgamating councils, as long as it leads to cost efficiencies, which it c ertainly did not the last time. In fact it lead to large powerful megalomaniac councils becoming a law unto themselves.
Owen McShane is right to a point that people can become sick of too much “democracy”. Contrary to what you would expect by this feeling of “too much democracy” the overwhelming feedback I got when running and helping campaign in the last elections was that the vote could not make a difference. In otherwords people believe that the elected officials are going to go on making these crazy decisions no matter who gets into power. This is despite the fact that we are “consulted” more than ever (if you consider spamming government websites with 200 page pdfs “consultation”).
The respect for politicians is extremely low because of decades of poor governance and scandal after scandal. This has lead to a crisis in recuitment and retention of top people into puiblic decision making roles, just like the non-competitive wages and conditions in the health sector have created problems with retaining our top doctors [and ultimately lead to Pete Hodgson loosing his portfolio]. Hence, in my opinion it is high time we had fewer elected officials who are paid better in order to attract top quality decision makers into these position instead of outdated ideologues, who one could be excused for thinking have gone into politics as an alternative to working for a living.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Kevin – the x-axis doens’t start at 0 only so that changes between years cna more easily be seen. Its standard practice when you want to look at trends, not gross amounts.
And crime is down 16% under labour from national, tha’ts a big deal.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 5:45 pm
…and improves local body election turnout how exactly…?
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Regarding DHBs I couldn’t agree more.
They are a pointless exercise in slowly regurgitating the Ministry’s
hot air. They are costly and delay the making of decisions.
Getting rid of them should be another (sadly – PC) unstated
Vote:National policy in the unlikely event of common sense striking the NZ
population of layabouts and scroungers.
November 1st, 2007 at 6:25 pm
the best/simplest/most effective idea i’ve seen..
to up the number of voters..
is to include a lottery component..
as in..all voters go in the draw etc..
(how about a prius..?..as a prize..?)
this idea would self-publicise..
and would not need that huge expensive advertising campaign..
with guaranteed limited results..
which is what any other idea outcome will be..
keep it simple..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Sam I see on the NZ Herald site you’ve been getting a bit excited about the DNA testing. The Herald asked for your opinion, not 10 of them? You like your in election mode already trying to convince Joe Public of the evils of the right wingers. I hope you get smashed one day and the attacker gets off on a technicality or lack of evidence. What a wanker!
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Everybody (who pays them) is suffering from a combination of rates fatigue and rates rage.
Vote:Too many jobsworths standing for all these different layers of management.
Lets take Auckland for an example.
Discard the regional council, amalgamate all the councils from longbay/albany through to papakura.
Elect 20 councillors for the entire isthmus and make them the defacto chair of their area with 4 community members for each.
mayor to be elected by the 20 councillors in the same way that the PM is effectively elected by their sitting mp’s.
Have one large head office with small service centres for each corner of the isthmus.
There you go, who needs a royal commission. I have just saved hundreds of millions of dollars in costs.
Tomorrow readers I will solve the rate rort. a little hint… It is called poll tax.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:12 pm
You like your in election mode already trying to convince Joe Public of the evils of the right wingers.
Can’t be done.
As you may have heard Hamilton local body elections are the indicators for the general election. Last local bodies saw a equal split between left and right and a very close genaeral election.
This year saw a complete clean out of socialist members. gone burger,
Vote:haere ra, fa. This will be reflected in next yrs general election.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Bollox Sam. The lower crime rate is due to a fall in “crimes of dishonesty” Violent crime continues to climb out of control. That is why even Labour has to continue to take it seriously against the wishes of their own lefties.
The academic pontificators like Kiro and the wealthy top of the shelf lawyers harvesting the system like a carefully cultivated vinyard will never tackle serious violent crime until it happens to to them.
Barnsley if only it was that simple! The Auckland rates have blown out of control AFTER amalgamation – like 400% in less than 15 years – at least twice the rate of “inflation”.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Sam would suggest that the student in Newton that was hospitalised deserved the bashing. If you have no intention of commiting a crime then whats the problem. I’ll volunteer mine now.
Vote:November 1st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
I agree with David. The current Ward system for Wellington City Council is broken – the large “Wards” have no community identity at all, and voters are presented with meaningless lists of candidates of which they must pick three. Candidates to garner votes resort to attention grabbing pranks to gain name recognition over having to actually represent a community and implement local solutions. At a candidates’ meeting, none of the candidates had a clue about local issues like how a particular road needs widening, or how traffic lights at an intersection need improving – instead the candidates mouthed idiotic platitudes about making Wellington a first-class city. The current system is not accountable and it is not representative. It would be much better to have the Wards based around the principal suburbs, with only one councillor per Ward.
And Sam Dixon: Violent crime has risen under Labour by 33%.
Vote:November 2nd, 2007 at 1:37 am
toms – Great idea, but let’s make it at least 4 years. We elect our national government too often and it makes them overly reactive and populist.
Vote:November 2nd, 2007 at 1:41 am
Sam Dixon – Kevin was talking abut the Y axis. Not starting at zero inflates the visual effect of the difference, so it looks like crime is approximately halved under Labour rather than being 11/12ths the same.
Also, it implies rapid and total government impact… whereas crime under National was undoubtedly related to Labour’s policies in the 1980′s and crime under Labour is also related to National’s policies of the 1990′s.
Vote: