The Porirua Mayoralty
October 14th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David FarrarPorirua also elects their Mayor with STV, so I figured I would also look at how their election went. There were five main candidates (and four others) – Cr Nick forLeggett, Deputy Mayor Litea Ah Hoa, former Race Relations Conciliator Gregory Fortuin, Cr Liz Kelly, former Cabinet Minister Russell Marshall and Mike Duncan.
On 1st preferences the results were:
- Leggett 37%
- Ah Hoy 18%
- Fortuin 13%
- Kelly 10%
- Marshall 8%
After eliminating the four minor candidates, it was:
- Leggett 42%
- Ah Hoy 20%
- Fortuin 16%
- Kelly 12%
- Marshall 10%
So Leggett picked up the plurality of the vote from the minors. Then Marshall dropped out:
- Leggett 45%
- Ah Hoy 22%
- Fortuin 18%
- Kelly 14%
Kelly went next:
- Leggett 52%
- Ah Hoy 26%
- Fortuin 22%
So Leggett won quite easily – and with an iteration to spare. What helped him is that he picked up a plurality of the preferences from each defeated candidate as they dropped out (except for the first two minor ones).
Leggett started off with fewer first preferences that Kerry Prendergast. But as he was not the incumbent Mayor, he was able to pick up many of the second preferences from candidates as they dropped out. This is harder for an incumbent to do, as people often rate you first or last.
October 14th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Call me finiky but isn’t Letia’s last name Ah Hoi??
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 10:11 am
DPF,
Those statistics also show that FPP would have served that particular election admirably also. (Neither the final outcome, nor any of the ‘placings’ changed under the iterative transferral of votes.)
So, in this instance at least, STV yielded absolutely nothing other than salving a few consciences.
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Good to see the majoralty was denied to the perennial trougher and Labour stooge Greg Fortuin, former Race Relations Conciliator.
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 10:54 am
@bhudson He has a far better mandate than under FPP. While the final result may have been the same (assuming 1st preferrence would have been the same) he would have had barely more than a third of the vote.
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 10:54 am
I didn’t realise that Red Russell was still able to remember his name (he has to sign the nomination), but the amazing thing is that 10% of the electorate thought he had something to offer. Talk about fleas on an old dog.
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 11:01 am
eszett,
That is an illusory mandate. The non 1 voters didn’t actually want him. The transfer of votes is simply “if you are ‘forced’ to have to give your vote to someone other than the one you actually want, which of the other options revile you less.” [The reason one is 'forced' is that if one doesn't provide options and others do, one's vote can be marginalised.]
That is not a mandate. That is tantamount to coercion.
As for Leggett – 37% was the majority vote. The next candidate only got 18%.
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 11:01 am
It’s difficult to say. People vote with the system in mind. Under FPP, some people would vote differently. With STV I can give my 1st preference to someone I like and want to encourage (but who has no chance at the moment) and my 2nd preference to one of the candidates who will actually win.
For the Wellington election I gave my first vote to Jack Yan as I didn’t like Celia or Kerry and Jack was the only other one who wasn’t a complete nutter. I then gave my second vote to Kerry as I dislike her less than Celia. I haven’t yet heard Kerry complaining about my second preference vote for her..
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 11:08 am
If they didn’t want him, they would have put him at the bottom of their preferences or left him off completely. At best you can assume they just wanted him less than they wanted someone else. Or they wanted to encourage someone (anyone!) who wasn’t a complete nutter, but also wanted a say in the real competition between the favourites.
It’s not coercion. As you noted, you can just pick one candidate and leave the rest blank. I would characterise as as “If your first choice is no-go, who would be you second choice, and so on”. What’s unfair about that?
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 11:11 am
malcolm,
“It’s difficult to say. People vote with the system in mind.”
I don’t doubt that some people do and your own example shows this. Aside from the arguable ‘majority’ STV is said to yield (by arguable, I mean genuinely representative of a majority of what people want, as opposed to what they might be prepared to live with if they have to) my real concern with STV is just how readily understandable it is to the general electorate.
It has been maintained since the inception of MMP here that it is too complex for voters to grasp sufficiently to vote to get what they really want. If that is the case (and personally I don’t find it difficult at all) then I am concerned that the promotion of STV is the promotion of a voting system that is equally confusing as MMP is claimed to be.
Given the commentary in recent days (immediately prior to and after the elections) the nuances of using STV to get what you actually want or prefer is at least as tricky as MMP, if not more so. In that case, trumpeting a preferential voting system could lead to an even more complicated system for general elections given the referenda on PR commencing next year.
[For the record, my personal preferences are to retain PR over FPP for general elections and to retain MMP over other PR systems for those elections - more because I think those other PR systems will introduce more, or greater, problems than we already have. We can live with the moderating influence minor parties have on governments' overall programmes]
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Kerry did some good things for Wellington, but her whingeing about the result was sad, unbecoming, and plain wrong.
Whatever its other flaws (and there are a few) STV (effectively preferential voting when only one person is being chosen) is the fairest system available. Kerry lost because in a straight competition between her and Celia, most people preferred Celia.
bhudson, your argument about voters being forced to give their vote to someone they dont want is a nonsense. You do not have to rank all the candidates, you can stop after ranking someone as “1″. In effect, that is casting an FPP vote. STV just gives you a second choice: it asks ”Ïf you don’t get your first choice, who is your second choice?”
It is also wrong to assume that a second choice is unwanted. You might look at five candidates and say ”I would be happy with A, B and E, but don’t want C or D.” No ranking in an STV vote can ever count against someone who you have ranked higher.
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 11:17 am
I am scared of STV. I used to call myself moderately intelligent (but retired some years ago), but the result in both Porirua and Wellington especially has left me worried.
If I am sort of intelligent, having been a corporate ceo for a number of years, what will the voters of the country do in a general election. I am not suggesting that they lack the intelligence to vote, as we have seen in Auckland, but to understand how they are voting, and the ultimate effect.
It appears to me that you only vote for those you do “”not”" want – not those who you want.
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 11:24 am
malcom,
“…you can just pick one candidate and leave the rest blank…”
If you do this your vote is marginalised compared to any and all voters who do list alternatives preferences. That is why you are ‘forced’ to select others – to ensure your vote counts for something compared to others.
I don’t think we will agree on this point and I am happy to leave it at that. (To give my example, I would vote for Prendergast as my best option out of those on offer, but have no confidence in any of the others on the list. I am therefore forced to have to assign numbers against people I don’t want in order for my vote to count. I don’t appreciate being coerced through the system to transfer my vote to people I don’t want in order to try and concoct an outcome.)
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Paulus – how could the result in Porirua leave you worried?
Leggett had twice as many votes as his nearest rival from beginning to end. STV delivered the mayor the voters clearly wanted, and actually it delivered a council that looks like the city – with an age range of 19 to 75 and mix of ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. It was an emphatic win for Leggett and a great result for the city.
The Wellington result was a totally different kettle of fish. Kerry ran an invisible lacklustre campaign – thats why she lost, nothing to do with STV.
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
@bhudson
An election is a compromise – you can’t get away from that. In terms of getting a good compromise, STV is miles better than FPP, IMHO. Typically with FPP the mayor would be selected by a minority of the voters. Voting for a non-viable candidate is your right, but after you’ve done that, would you like a say in the real competition? Another way of thinking about STV is having multiple elections until you find a candidate that the majority can live with. FPP is a pot-luck compromise. I really can’t see any good argument why FPP is ‘fairer’ or ‘more democratic’ than STV, unless you (not you personally) want to disenfranchise people who are silly enough to initially vote for a candidate who is subsequently found to be non-viable. STV also encourages people to enter the race and test a position. People can give them a nod via STV; to do that via FPP is to waste your vote.
True, but I think it’s fail-safe in that regard. I.e. you don’t need to understand how it works to vote effectively and it’s hard to vote incorrectly because you misunderstand it. All you need to know is that you should rank the candidates in order of preference. Easy. Do you need to understand how a car works to use it?
MMP is more confusing and I reckon at least half the public don’t really understand it. And a misunderstanding could lead you to cock it up. E.g. thinking the electorate vote is the important one, rather than the party vote. STV is much harder to use incorrectly, IMHO.
I like the theory of PR, but not the reality. Ultimately a government must be formed and that is an unavoidably FPP situation (i.e. the biggest group wins). PR gives too much sway to minorities. And most fatally, you seldom get a landslide government with a large majority and a clear mandate for change. And sometimes you need that.
How is that worse than FPP? Under FPP you also need to vote for someone you may dislike, in order for your vote to ‘count’. STV just give you more opportunities to get someone you like.
Interesting discussion. Thanks.
Vote:October 14th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Nick Leggett is energetic and experienced, yet at 31 is the country’s youngest city mayor ever. (Only Norm Kirk was younger, as Mayor of Kaiapoi at age 30.)
Vote:The Porirua election has also led to an amazingly diverse Council, as befits the diversity of the city. Out of a total of 14 there are 2 Maori councillors and 4 Pasifika. There are six women and councillors’ ages range from 19 (yes, Porirua also has the youngest councillor) to 75 (Ken Douglas).
All achieved naturally, automatically, democratically and without any artificial bullshit like “positive discrimination” or other political correctness.
So if Porirua can do it, surely there’s no need for special Maori seats on the Auckland council??
October 14th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
malcolm,
We definitely don’t disagree on FPP. I don’t want to go back there. (Although I admit that it I were a candidate for one of the primary protagonists, FPP can be argued to give a clear outcome to act decisively, whereas PR involves compromises.)
Personally I think MMP is very simple – give your party vote to the party you want to form (or be part of) the government. Give your electorate vote to the person you would most rather represent your area (for most people that would tend to be the same as their party, but Epsom is one example where it can work otherwise.)
Ultimately under MPP a FPP govt situation occurs (a coalition or working majority.) The minor party influence ensures compromise which represents a greater proportion of voters than just the main party (the current one works well in that respect.) The minor parties do get a level of power greater than their vote in one sense, however their desire to continue in Parliament, and in govt, helps to moderate what they do with that power. Both MP and ACT are examples of that moderation in action – both pushing certain policies, neither pushing too far to destabilise the govt or kill their future prospects.
One thing that MMP offers is ‘guaranteed’ representation of broader views. PV offers the same where you are casting votes for multiple places from what I can see. STV offers a level of acceptability as you and others have pointed out (and that is better than the old world FPP system.)
I think we can definitely agree to agree on FPP, but perhaps agree to disagree on the (new or continued) replacement.
My thanks to you also
Vote: