Better options than FPP voting system

AS Warren Palmer (Letters, 13.9.22) with his mathematical expertise would appreciate, it is an inconvenient truth that naive, simple majority, firstpastthepost (FPP) voting may not serve democracy well.

Suppose 10 candidates for one position such as mayor all receive a similar number of votes but one receives slightly more. That one would be elected on the basis of just slightly more than 10% of the vote while possibly being the last choice for almost 90% of voters, leaving a highly discontented electorate.

If one candidate received more than 50% of the first preference votes, then singletransferable vote (STV) would declare them elected, but if there was no such clear winner STV would eliminate the lowest polling candidate from all voters’ ballot papers and do a recount.

This would continue until inevitably there was a ‘‘winner’'. There are rules to deal with exceptional cases such as ties.

Note that when the lowest polling candidate is removed from all voting papers, candidates ranked below that candidate will move up.

In particular, the voting papers that had the candidate to be eliminated ranked first will now have their second choice at the front; the secondranked candidate will become the first.

These voters still have influence on the outcome rather than having their voice unheard.

This also means that candidates further down your list are affecting the outcome. By putting other candidates ahead of one you consider unsuitable, you are raising their vote and depressing that of the unsuitable.

Hence a full voting paper is most effective.

When there are more positions to fill, such as when choosing 14 councillors from 40 candidates, if 14 of the candidates received all of the first preference votes, and if all those 14 candidates received the same number of votes, then they would be elected.

The successful candidates would each receive (total number of voting papers) divided by 14 votes. A slight modification of this is called the ‘‘quota’', and in general any candidate receiving more than the quota of first preferences is declared elected.

If no candidate reaches the quota, the lowest polling candidate is removed from the voting papers.

Elected candidates may receive many more first preference votes than they need to reach the quota. Under FPP, all the excess votes are wasted. Those voters need not have bothered voting.

STV splits the vote of elected candidates, retaining just enough to be elected and elevating the second choice of those voting papers they do not need.

Again, ensuring other candidates are ranked above those you consider least suitable is your way of contributing to an outcome that reflects your preferences.

The details of the method to achieve the best outcome are described in Local Electoral Regulations 2001.

(Dr) Gerrard Liddell (retired mathematician)

Dunedin

MANY people seem to be unsure of how to vote in these elections and think that they have to rank everyone on the list.

We do not need to do that. We should only vote for the people we want in — not rank all the candidates.

There is only one mayor, so our voting paper should only have one name marked on it.

If we vote for more, or rank a number of the candidates, we are only weakening our vote for the person we want.

The same with councillors. Only vote for those whom you really want on the council. Do not rank them all, or again you are weakening your vote for the person/people you want.

If you only know and like one candidate then only mark that name. E. Lyall

Mosgiel