But the way we cast those votes differs. Across much of the South, electors tick boxes under First Past the Post (FPP). The exceptions are Dunedin, using Single Transferable Vote (STV) since 2004, and the Otago Regional Council, adopting it for the first time this year.
No voting system is perfect. That’s the nature of society, systems and life itself. Trade-offs are inevitable, despite what purists may proclaim.
Let’s begin with STV’s disadvantages. It’s unfortunate that only electoral geeks grasp the intricacies of preferences, quotas and vote iterations. It’s also telling that analysing preferences for 54 candidates across 14 Dunedin council seats demands computational assistance.
FPP, by contrast, offers simplicity and clarity. Voters tick boxes for as many candidates as there are seats. Those with the most ticks win.
Yet STV is the stronger choice when the goal is to reflect the electorate’s will.
The "single" transferable vote reduces wasted ballots and removes the need for tactical voting. It also improves the chances of representation for significant communities of interest.
Voters can rank as many or as few candidates as they wish. If top choices are eliminated, lower preferences remain active. And when a preferred candidate reaches quota, part of the vote flows to the next-ranked names.
Consider a simplified hypothetical mayoral race: one right-wing candidate versus three moderately popular left-wing contenders.
Under FPP, the right-winger secures 3000 votes; the left-wingers receive 2500, 2000 and 1500. The result? A clear win by 500 votes, despite only earning a third of the total. Is that what the electorate really wanted?
Under STV, voters rank candidates. The right-winger might lead in first preferences, but second and third choices come into play as others are eliminated. The winner must pass 4500 votes, half of the 9000 cast.
In this scenario, a left-wing candidate would likely emerge, arguably a much fairer reflection than the split FPP result.
Although even a basic example requires unpacking, Civis remains confident in STV’s relative fairness. Enough people understand STV that the rest needn’t grasp its detailed mechanics, just as most can’t explain a car engine or the insides of a computer. What matters is knowing how to use the system: in STV’s case, simply ranking candidates.
Although STV remains a minority choice among councils, most that adopted it post-2004 have stuck with it. STV was also used in the final District Health Board elections.
* * *
Dunedin’s mayoral race must be one of the hardest to pick. Civis, like Business South members, sees a four-way race: incumbent mayor Jules Radich, Crs Sophie Barker and Lee Vandervis and Andrew Simms.
Mr Radich’s 2022 victory over then-mayor Aaron Hawkins was decisive, according to the STV "iterations". Crs Barker and Vandervis were further back, with the others making little impression.
The 2019 contest was more intriguing. Cr Vandervis led early, but Mr Hawkins surged ahead when Christine Garey was eliminated, and preferences were redistributed. Mr Hawkins gained further after Cr Andrew Whiley’s exit.
This underscores the power of ranked preferences. In 2025, the second and third rankings among the leading four may well decide the outcome.
Will Mr Radich’s name recognition and past momentum carry him to victory? Will Cr Vandervis be hindered by his polarising reputation, or propelled by his high profile and direct style? Will Mr Simms be viewed as a breath of fresh air, or marked down for limited council experience? Will Cr Barker’s broad appeal position her to emerge through the middle?
Under STV, you can confidently rank your top choice, even if they’re a long shot. Your single transferable vote flows through your preferences until a mayor is elected.
As long as you’ve ranked at least some viable candidates, your vote remains active and influential.
