Summarised by Centrist
Broadcaster and commentator Peter Williams is calling for New Zealand councils to abandon the Single Transferable Vote (STV) system and return to a straightforward “most votes wins” approach.
Writing on Substack, Williams argued the complexity of STV undermines public confidence and creates outcomes many voters struggle to understand.
Williams revisited the issue after this week’s Dunedin City Council by-election, where former mayor Aaron Hawkins received the highest number of first-preference votes but ultimately lost under the STV counting process.
Hawkins received 7740 first-preference votes, ahead of Jo Galer on 5527, but Galer won after preferences from eliminated candidates were redistributed.
Williams argued many voters would instinctively assume the candidate with the most initial support should win.
“To me, that says Hawkins was the preferred choice of more voters than anyone else and should have been elected,” he wrote.
The core of Williams’ argument is not necessarily that STV is unfair, but that it is too difficult for ordinary voters to easily follow.
He noted even the official government STV website says counting is “too complex to be done by hand” and relies on specialised software because “parts of votes are transferred”.
Williams said democratic systems work best when outcomes are simple and transparent.
“Simplicity is always the best answer to any problem,” he wrote. “If we have an easy-to-understand system whereby he or she with the most votes is the winner, then that winner can easily be voted in or out in three years.”
He acknowledged that supporters of STV argue it is fairer because it prevents one bloc from dominating elections and ensures winning candidates have broader support across the electorate.
“There is a degree of logic in that,” Williams wrote.
But he argued that any electoral system that relies heavily on computer calculations and fractional vote transfers risks appearing opaque to the public.
“Any election outcome determined by a computer programme that includes fractions of votes can surely not be regarded as a system with integrity,” he wrote.
Williams ultimately called for all local authorities to return to First Past the Post voting in future local body elections.
Editor’s note: Under STV, voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing just one candidate.
The system is designed to measure broader support, not simply who comes first in the initial count.
For example, if 30,000 people vote and the leading candidate receives only 10,000 first-preference votes, it can also be argued that roughly two-thirds of voters preferred someone else as their first choice.
Under STV, voters can rank backup preferences. If lower-ranked candidates are eliminated, those votes are redistributed according to voters’ next choices.
That means a candidate who did not lead in the first round can still win if they attract stronger support across the wider electorate through second and third preferences.
Supporters say this produces more representative outcomes. Critics argue the system is too complicated for ordinary voters to easily follow and understand.
