by frog
In a remarkable move, the Waikato Times has today launched a petition calling for a referendum on the Hamilton City Council’s move to STV:
[Editor Bryce] Johns said it was unusual for a news media to take this action, but readers had clearly demonstrated a move to STV was something they were uncomfortable with.
“Voting systems might not be the sexiest issue around, but it’s about right and wrong and it’s wrong for someone else to decide how I will vote.”
As a constitutional issue where the outcome will effect everyone the same, this fits the Greens’ criteria for referenda, so I agree a vote would be good, but there is a rich irony in the move.
Under the law that introduced the STV option for local bodies in 2002, councils were able to vote for or against introducing it themselves or throw it out to a referendum. All such decisions could be appealed by petition within a certain time period.
In Hamilton’s case, the previous council voted to stay with FPP and the local Greens were subsequently unsuccessful in getting the number of signatures needed to force a referendum on STV. The Greens tried with mixed success to get referenda in various places around the country and were criticised, most notably by Brian Rudman in the NZ Herald (now in sub only), for trying to force “expensive” direct votes on ratepayers.
Now we’ve come full circle. The HCC has maintained its habit of not putting its electoral system up for a direct vote, but this time its unilateral decision has resulted in a well-funded media outlet, rather than a bunch of grassroot Green activists, turning to a petition to force a direct poll.
Given that the Times’ preferred outcome of their desired referendum is clear, this will be an interesting case study on the media-democracy interface.
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Wed, November 30th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Honestly, I think it would probably be fairer to everyone if had defined periods for all local and national governments in which we voted for the types of representation we would like
Then we wouldn’t have to waste time and resources with petitions to review electoral systems- we’d only need to worry about WHICH electoral systems were appropriate to put to vote
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ah, sort of like Wet vs Dry referenda every three years… I miss those… Yeah great idea. Jeesh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i have a problem with the times taking up this crusade in the way it has. the editor decides he has a cause, takes up prime front page space any day of the week he likes without having to pay for it, as well as an editorial, and hasn’t quite fairly represented the situation (eg talk of the mess with counting the last dhb election results, without once mentioning that hcc are using a different company altogether which had no problem in delivering timely results the last time around).
it’s not that there shouldn’t be a referendum. but hey, there are so many other causes out there that the deserve the kind of free publicity this one is suddenly getting – just because the editor has a bee in his bonnet about it. does anyone else see a problem with this? or is it just me?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)