Nothing 'fairer' about STV election system

IT'S A funny thing, but after every election someone finds a reason to explain why "their" candidate failed to make it.

Of recent years, it has been the fashion of the political commentators (usually self-appointed) to espouse some radical change, usually on the basis that it is fairer.

This reasoning is designed to appeal to the innate desire for "fairness" instilled in most Kiwis, their Trojan horse being STV (single transferable vote).

But the falsehood of the arguments presented by Steve Baron in his Opinion piece (Chronicle; November 24) and his ilk lie camouflaged beneath the terminology used.

In their desire to bring about change, these academics resort to the age-old tactic of demeaning that which they wish to change. So "discredited", "outdated", "outmoded", "unfair", "flawed", etc, become the vocabulary weapons of choice, repeated ad nauseam.

While all these terms eventually burn themselves into people's brains, it is prudent to ask two basic questions:

1. What is it that voters want as the outcome to their voting?

2. Why have we got such a shambles of confusion under STV?

In Whanganui's case, we wanted a team of one mayor and 12 councillors who collectively would best serve our community, not is Charlie Anderson better than Alan Taylor, or Jenny Duncan better than Philippa Baker-Hogan.

No, we cast our discerning eye over the field on offer and apart from our favourite choice, we say: "Now which 12 of this lot do we think will work together as a team for the common good?"

Then we just tick our decisions, for better or worse: it's simple, clear-cut and for more than 175 years it has, generally speaking, served our community well.

Enter the academics and their convoluted, complicated STV system, touting it as "fairer".

So let's compare our community's two systems

2007
District council (FPP): Informal 121; Blank 489. Voters excluded from the count: 610.
District Health Board (STV): Informal 1747; Blank 1026. Voters excluded from the count: 2873.
Fairer? I don't think so.

2010
District council (FPP): Informal 144; Blank 320. Voters excluded from the count: 464.
District Health Board (STV): Informal 1363; Blank 1027. Voters excluded from the count 2480.
A little better, but hardly fairer.

2013
District council (FPP): Informal 186; Blank 449. Voters excluded from the count: 635.
District Health Board (STV): Informal 1377; Blank 1297. Voters excluded from the count 2674.
Fair? I think not.

In each of the last four elections, more than 2000 more Whanganui voters have been excluded from the count under STV than would have been under first past the post (FPP)
For all District Health Boards (all under STV)

2007: Informal 100,028; Blank 107,478. Voters excluded from the count: 207,506.

2010: Informal 86,357; Blank 157,598. Voters excluded from the count: 243,955.

2013: Informal 85,832; Blank 114,901. Voters excluded from the count: 200,733.

So let's forget about fancy, convoluted formulae dreamed up by academics with more degrees than a thermometer.

STV is a rubbish system. Any system that can result in quarter of a million New Zealanders being excluded from the process of choosing the members of their district health boards needs to go straight into the shredder.

We can be sure that Steve Hansen and his co-selectors don't use it. That's the 15 they want on the field; that's the eight they want on the bench, it is the make-up of the team that matters.

Tick the boxes.

■Allan Anderson is a former member of Whanganui District Health Board and Whanganui District Council