Auckland Council Elections 2013 - Voters lost...again.

I've added up all the (preliminary) votes returned for the 20 Auckland Council seats in the 2013 election. My publicly available spreadsheet can be found here. If you're interested, I did the same thing in 2010.

The main features from my point of view:

Un-elected Councillors

• Auckland now has 3 unelected Councillors: Dick Quax and Sharon Stewart in Howick Ward and Cameron Brewer on Orakei Ward. 

They were acclaimed, as no one stood against them. Thanks to First Past the Post operating the way it does, no one saw any point in wasting their time. Which is interesting because in 2010, 52.5% of votes - a majority - returned were not cast for either of the two acclaimed in Howick Ward in 2013. Had we been using some other voting system, other people may have seen it as worthwhile to give the voters of Howick and Orakei Wards the chance to support someone else. But under First Past the Post...voters in these two wards didn't get that chance. Readers may recall Howick was the ward that elected Jamie-Lee Ross in 2010, only to see him resign soon after to run for parliament in Wellington. Dick Quax polled third in 2010.

Had I realised these two wards wouldn't get to vote for Council at all, I would have run for a seat on one or other - or both, if possible - myself (on a "Democracy Auckland" ticket) just to give voters the chance to have their say. I'll be watching in 2016.

A Majority of Votes Elected No One (Again)

• 52.52% of all votes returned across Auckland did not elect anyone at all. 

First Past the Post at work again. It splits the vote up among all the candidates and the people with the highest totals are elected, no matter how low their proportion of the total vote may be. In 2010 the percentage of votes returned electing no one was 62.5%. The figure is lower this time around because the centre-right and centre-left blocs put up fewer candidates in order to avoid splitting the vote....a classic strategy under First Past the Post. The result is usually either more limited choice for voters with fewer candidates to choose from, or voters end up voting for a host of people who don't get elected and the people eventually elected may have a relatively tiny share of the total vote. This latter case was the situation in many wards in 2010. For example, Albany Ward elected two people in 2010 who didn't reach even 10% of the vote. Over 80% of all votes returned in 2010 in Albany elected no one. NOTE: I have included blank votes and informal votes in my totals. The number of informals is typically very small (a few dozen), but may represent a protest, so I included. The number of blanks is much larger (relative to informals, sometimes well over 1000) and may also represent a protest..or merely disinterest.But the ballot was returned and counted.  The status of these can be debated. But what can't be debated is that they were not positive votes for the people elected.

Proportion of Votes for Councillors Elected 

• 1 of the 17 Councillors elected via votes received more than 50% of the vote in their ward
• 13 of the 17 Councillors elected via votes received less than 40% of the vote in their ward.
• 10 of the 17 Councillors elected via votes received less than 30% of the vote in their ward.
• 7 of the 17 Councillors elected via votes received less than 25% of the vote in their ward.
• 2 of the 17 Councillors elected via votes received less than 20% of the vote in their ward.  

First Past the Post at work again. The vast majority of votes cast were for people other than those elected and let's not lose sight of the other 3 Councillors that no one voted for at all.

Wasted votes by Ward (%-age)

• Albany - 61.19%
• Albert-Eden-Roskill -  50.37%
• Franklin - 51.99%
• Howick - No vote at all  
• Manukau - 44.59%
• Manurewa-Papakura - 41.19%
• Manugakiekie-Tamaki - 50.33%
• North Shore - 58.58%
• Orakei - No vote at all 
• Rodney - 39.56%
• Waitakere - 53.23%
• Waitemata & Gulf - 56.89%
• Whau - 64.56%

In all but one case (Rodney Ward - one to elect) the percentage of votes wasted is greater than the percentage received by any of the candidates elected. This is First Past the Post at work again. The voting system is a serious failure, in my view, when the result is the number of votes electing no one is the largest pool of all votes cast. What's more, it isn't necessary. There are much better voting systems that would give voters choice and at the same time allow them to elect people they want to represent them.

My Conclusions

Auckland local elections must be moved to STV as soon as possible. The number of wards can remain the same if we increase the number of people on Council. The five old councils had something like 116 people on them. An amalgamated Council should have had something more like 35 people on it, from perhaps 5 or 7 wards (instead of the present 13). The result would be vastly more fair to all voters and would greatly improve the ability of voters to elect the people they vote for.  There would be no unelected Councillors via acclamations under STV. There would be genuine contests with more choice.