I just had a look through the STV link and had no trouble understanding the fairness of STV at all. This is how it works ONLY when a single candidate will be elected. Lets start with some facts:
31,629 votes were cast.
7740 first preference votes went to Hawkins. A majority (quota) is 15815 (rounded up) so Hawkins first preference votes is well short - in fact 23,889 first preference votes were NOT for Hawkins Under FPP he would have won. Hardly fair because 23,889 voters did not vote for Hawkins - he just got the most votes in a crowded field.
So now we get to rank based on 2nd preference. How many second-preference votes did Hawkins get? Down the list we go adding in the second preference. If we still dont have someone with exceeding quota (15815 or more) we go to 3rd preference and so on until one candidate exceeds quota. Then we have a winner.
Clearly another candidate garnered more 2nd preference and lower voters than Hawkins.
While the 'first-round' leader was ultimately outnumbered, the result was fair.
Note that where a voter does not rank a candidate by preference, they presumably count as zero. For example if a voter indicates only a first preference (1) and counting goes to second preference (or more) then each candidate gets a zero vote from this voter.
This may seem complicated but it is fair and not hard to audit if it works this way. Note again that this only applies where a single candidate is to be elected.
Although I understand your objection to a system that didn’t give the win to Aaron Hawkins this time, my sentiment is that it worked to save the general populace from him. Of course, if people don’t bother to vote, they can’t moan about who they end up with.
Whilst I do agree in principle to your comments imagine the further mayhem Hawkins could have caused within the wooly headed dunedin council, this time anyway thank God for the strange system that put another intelligent person in place something they have desperately needed for a very long time
The STV system seemed to work well in Australia when I lived there in the 1970s; the chaff being gradually whittled away until each contest came down to a two-horse race. Depending on your outlook on politics, you could vote for the Genghis Khan clone or the Trotsky lookalike and still have a say in the final outcome. Of course, this was before computers got involved and it's easy to understand that they could complicate proceedings.
There's an edifying example of first past the post voting in the UK right now, where in 2024 Labour received 33.7% of the vote — hardly a win — which secured them 411 seats and a majority of 174 — a landslide. So well have they performed under the protection of that huge majority that come the next general election they will probably cease to exist.
Proportional representation in New Zealand works OK but has one gigantic flaw. A party that wins the popular vote but is short of the seats needed to form a government should be in total control of coalition arrangements. If it can't convince a minor prty or parties to support it, then a new election should be held.
This would do away with the sort of horse-trading that Winston Peters thrives on — and landed us with Jacinda Ardern in 2017.
It would also sharpen the senses of the small parties, who would know that if they refused to support the leading party they'd be tossed out in a re-run election.
Sorry I don't agree and I'm not even sure I understand the reasoning. Most voters preferred Galer to Hawkins. STV lets people vote for minor candidates without losing the ability to express a preference between the two major candidates. That seems like an improvement to me.
I just had a look through the STV link and had no trouble understanding the fairness of STV at all. This is how it works ONLY when a single candidate will be elected. Lets start with some facts:
31,629 votes were cast.
7740 first preference votes went to Hawkins. A majority (quota) is 15815 (rounded up) so Hawkins first preference votes is well short - in fact 23,889 first preference votes were NOT for Hawkins Under FPP he would have won. Hardly fair because 23,889 voters did not vote for Hawkins - he just got the most votes in a crowded field.
So now we get to rank based on 2nd preference. How many second-preference votes did Hawkins get? Down the list we go adding in the second preference. If we still dont have someone with exceeding quota (15815 or more) we go to 3rd preference and so on until one candidate exceeds quota. Then we have a winner.
Clearly another candidate garnered more 2nd preference and lower voters than Hawkins.
While the 'first-round' leader was ultimately outnumbered, the result was fair.
Note that where a voter does not rank a candidate by preference, they presumably count as zero. For example if a voter indicates only a first preference (1) and counting goes to second preference (or more) then each candidate gets a zero vote from this voter.
This may seem complicated but it is fair and not hard to audit if it works this way. Note again that this only applies where a single candidate is to be elected.
Although I understand your objection to a system that didn’t give the win to Aaron Hawkins this time, my sentiment is that it worked to save the general populace from him. Of course, if people don’t bother to vote, they can’t moan about who they end up with.
Whilst I do agree in principle to your comments imagine the further mayhem Hawkins could have caused within the wooly headed dunedin council, this time anyway thank God for the strange system that put another intelligent person in place something they have desperately needed for a very long time
The STV system seemed to work well in Australia when I lived there in the 1970s; the chaff being gradually whittled away until each contest came down to a two-horse race. Depending on your outlook on politics, you could vote for the Genghis Khan clone or the Trotsky lookalike and still have a say in the final outcome. Of course, this was before computers got involved and it's easy to understand that they could complicate proceedings.
There's an edifying example of first past the post voting in the UK right now, where in 2024 Labour received 33.7% of the vote — hardly a win — which secured them 411 seats and a majority of 174 — a landslide. So well have they performed under the protection of that huge majority that come the next general election they will probably cease to exist.
Proportional representation in New Zealand works OK but has one gigantic flaw. A party that wins the popular vote but is short of the seats needed to form a government should be in total control of coalition arrangements. If it can't convince a minor prty or parties to support it, then a new election should be held.
This would do away with the sort of horse-trading that Winston Peters thrives on — and landed us with Jacinda Ardern in 2017.
It would also sharpen the senses of the small parties, who would know that if they refused to support the leading party they'd be tossed out in a re-run election.
Sorry I don't agree and I'm not even sure I understand the reasoning. Most voters preferred Galer to Hawkins. STV lets people vote for minor candidates without losing the ability to express a preference between the two major candidates. That seems like an improvement to me.
STV is also how Wellington got Celia Wade-Brown.