2013 Local Government Elections Series – The Referendums

I have kind of an ambitious plan for this blog over the next few weeks, I want to give my thoughts on both the referendums, the mayoral contest, both the West and East Ward for council and the Hamilton candidates for the Regional Council. I’m putting up my thoughts on the referendums today with hopefully the Mayoral and at least one of the Wards out before the papers are posted out on the 20th. Unfortunately there are a lot of candidates so this project will take a bit of research and possibly some long posts but I’m already getting allot of visitors to this site searching for info about the local government candidates.

 

 

So for those of you in the know there are two referendums happening along with this election, the first is for our electoral system and the second is on whether to add fluoride to our water or not.

 

 

Electoral System

 

 

For local government elections we have two choices, STV or FPP,* the reason that there is only two options is because proportional systems can’t work when we don’t have parties and FPP and STV are the common choices amongst the plurality and preferential systems. For me, this is an easy choice, STV. This is mostly because in STV strategic voting is pointless, the best way to get the result that you want is to vote for that. Over the past month I have had a few people come up to me and ask me who is most likely to beat Julie Hardaker because they want to vote against her most effectively, in STV there is no need for these people to guess who is most likely to beat Hardaker, they would just have to rank everyone they thought was better above her.

 

 

The other major reason I support STV is because it ensures that every vote counts. To continue discussing the mayoral contest as an example the mayor that is elected must have more support from all voters than the second most popular candidate. In FPP however the mayor only has to be the first choice of more voters than the second most popular candidates, it is quite possible for a mayor to be elected when most of the voters would have chosen a single other person if it was only a two person race.

 

 

For council seat elections with 6 candidates it gets more complicated but the principal that the elected candidates have to be the preferred 6 using the votes of all voters stands. This does bring up another interesting point in favour of STV. Lets consider a hypothetical election in which 40% of the voters want ticket A, 30% want ticket B and 30% want independents candidates, under FPP the result would be that ticket A would win all 6 of the seats provided that they stood six candidates. Under STV the two or three most popular candidates from ticket A would be elected along with the most popular one or two from ticket B and the independents. STV clearly gives us a more proportional council and minimises the risk of council being captured by unpopular factions.

 

 

Against all this the only advantage of FPP is that it is easier for voters to manage.

 

 

Fluoride

 

 

This is a harder decision for me, I’ll probably be voting against water fluoridation but I’m not that happy about my vote.

 

 

The main reason I would prefer to not add fluoride to the water (ie. leave it at natural levels) is because of what I read in the York Report which is a meta study of the research on water fluoridation in the 20th century. Their findings were that adding fluoride probably reduced tooth decay by around 14%** and had no significant side effects. In the same report it also demonstrated however that ensuring better dental health care, decreasing poverty or improving peoples diets would have a greater effect on reducing tooth decay. The council spends $48,000 a year on fluoridating water and I think that if we really wanted to reduce tooth decay than this money would be better spent getting a part time dental nurse to go around visiting Hamilton schools like they used to. Which just makes me wonder why this is the City Council’s responsibility anyway, it really seems like something the DHB should be doing and it might also generate more interest in their elections.

 

 

Speaking of the DHB they has claimed that this will cost us $500,000 in increased dental costs compared to the $48,000 per annum that we currently spend on adding fluoride, however this seems to have been taken down from their website :(. Instead the summary the DHB is putting in with the voting papers says that this decision will ultimately cost us $100,000′s which you would note is non time specific and could be rapidly overtaken by the cost of fluoridating. I did find this article in which the DHB claims that more than $1 million has been saved in Hamilton due to water fluoridation since 1966 however at the rate of $40,000 per year since then that the article cites we would have spent $1.88 million, so I can’t help but conclude that the cost is at best equal to the gains.

 

 

I tried to look up some studies on cost effectiveness but I didn’t have access to any of the studies the ministry of health cited and its 4:09 am as I write this so I’m not doing any more than that, its a shame but I’ll have to go with my own guesses.

 

 

The reason that I am uncomfortable with my vote is because it associates me with absolutely bat-shit insane people. The people that are vocal about opposing water fluoridation are clearly wrong and have a very warped perception of science, both the method and the community and a terrible viewpoint on their fellow citizens and elected representatives. I feel that I’m fairly well informed on this topic and that my stance is rational based on the evidence I have seen and will change if different evidence becomes available, but somehow I have ended up with the crazy people. Disturbing.

 

 

 

 

*Well technically bloc voting but everyone just calls it FPP, the only difference between the two is that FPP is only for single seat electorates while bloc voting is used in multi seat electorates.

 

**95% range over decent studies of a reduction in cavities between -5% and 63% with a median of 14.1% and an inter quartile range from 5% to 22%, the reduction was somewhere between 0.5 decay free teeth and 4.4 decay free teeth. Also for the equity argument they point out that this reduction is flat across social classes, the reduction is the same for the wealthy as for the poor.

 

About these ads

10 Comments

  1. September 12, 2013 at 14:57

    […] 2013 Local Government Elections Series – The Referendums | Aug … […]

  2. Joel Gilmore said,

    September 12, 2013 at 18:35

    Really interesting fiscal cost/benefit analysis. I have sometimes wondered if the more qualitative claimed benefits are worth the financial cost, and have generally opposed it on ethical grounds. I also think there’s something in the *most* vocal opponents being far-fetched, paranoid, and/or hysterical in their views.

    I don’t think it can be said, however, that they or any non-economically opposed people are ‘clearly wrong’ or have a ‘terrible viewpoint on their fellow citizens’. In fact there is a body of reputable evidence to suggest that if it is not positively dangerous, it is at least not demonstrated conclusively to be safe…yet. I suspect your conclusion may be too strong on the basis of one report, that this does not constitute being ‘well informed’ or ‘rational’, and does not relegate the rest of us to being ‘crazy people’.

    Which is not to say some opponents are not absolutely bat-shit insane, because some definitely are…as no doubt are some proponents. I also like to think I have done my homework on this issue and oppose it on ethical and health grounds. Rationally, I hope. On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:55:08 +0000, Aug In Hamilt

    • September 12, 2013 at 19:00

      Perhaps for clarification i was thinking of Jack Gielen and Christine Cave when I was thinking of bat shit insane people, those that view fluoridation as a forms of mind control etc. In other words clearly wrong, and implies that they have terrible views of their fellow citizens who have become enslaved to evil city councillors and so on. I didn’t mean to imply that everyone that had reasons differing to my own was clearly insane. I actually do have respect for the ethical arguments around water fluoridation, they just aren’t the ones I make.

      As for the dangers I actually agree with you, it hasn’t been proven to be safe but I haven’t seen any evidence that fluoride is harmful at the levels we are talking about. I have read a bit more than the York Report, I did write a 7500 word essay on this a few years ago I only used the York report for this post though because it is both publically accessible and isn’t horribly and obviously flawed, and I’m lazy and lost all my references when my hard drive got fried. Also I note that I said ‘fairly well informed’ which to me implies not completely well informed and that rationality is based on the evidence known and rationality can be based on incomplete information while still being rational.

      • joelgilmore@maxnet.co.nz said,

        September 12, 2013 at 20:13

        Yeah fair call on rationality…except that it probably entails having collected the most complete information reasonably obtainable…

        But more importantly: your hard drive got fried? No way! :(

        One further point: I think you’re right that trying to vote strategically is pointless. But that won’t stop people giving it a good go, trying to vote some people out by voting in other people they prefer even they don’t strictly want them, etc. This is irrational but people are going to do it, and that does colour the results, unfortunately. It only works well when virtually everyone does it properly. But I like the point about proportionality. I think we sometimes forget that with significant ticket presence we’re not completely removed from proportional voting dynamics.

  3. Joel Gilmore said,

    September 12, 2013 at 20:14

    Yeah fair call on rationality…except that it probably entails having collected the most complete information reasonably obtainable…

    But more importantly: your hard drive got fried? No way! :(

    One further point: I think you’re right that trying to vote strategically is pointless. But that won’t stop people giving it a good go, trying to vote some people out by voting in other people they prefer even they don’t strictly want them, etc. This is irrational but people are going to do it, and that does colour the results, unfortunately. It only works well when virtually everyone does it properly. But I like the point about proportionality. I think we sometimes forget that with significant ticket presence we’re not completely removed from proportional voting dynamics.

    • September 13, 2013 at 00:54

      Yeah the hard drive on my lap top in Aprilish. I thought of exactly what you said as soon as I clicked post, that my conclusion might have been rational given the information but having a conclusion at all wasn’t rational. But I can’t really give my opinion on the referenda without having some form of conclusion.

      As for other people voting ‘strategically’, well if and when they try it willskew the results but at leat i wont have to think about it.

  4. September 13, 2013 at 10:57

    […] 2013 Local Government Elections Series – The Referendums | Aug … […]

  5. Ron Collinson said,

    September 24, 2013 at 20:50

    STV does provide some room for strategic voteing, in that you can do things (within the limits of the number of votes you can cast) activly vote against a candidate (vote for everyone else), in practice probably not that useful thou.

    Personally quite like that can weaken tickets, the members of tickets are inevitable be getting a portion of their votes as 2,3 (downwards) perfered votes, vs a stand-out slightly fringe (in that they can attract people who normally wouldn’t vote, to vote for them and most likely as first option, and possibly as their only vote) candidate, but I guess this is just an example of how preferential voting provides a more diverse council, which is the opposite to what a ticket really wants to achieve.

    • September 24, 2013 at 21:50

      I wrote a post a few year back that looked at the statistics of strategic voting in STV. If a candidate is your least favourite than voting them last is what makes sense, however if you would actualy prefer them to someone else then voting them other teh other person will actually increase the odds of you getting a worse candidate than the one you dislike. However parties in Australia do strategic voting when they tell voters who the party would like elected, which is something best avoided here I think.

      Having said that I think it has been a decade since HCC last had a significant ticket on it (City Vision – ACT) so capture by probably isn’t a huge concern.

  6. Ron Collinson said,

    September 25, 2013 at 23:24

    Also with sideing the the crazies, they can be right for the wrong reasons


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: