It is important that all the facts about voting in a STV election are brought to the attention of the public.
The STV zealots as well as the council are only explaining half the facts when telling us about this voting system.
The Local Electoral Act is quite clear how you can vote under STV. Sections 5B(a)(i) and 5B(b)(i) state: "Voters express a first preference for 1 candidate and may express second and further preferences for other candidates". The key word here is "may".
For example, if I am voting for a mayor and there are three candidates - A, B and C - and I like candidate B, I am able to put a 1 beside candidate B and leave the others blank.
In fact, this is what you should do in this situation as, by ranking A and C, you are actually voting for them. Why vote for someone who you don't think is up for the job?
During the last Whanganui local body election I voted for only five candidates for councillor because I thought the incumbents were not up to the job.
If the election had been held under STV, I would have done the same. The only difference would have been that I would have needed to rank them from 1 to 5. The other 28 candidates I would have left blank.
Once again, why vote/rank a candidate you don't think is up for the job? At best you should rank the 12 candidates you think should be in council and leave the rest blank.
The information put out by council in relation to STV, "Casting your vote under Single Transferable Vote (STV)" tells people they should rank all candidates. It should be changed to comply with the Act and tell people they are not required to rank all candidates and they can leave as many as they like blank.
I am not for or against STV but I do think that it should not be left to those with a vested interest in selecting a system that best suits their desire to stay in power. The country in 1993 and in Hamilton 2013 voted 70 per cent to 30 per cent to retain FFP.
Wellington is supporting the petition of 5 per cent of electors to hold a referendum. This also should also be the decision of this council.
JIM WHITE, Castlecliff
One-sided story
A recent published update by the MidWest Ferries promoters described what they make sound a very cosy meeting with Whanganui District Council chief executive and mayor on August 7.
They say they had enjoyed the assistance of a council staffer and a member of the Port Revitalisation Programme (PRP) guiding body in preparing a list of work required to address the many gaps and claims raised in a council-commissioned peer review of the MidWest feasibility study - available, along with other significant reports, at http://bit.ly/2wFLshd
Apparently the promoters were told by the chief executive and mayor that council staff "are available to assist in joint work on the project as required" and that "it was agreed that WDC could provide some funding to assist in the high level resolution of some of the technical issues". They also said it was agreed that "in due course a joint statement on work underway would be made".
It's not unreasonable to have expected the chief executive and mayor to have given their version of events by now, rather than leave it to us to decipher and weigh the veracity of the MidWest material.
Crucially, we are left to wonder just how much this assistance to a private proposal is costing ratepayers in terms of council staff time and to guess how many dollars are in the kitty for further financial assistance.
The mayor made it plain that he was concerned about the lack of any input by environmental lawyers about the chances of this plan getting through the resource consent process and any subsequent appeals.
Apart from the extreme harbour basin and channel modification and continuous dredging that would be required at this end, and which would require iwi as well as council approval, it proposes driving and maintaining a huge channel through the Motueka Sand Spit, an internationally renowned and protected bird sanctuary.
MidWest has also tried (and failed) to hit Tasman District Council up for $170,000.
But for ratepayers at both ends of the proposed route any council largesse at this stage will pale into insignificance beside the potential legal costs of defending any decisions made on issuing or declining resource consents.
CAROL WEBB, Whanganui
Take out toxins
For me the biggest issue to be addressed by the government - whoever it may be after the election - is health. How do we stop the epidemics of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer?
The answer is quite simple - change your diet to one that is wholefood and plant-based.
Our current health system is a disease-focused model that does not recognise you until you are sick and, as the statistics keep showing, we are getting fatter, and sicker all the time.
Recently, Labour's health spokesman was in town to reveal they are pledging to spend an extra $8 billion in the health sector. But what on? What difference will an extra $8 billion make if it is going to be spent/wasted in the same way it has in the past?
The focus needs to be shifted from one that treats symptoms, generally with drugs, to one that looks at the underlying cause of ill health.
Most Western ills are not acute disorders, which drugs are good at treating, they are chronic disorders, things like depression, diabetes, heart disease. These are the conditions that pharmaceutical companies love - drugs are targeted at these conditions but don't actually treat or cure them very well.
Drugs are necessary for many things, but the drug industry - and, by inference, our health system - is trying to find a drug for everything. Change needs to be targeted at what we eat, and educating people on what is the best nutrition for their body.
Recently Dr Dwight Lundell, a US heart surgeon acknowledged that it was his day to right the wrong with medical and scientific fact. He trained for many years with the assumption that heart disease resulted from elevated blood cholesterol.
Dr Lundell says: "These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible." The discovery that inflammation in the artery wall is the real cause of heart disease is slowly leading to a paradigm shift in how heart disease and other chronic ailments will be treated.
Inflammation is not complicated - it is your body's natural defence to a foreign invader such as a bacteria, toxin or virus. However, if we chronically expose the body to injury by toxins or foods the human body was never designed to process, a condition occurs called chronic inflammation.
What thoughtful person would expose themselves repeatedly to foods or other substances that are known to cause injury? Well, smokers perhaps, but at least they made that choice wilfully.
We have followed the recommended mainstream diet that is low in fat and high in polyunsaturated fats and carbohydrates, not knowing we were causing repeated injury to our blood vessels. This repeated injury creates chronic inflammation leading to heart disease, stroke, diabetes and obesity.
What are the biggest culprits of chronic inflammation? They are the overload of highly processed carbohydrates (sugar, flour and products made from them) and the excess consumption of omega-6 vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower found in many processed foods.
How do we fix this? Eat more whole plant-based food, and avoid animal protein and processed foods. It is a simple and inexpensive way to good health.
RUSSELL EADES, Whanganui
Comment: There are food sources that have a stronger attraction for certain birds.