Cr Andrew Whiley said he would welcome a petition demanding a poll on whether to shift to first-past-the-post and align with the vast majority of New Zealand councils, but some in the city needed to park their resentment over the last election’s outcome.
Some social media users had to acknowledge that Dunedin Mayor Aaron Hawkins was "elected by the residents of this city" for a three-year term, Cr Whiley said.
And the next time there would be a chance to exercise their democratic right to vote for mayor was 2022.
"Let’s get the city moving and let’s stop arguing about what happened in the 2019 election," Cr Whiley said.
Mr Hawkins said he found it hard to make a case against the current system, under which he was elected to his first term as mayor last year.
But he did not want others to use the cost of running a poll — estimated to be $220,000 — as a reason against asking voters for their preference.
"You can’t put a price on democracy," he said.
A petition is circulating in the city, promoted by the First Past the Post Working Group, seeking at least 5% of those who were enrolled to vote at the 2019 Dunedin election, or 4674 voters, to force a vote on the issue.
Chairman Pablo Dennison said many voters were struggling to understand the single transferable vote system and it was time to revisit the vote that put a stop to first-past-the-post voting in Dunedin’s city council elections in 2004.
The issue of whether the single transferable vote system — where voters use their one vote to choose candidates in order of preference, voting for as many, or as few, candidates as they like — was well understood was debated by councillors yesterday.
Cr Lee Vandervis argued as well against what he framed as bias from the council staff.
The report the councillors were considering yesterday relied only on information from Prof Janine Hayward, of University of Otago department of politics.
If council staff were not providing balanced reports, councillors could not make informed decisions, he said.
Related Stories
Comments
The DCC will want to keep STV as it has lead to some of the most 'second' rated individuals in living memory getting in. I am ready to sign this petition to put it to a vote. My suggestion is to put the signature collectors in (with permission) near supermarkets or sports venues.
"You can't put a price on democracy" says the mayor who was undemocratically elected. Democracy means 1 person, 1 vote not whatever you call STV. So DCC gets to decide the method WE use to elect THEM. If that's democracy let's just move forward to pitchforks and torches because that isn't the will of the people! Whiley is another example of what happens when the least qualified get elected. FPP is not about the past, it's about the next election.
You might need to check out the definition of "democracy". It certainly doesn't necessitate a First Past the Post system. You should have a read about how STV works so you are a little less confused - that might help you feel less angry.
Hiya Jo. The word origin of democracy means the people rule. Did you get a special invite to vote on STV vs FPP? Why change to STV? What was wrong with FPP? Seems odd to change from one syst of voting to another for no reason don't you think?DCC snuck that in with no consent from the people. So I ask, how is that people rule ie democracy?Yes there are many forms of democracy. In what form of democracy does it say you get to reuse votes over and over again? Again, I ask why? Why change how we vote without consulting the PEOPLE? People like yourself are part of the problem. Sheepeople who blindly follow the dimwit politicians without ever asking the key question...why? No second level analyst as to why it's changed? One day, DCC just changed the way we vote. As a statistician I know exactly how STV works, it makes losers winners by reallocating votes. It dimishes the seriousness of voting by giving people a second, third, forth etc chance. Jo, the value of your voice and vote in an election is diminished. As one of the sheepeople you don't care but other citizens do. Jo, surly as knowledgeable as you are about democracy you support voting for a change like this? A Vote by the people?
I’m so glad we have knowledgeable people who can simplify the complexities of the “best voting system available”. Jo, experts complain STV is that it is complicated, confusing, prone to errors and delay, and not truly proportional, and that it reduces local accountability, increases party control, and allows special interests to dominate party nominations; given this what did DCC adopt this election process? STV requires the use of a complicated mathematical formula to determine who is elected. You can choose between the Droop Quota, or the Hare Quota or at least four other alternatives, which did DCC use and why? How many “spoiled” ballots were there? Why didn’t DCC have a public vote to adopt STV? Under STV, people who vote for the least popular candidates get a disproportionate influence over who gets elected from the middle of the pack when their vote gets transferred upwards as their choices are ruled out of the running, is that really democracy? I know these are very simple issues for you, but could you clarify…please?
In a true democracy Jo, the public would be voting on the system they prefer, NOT the Council. That is what people are angry about, the choice has been taken away from them. On top of that, the council are saying they would only change the voting system if legally forced to. In that case, ratepayer money would be used to fight against the wishes of the ratepayers. Is that how you would see 'democracy working for the best? I see that as a council holding too much power and operating beyond their brief. MMP was voted in as a preferred system by the majority of the public that voted for it in 1993. Imagine, just for a moment if the NZ Govt of the time decided on the system to be used without a mandate?, the outcry would be enourmous. The outcry in this instance is reflected in the fact many people DO understand STV and aren't happy seeing their votes redistributed to other candidates. Once a 'quota' of votes for a particular candidate has been reached, the remaining votes are redistributed, potentially favouring a candidate that originally didn't have enough votes. There lays the problem Jo. And that is why so few countries now use STV and why many councils have dropped STV.
The tribe has spoken and you've been voted off the island!
What a waste of time and money. Who's idea was it to ask a STV elected council to vote on keeping the system that got them the job that gives them the right to vote on it? It's like asking a dictator if they believe in democracy! A better option would be include a referendum in the local elections every three voting cycles (almost no extra cost). The councillors have basically said that they will only change if legally forced to do so, with one councillor even complaining about the cost of the council having to check the names on any petition presented to them!
We are using the best voting system available. STV should be used for the National elections too. What this is really about is the losers of the last election looking to go back to the bad old days when their minority ruled.
It's hard to even contimplate a response to such a rediclous comment. STV turns elections into lotteries. We all loose because it's not democracy. Who gave DCC the authority to decide how we vote them into office? We're you consulted? They make the rules up as they go along! Don't be surprised if they implement rules like: "Anybody with the initials of A H who gets 3 votes is the new Mayor". Sounds silly but in essence they changed the meaning of the word vote and could do this. If they don't want crackpot candidates on the ballot you weed out the non viable candidates using petition signatures for nomination to keep them off the ballot. Equality means equally access to the ballot no equall outcomes! Also, DCC needs to implement a recall process using petition signatures to kick the mayor and concellors out of office. There is no mechanism to get rid of some of these incompetent stooges and there needs to be. Say what you want but Hawkins wasn't elected. Cull just changed the definition of vote and the process used for elections. It isn't democratic...it's a farce! He's not my Mayor! Never will be. Would you let any of them babysitt you kids? Didn't think so! I'd opt for a stranger
'Best Voting System', based on whose judgement Jo? Democracy certainly isn't being demonstrated when it's the council choosing the voting system the voters are to use. The voting public should be the ones who decide how their elected officials are chosen. It's not the system that is important, it's the system that the public choose that is important. Otherwise, we're actually in some sort of pseudo-dictatorship. A classic case of 'Nanny State', We Know What's Best, attitude to the public. In reality STV takes our choices away and turns them into something we didn't choose. Pretty simple, really. When a candidate gets the most votes, yet comes second... something is wrong with the voting system. Regardless of who that candidate is, STV does not correctly reflect the wishes of those who have voted in good faith.
This says it all really....
"Mr Hawkins said he found it hard to make a case against the current system, under which he was elected to his first term as mayor last year."
Fact of the matter, he DIDN'T have the numbers.......simple as that.
Another DCC fiasco, no surprises here then.....
Of course they did,
Did we expect bees to vote against the honey? People of Dunedin should choose not butch of individuals who came into power because of STV flaws
Once again Mr Vandervis has pointed out the simple truth. DCC management and staff ranks are seriously biased toward greens policies and opinions. It is rare to see any sensible ideas or policies come from DCC management. And that includes the previous CEO.
I can't remember the last traffic report from DCC that didn't focus on reducing vehicle traffic levels or speeds. Never any emphasis on improving traffic flow or reducing transport costs, just remove or delay traffic. That simply isn't a traffic policy.
No, DCC staffing has been steadily perverted from being a balanced impartial source of advice to council to the point where I simply don't trust anything they come out with. We can't simply blame DCC management for this. Staff appointments have been driven by mayors and councillors, in particular Mr Cull and Mr Hawkins. The new CEO could be an opportunity for an apolitical appointment, but does anyone believe that will happen?
Like asking turkeys to vote on Christmas, Dunedin people need to write Mr Whiley and his friends names down and make sure they dont get elected again.
So what give councillors the right to choose how WE vote for them? We should be the ones making that choice, as we're the ones most affected by it.