While the future and make-up of community boards received primary headlines following the Local Government Commission's decision on Dunedin representation, the most important ruling pertains to the dropping of the last of the city's ward system.
Rather than electors voting from different pools of candidates later this year, all councillors will be elected ‘‘at large''.
Gone are the Central, Waikouaiti-Coast-Chalmers and Mosgiel Taieri wards.
This is a reasonable ruling, albeit there are drawbacks.
Such is the imperfect nature of whatever arrangement was selected.
Each will have good points as well as disadvantages.
It was not so long ago the bulk of the central city was divided into south, central and north, while outlying areas also had their wards.
This meant aspiring councillors had smaller areas in which to campaign and, potentially, a closer identification with electors.
On the other hand, ward boundaries seemed arbitrary - at least across the central city - and voters were unable to vote for candidates of their choice should they be standing in another ward.
They were, at the same time, unable to dismiss or rank lowly certain candidates they did not like.
If voters came, for example, from the north of the city, they had input into the selection of only one of the 14 councillors. By contrast, Central ward electors selected 11. This did cause some frustration.
The underlying reason for at-large voting is because most of the city's significant decisions affect all ratepayers.
All councillors and all ratepayers and residents have an interest in matters like the stadium, cycleways, green issues, a Mosgiel pool or a South Dunedin library.
Although amenities might be located in one vicinity and be used predominantly by residents from that area, everybody pays.
The principle has always been that councillors are to put aside parochial interests and make decisions for the benefit of the wider city.
But it is likely, for example, that Mosgiel-Taieri elected councillors would tend to favour a new pool while those from other parts of the city - with no link to Mosgiel-Taieri voters - could more easily reject submissions from that area.
Thus, the at-large system both gives voters a wider choice and helps ensure councillors take a city-wide view.
The fear has been that the number of voters in the main urban area would swamp those from outlying districts. Soon there would be no ‘‘rural'' councillors.
To some degree, this danger is ameliorated by STV voting, which Dunedin has now had for several elections and which the Local Government Commission took into account.
It allows sections of the community, be they geographic or not, to support specific candidates and have a higher chance of being elected.
In turn, candidates themselves can target specific types of voters.
Interestingly, the commission endorsed the view of the council's review team that if Dunedin returned to first-past-the-post elections, at-large voting should be reviewed.
The commission, backing the retention of all the current community boards as well as the size of the boards, also saw this as a means for the districts outside the main urban core to maintain their own voice.
We have been ambivalent about community boards around Dunedin.
They cover only some parts of the city, giving only those areas a paid stake in the process, even if the boards lack any significant power as such.
Nevertheless, the commission's point about the need for rural voices and the fact the boards have, in the commission's words, played a ‘‘constructive'' role in Dunedin's governance gives them some merit.
Dunedin is small, and many councillors have a profile across the city.
It will now be up to voters to do their best to scrutinise and vote for the best candidates whatever part of the wider city they come from.
