Baxter’s Leftie/Progressive

Baxter’s Leftie-Progressive

DCC & ORC Election Guide 2025

V1.4 Last Updated: 11/09/2025

No idea which of the seemingly 100s of candidates lean to the Left or Right?

Or who won’t flog off our assets, and cut services?

Or which are progressive or dinosaurs?

Like me, you probably want to know how candidates will vote on issues important to you, before they get your vote to represent you...

So, every local election I research the DCC & ORC candidates, so I can vote for them in the order of most Left-wing and progressive.

You should vote however you want, this guide is here as a quick and helpful way for you to know which candidates have Leftist and/or progressive views, so that you are more informed when making your own choices. Note: candidate’s skills and abilities are not generally factored in, just where I assess they sit on the political spectrum.

Updates

Note: this is a living document and will be updated as new information comes to hand. Please use the latest version which will be at - https://tinyurl.com/BaxtersLeftieGuideDCC-ORC2025

Please Share

You are more than welcome to share this with other voters you think would find it helpful to make their best choices.

How do I vote?

Enrolled voters will receive voting papers in the mail from around September 9th. These must be posted back by 7 October, If you miss that date, alternately your ballot papers must be dropped into one of the official orange voting bins around the city by 12 noon on Saturday, 11 October.

More information at https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/council/electoral-information/vote

STV & voting strategy?

DCC and ORC use STV, so voting is as easy as simply ranking the candidates in the order you prefer them. There is an explanatory example of STV in the Appendix if you’re interested in how it works.

You do NOT have to rank all the candidates - and generally with STV it's best to rank candidates down as far as you can tolerate them, and then stop ranking them.

Are you sure you’re enrolled to vote?

Some people have found they're unexplainably no longer enrolled. If you have been un-enrolled, you can still vote, but you’ll need to go into the Plaza Meeting Room on the ground floor of the Dunedin Civic Centre and cast a special vote.

You can check you are enrolled to vote at https://enrol.vote.nz/app/enrol/#/check-online

____________________________________________

Brief Summary

If you don’t want to read the full guide here is a very summarised list of Leftie/progressive candidates - though I strongly encourage you to use the full guide.

I will be ranking these candidates in this order:

DCC Mayor:

[1] Laufiso (Marie), [2] Treadwell (Mickey), [3] Allimrac (Ruthven), [4] Mayhem (Mandy), [5] Barker (Sophie), [6] (see MAYOR: ‘Tier 2 - Special Consideration’)

DCC Council:

[1] Laufiso (Marie), [2] Warring (Lily), [3] Treadwell (Mickey), [4] Finnie (Rose), [5] O’Malley (Jim), [6] Mayhem (Mandy), [7] Olsen (Jen), [8] Knight (Anna), [9] Robertson (Evelyn), [10] Cebulla-Elder (Heike), [11] Groshinski (Jett), [12] Walker (Steve), [13] Knights (Richard), [14] Brazil (Rachel), [15] Garey (Christine), [16] Pope (Paul), [17] Akers (Lachlan), [18] Poole (Marian), [19] Barker (Sophie), [20] Taylor (Amy), [21] Elder (Cyndee), [22] Johnson (Marita), [23] Houlahan (Carmen), [24] Hodson (Jarrod), [25] Hart (Karl), [26] & [27] (see DCC: ‘Tier 4 - Strategic bottom-of-list votes’)

ORC:

[1] Weir (Elliot), [2] Cockle (James), [3] King (Alex), [4] Glassey (Phil), [5] Summerville (Alan), [6] Robertson (Gretchen), [7] Mepham (Tim)

____________________________________________

DCC MAYORAL CANDIDATES

You do NOT have to rank them all, and generally with STV (Single Transferable Voting) it's better to rank candidates down as far as you can tolerate them, and then stop ranking them.

Tier 1 – Left & Left-leaning:

Candidates with Left-wing policies or committed Left leanings, who I will be ranking in this order:

Laufiso (Marie) – current and experienced Councillor, consistently strong Left voting record on Council, with well advocated positions given in speeches. Left-progressive political preference, and has described herself as a communist. Previously a Green candidate, now evolving with her own Building Kotahitaka ticket/alliance. Focus is “treating every resident with dignity and respect”. The ODT (10 Sept 2022) finds her typically respectful but thinks she tends to achieve more when she is forthright and straight-talking (perhaps referring to her not being shy to put Vandervis et al in his place when needed). Cares about community and empowering/helping vulnerable communities, advocated for living wage and refugees/minorities. Supports fare-free public transport. Excellent survey result (10/10). Should be ranked highly.

Treadwell (Mickey) – Green Party candidate. Left-progressive political preference. Priorities are housing stock and community engagement, water/transport resilience, big on consensus, wants “a diverse council but not a divided one”. Strong survey result (9.8/10).

Allimrac (Ruthven) – Radical Action Faction & the vampire candidate; dedicated climate activist. Running as a character to bring Left-leaning talking points into the mainstream, to hopefully shift local councils leftwards. Worth ranking not just to send a message - but on the off chance the vampire candidate wins Mayor, Zenith Rose-Wills will absolutely take the job seriously and push for more radical policies, eg establish a renters union, make all buses free, and create a citizens assembly. Good survey result (9.6).

Mayhem (Mandy) – current Councillor, mostly strong Left voting record on Council, with well justified positions given in speeches. Wants to create “an inclusive and accessible city”, acknowledges “most vulnerable”, also infrastructure challenges, mentions opportunities in innovation, university, tech sector, arts and culture and natural beauty. Could have scored better in my survey (9.2/10; but perhaps hampered by knowing the realities of DCC; she gave largely firm Left-wing responses to my 2022 survey). Left-progressive political preferences.

Barker (Sophie) – current Councillor and former Deputy Mayor. Centre-Left who usually votes with the Left (but not always, and is perceived by some as 'business friendly’). People-first, liveability, public-service ethos and resisting unfunded mandates. Priorities are better council services, the hospital, quality infrastructure and a “city that works for everyone”. Political preference: Labour. OK survey result (9.4/10).

Barker is probably your most important vote for Mayor, as Barker is the most Left-leaning candidate with broad enough support to be likely able to win Mayor, so it’s strategic to have her somewhere on your list (ie as your preference to either Radich, Vandervis, or Simms winning).

If you want to try and block a specific popular candidate from winning Mayor you can choose to add a tactical vote.

Tier 2 – Special Consideration (optional):

I will likely make my bottom choice for Mayor a tactical one.

Someone will win Mayor. If none of the Left-leaning candidates from above can possibly get enough votes to win Mayor, then either or Vandervis, Radich, or Simms will likely win.

If you want to minimise the ability of Vandervis or Radich winning, you can use STV to do so by ranking Simms (the more centrist of this trio) at the bottom of your list (ie right after the candidates you really prefer).

But bear in mind this would be a vote for Simms (but only if none of your previous above choices, can not possibly win).

Simms (Andrew) – Right/Centre-right candidate. While socially minded, Simms is economically more right-wing (and economics dictate what DCC can and can’t do). Hence is essentially an ‘austerity’ candidate (ie cutting services etc to try and lower costs). However, he is distinct from most other austerity touts by being a strong advocate not to flog off Aurora Energy, and seems to have a genuine concern about low-income residents (as opposed to those who want to cut DCC services to lower rates bills primarily for wealthy property owners). He has voted both National and Labour in the past. Involvement in charitable housing work. There’s some vaguely more progressive elements to his agenda than Radich and Vandervis, and he did better than most right-wingers in the survey (8.4/10).

Tier 3 – Avoid:

All other candidates – they are either: unknown politics, right-wingers, conspiracy types, or conservatives. None of which I’ll be ranking on my vote.

____________________________________________

DCC COUNCIL CANDIDATES (14 to be elected)

You do NOT have to rank them all - and generally with STV it's better to rank candidates down as far as you can tolerate them, and then stop ranking them.

Tier 1 – Lefties:

Candidates with strong and committed Left/progressive values or leanings, who I will be ranking in largely the following order:

Laufiso (Marie) – current and experienced Councillor, consistently strong Left voting record on Council, with well advocated positions given in speeches. Left-progressive political preference, and has described herself as a communist. Previously a Green candidate, now evolving with her own Building Kotahitaka ticket/alliance. Focus is “treating every resident with dignity and respect”. The ODT (10 Sept 2022) finds her typically respectful but thinks she tends to achieve more when she is forthright and straight-talking (perhaps referring to her not being shy to put Vandervis et al in his place when needed). There’s not a lot of diversity on the current council so Laufiso brings a needed different perspective. Cares about community and empowering/helping vulnerable communities, advocated for living wage and refugees/minorities. Supports fare-free public transport. Excellent survey result (10/10). Should be ranked highly.

Warring (Lily) – Green Party candidate, Left-progressive political preferences. Priorities are housing and people, wants to be voice for the unheard, wants thriving natural environment, diverse voices around table, Opportunities are seen in creative/digital/entertainment/arts/climate action; likely advocate for live music. Strong survey result (9.8/10). Worth a high ranking.

Finnie (Rose) – Green Party candidate. Left-progressive political preference. Mentions accessibility, healthy homes, sustainability. Strong survey result (9.8/10). Worth a high ranking.

O’Malley (Jim) – current and experienced Councillor, with a reasonably solid Left voting record on Council. Labour voter, but dislike for neo-liberal economics and privatisation of public assets, etc. Hardworking with intellectual heft, good understanding of finances, and some mostly behind-the-scenes achievements on Council. Current priority is positioning the city for govt RMA reform. Also notes importance of genuinely representing the community’s ambitions. Refers to relationships built with both central govt and the community. His election campaigning is not strong (like last election he’s probably doing Council work instead) so it is important to give him a high ranking, otherwise he is in danger of being displaced by someone with nothing more than a flasher personality. Well worth a high ranking.

Mayhem (Mandy) – current Councillor, reasonably strong Left voting record on Council, with well justified positions given in speeches. Wants to create “an inclusive and accessible city”, acknowledges “most vulnerable”, also infrastructure challenges, mentions opportunities in innovation, university, tech sector, arts and culture and natural beauty. Could have scored better in my survey (9.2/10; but perhaps hampered by knowing the realities of DCC; she gave largely firm Left-wing responses to my 2022 survey). Left-progressive political preferences.

Olsen (Jen) – Radical Action Faction candidate, Left-progressive political preference and considers herself socialist. Dedicated climate activist. Wants a “decent society that supports everyone”. Also keen on citizen’s assemblies and more consultation with the public (but oddly in the very next sentence says she wouldn’t support a student ward). Excellent survey result (10/10). Worth a high ranking

Knight (Anna) – Building Kotahitaka candidate. Left-progressive political preferences, identifies as a socialist. Long involvement with Palestine movement and brought Sanctions Bill motion to DCC. References climate resilience, wants to support the most vulnerable but also speaks of core services like water and infrastructure, support for South D, also “decent homes are a human right”, combating homelessness, identifies as an environment and social justice activist, “keeping wealth local”. Excellent survey result (10/10). Worth ranking.

Robertson (Evelyn) – Left-progressive political preference. Pride events organiser, church involvement, a regular at union rallies, Palestine rallies, etc. Priority is to support local communities. Mentions opportunity of the inland port to reduce traffic/road repairs. Strong survey result (9.8/10). Worth ranking.

Cebulla-Elder (Heike) – Left-progressive political preference. Involvement in community work like Enviroschools and cycle advocacy. Mentions “redistribution of rates” to help all members of our community by funding healthy homes, well connected community food networks, and funding quality infrastructure. Respect for diversity, focus on community, community led solutions. Excellent survey result (10/10). Worth ranking.

Groshinski (Jett) – Labour candidate but on the Left side of Labour. Mentions affordable housing and climate change, highlights community engagement experience, and inclusivity, also creative industries. Experienced student politician whose now more seasoned youth would be an asset on Council (current youngest Councillors are in their 50s). Excellent survey result (10/10). Worth ranking.

Tier 2 – Left-leaning:

Candidates with strong to fair Left/progressive leanings, who I will be ranking after Tier 1, in the roughly following order:

Walker (Steve) – current Councillor with solid Left voting record on Council, and passionate speeches. Labour candidate but towards the Left side of Labour. Priorities are hospital, cost of living, wildlife/natural environment and climate change/South Dunedin. Wants to invest in heritage, creative sector, liveability and nature-based assets. Wants to innovate in health, education, new tech and gaming. Excellent survey result (10/10). Worth ranking.

Knights (Richard) – Left-progressive political preference. Focus is on hospital, homelessness and the most vulnerable, and fixing South Dunedin. Creator/admin of the well managed What’s News Dunedin FB group. Strong survey result (9.8/10). Worth ranking.

Brazil (Rachel) – Seems to have solid Left values. Left-progressive political preferences. Mentions climate change/South Dunedin and homelessness. Mentions community a lot; a voice for the people that have no voice. Wants a collaborative approach to Council decisions. Vision of vibrant/diverse/inclusive city. OK survey result (9.2/10), but not as well as expected. Motivated to stand because of rates increases, but seems genuine and not an austerity tout. Worth a high ranking.

Garey (Christine) – current Councillor, Labour political preference. Centre-left with a good social conscience. Reasonably solid Left voting record on Council. Acknowledges the most vulnerable, working with mana whenua. Strong survey result (9.8/10). Worth ranking.

Pope (Paul) – Experienced community board member. Professional ecology qualification and grassroots experience. Priorities listed as hospital, beach (dunes) management and addressing South Dunedin’s issues. Mentions exploring local food production opportunities. Wants community board also for South Dunedin and North Dunedin and supports a student ward. Good survey result (9.6/10). Worth ranking.

Akers (Lachlan) – Left-progressive political preference, identifies as a socialist. Mentions cost of living crisis, helping small business and local start-ups to help bring jobs to the local economy. Mentions addressing the wellbeing of the people socially, spiritually, financially, and physically, starting South Dunedin resilience project, support for vibrant local cultural scene through music/ arts festivals and community groups. Also wants wider representation on council. Good survey result (9.6/10). Worth ranking.

Poole (Marian) – Save Aramoana campaign involvement. Labour voter. Advocates for Milton rail hub and lists climate benefits, also passive housing for South Dunedin, self-identifies as community minded. Average survey result (8.4/1; generally Left-leaning answers to survey, but let down by one answer question (possibly misunderstood the question? Laufiso is her first choice for mayor. Worth ranking, and possibly should be higher up.

Tier 3 – Left-Allies, Moderates, or Worth-a-punt:

Candidates with some Left or progressive leanings or sympathies, who I will be ranking after Tier 2, in roughly the following order:

Taylor (Amy) – Disability advocate. Labour political preference. Priorities are water, control rates (notes low income families are struggling), rubbish collection, also accessibility. Progressive positions on issues like need for more council housing, etc. However, buys into the austerity agenda. Average survey result (8.5/10). Still worth ranking.

Note: Don’t get your Taylors confused; the other Taylor (standing for Mayor) a conspiracy peddler.

Elder (Cyndee) – is standing on Laufiso’s Building Kotahitaka ticket and known to be good on housing issues, Priorities are housing, infrastructure and support services, brings “lived experience”, “I know how important it is to be heard”. Naively stood for the right-wing New Conservatives at last election, preferred politics is now Labour/Greens. May have placed higher had she done my survey. Very likely worth ranking.

Johnson (Marita) – Ngapuhi and Tainui descent. Background from fashion design to nursing in elderly care. NZ Nurses Organisation, has successfully advocated for positive changes for healthcare assistants at a national level. Possibly fighting the good fight. Refused to say political preferences, which is often a concern. And also seems to have austerity and conservative messaging, ie mentions “Stop rates rises”, “improve parking”. May have placed higher had she done my survey. Worth-a-punt.

Houlahan (Carmen) – current Councillor, Centrist with a National/Labour political preference, which fits with her voting record on Council, ie votes with the Left on social issues, but often votes with the Right on financial issues (and finances largely dictate what services can and can’t be done). Claims rates need to be lowered (ie expect service cuts). Wants to build relations with business and opportunities with university, also wants strong advocacy to central government. A preference for Radich as Mayor. Average survey result (8.24). Worth ranking to try and block right-wingers.

Hodson (Jarrod) – West Harbour Community Board member. Helps homeless, supports state housing and public transport. Mentions fixing South Dunedin and supporting vulnerable communities, but also seems to have austerity messaging, ie mentions cutting things “back to basics” and reducing “wasteful spending”. Political preference is National/Labour (but more Labour). Poor survey result (7.2/10). Seems a decent guy who might often make the right choices. Probably worth ranking.

Hart (Karl) – Labour political preference. Broadly Leftish, though maybe more in an old-school way. Perhaps let himself down on a couple of survey questions; Average survey result (8.6/10). Seemed to see the Treaty as a negotiating point rather than a binding agreement. Seemed to suggest Government funding be decreased to the University, and was against a student electoral ward. Worryingly, has a preference for Vandervis as Mayor. Maybe worth ranking to try and block actual right-wingers.

Tier 4 – Strategic bottom-of-list votes (optional):

Ie NOT Left-wing/progressive candidates, but in a multi-position election it can be strategic to have one or two of these least-worst non-Left candidates at the bottom of your list (ie as your preference to a more right-wing candidate winning these slots instead). But don’t vote for any candidates you absolutely don’t want to get in.

Gilbert (Kevin) – current Councillor, Right-wing, but not ideological and can listen to reason, hence will sometimes ‘cross the floor’ if presented with a good argument. Worth a low ranking to keep out more overtly right-wing candidates.

Simms (Andrew) – Right/Centre-right candidate, but the more centrist of the “businessy” types likely to win a seat (see comments in Mayoral section above).

Tier 5 – Avoid:

All other candidates – they are either: unknown politics, right-wingers, incompetents, conservatives, or conspiracy types. None of which I’ll be ranking on my vote.

____________________________________________

Otago Regional Council (ORC) (5 positions)

ORC’s responsibilities cover mostly environment issues, eg rivers, farms, etc; plus also buses.

You do NOT have to rank all candidates - and generally with STV it's better to rank candidates down as far as you can tolerate them, and then stop ranking them.

I will be ranking the following candidates in the following order:

Weir (Elliot) – current Councillor, very Left and progressive, and very effective councillor. Well worth a high ranking. Sees priorities as biodiversity, climate-change, bus usage/accessibility. Identifies need to update regional plans. Started work on areas with communities vulnerable to floods etc. Fare-free bus supporter; acknowledges Government need to change for any real improvement to happen. Left political preference

Cockle (James) – Radical Action Faction candidate, strong activist background and strong Left values and political preferences. Mentions public transport, water quality, action on climate-change, and affordable healthy housing for all. Wants citizens assemblies to discuss the important issues.

King (Alex) – activist/green background. Wants to make Otago resilient against future shocks and supply-chain disruption by advocating for local provision of basic food and energy. Wants to quadruple bus usage and improve the bus system. Left political preference.

Glassey (Phil) – Senior GNS engineering geologist (leading a case study on the potential impact of rising sea level on groundwater flooding in the South Dunedin urban area and the future impacts on infrastructure and the community). Importance of land-use change, and natural rather than engineered solutions. Wants to address waterways becoming over-utilised and polluted. Left political preference.

Somerville (Alan) – current Councillor. Green candidate; keen on addressing climate-change, and clean air waterways issues, and local food production and processing resilience. Keen on a collaborative approach with farmers. Importance of natural rather than engineered solutions, and better warning systems. Left political preference.

Robertson (Gretchen) – experienced Councillor, useful in getting good stuff passed. Environmental scientist. Sees priorities as water quality, and preparing for long-term changes to regional governance. Strong on defending buses, and keen to extend them into rural areas. Labour political preference.

Mepham (Tim) – current Councillor, strong on green issues, improve the state of our waterways, the environment and to ensure sound governance ant to see ongoing improvements to our bus services and re-establishment of regional rail. Labour Party political preference; and anti the current government, and keen to see them out

Avoid:

All other candidates – they are either: unknown politics, centrists, right-wingers, incompetents, conservatives, or conspiracy types. None of which I’ll be ranking on my vote.

I hope that was of use in making your choices.

Don’t forget to share a link if know of others you think might also find it useful 🙂

Which would be especially useful as my Facebook account was hacked and has been suspended indefinitely so I’m unable to share 🙁

Cheers,

Mark I Baxter

baxdesign at gee mail dot com

____________________________________________

Appendix Guide

Appendix A

1 – Baxter’s Survey Questions

2 – Graph of Candidates Responses on Financial Values

3 – How do I Determine this List?

4 – What is ‘Left’?

5 – Why Debt is OK and Normal, and Often Necessary

6 – Why Rates-Caps Sound Good, But are Bad

7 – The Fine Print

8 – Transparency

Appendix B

5 – How does STV work, and why is it better?

____________________________________________

Appendix A

1 – Baxter’s Survey Questions:

Hi candidates,

As you may be aware I produce a voter’s guide from a Left-wing/progressive perspective every election, which is my opinion on the ‘Leftness’ of candidates. It is read by around 3000 voters.

Rather than simply my observations, I’m somewhat scientific and give candidates an opportunity to be ranked, based on the same questions as each other.

It’s a quick simple 10 question survey, that’ll take you less than 2 or 3 minutes.

Please reply by 12 noon Tuesday (and make sure not to “reply all” when you hit send).

Please rate the following statements, where

1 = strongly AGREE , and

5 = strongly DISAGREE

Q1. DCC should be a significant provider of social housing.

Q2. DCC social housing rents should be income related.

Q3. When making decisions on Council, the balance sheet is the bottom line, and social, environmental, and cultural factors are always SECONDARY priorities.

Q4. Local government should play a significant role in reducing local unemployment.

Q5. Drinking water supply should be managed by a private company.

Q6. DCC has an important role to play in climate change mitigation.

Q7. DCC should drastically lower rates and just do the bare minimum of basic services.

Q8. In areas for entertainment (eg the Central Business District), noise mitigation from noisy entertainment (eg live music) should be the responsibility of developers and landlords who create residences in a pre-existing noisy area.

Q9. All full-time DCC and service contractor’s employees should be paid enough to pay for all essential costs (including food, transport, housing, childcare, savings, and health care), for them and their families.

Q10. Subsidised accessibility for low income residents is LESS important than running services under an efficient commercial business model.

____________________________________________

2 – Candidates Responses to Financial Values: Comparing Q7 ‘Lower Rates’ to Q3 ‘Balance-sheet is the Bottom-line’

Scale: (1 = Strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree)

____________________________________________

3 – Why Debt is OK and Normal, and Often Necessary

Coming in V1.1

____________________________________________

4 – Why Rates Caps Sound Good, But are Bad

Coming in V1.1

____________________________________________

5 – How do I Determine this List?

As well as my survey’s data, I work with a team of researchers/auditors/ghost-writers who also use the following:

• Candidate’s comments in traditional and social media.

• Profiles, interviews, and articles published in media, including ODT, Critic, Big Hairy News, etc

• OAR radio interviews: probably the most useful resource if you want a deeper taste of each candidate - https://oar.org.nz/shows/localelections2025)

• Online sources like https://policy.nz/

• Internet combing

• Candidate’s voting record on Council, and political history.

• Other organisations’ ratings etc; eg SPOKES

• My personal & professional experience with candidates

• Opinions and information from credible sources

• Candidate’s statements at forums, and on DCC’s Youtube channel

• Official candidate info booklet (starting from V1.1)

____________________________________________

6 – What is “Left”?

Left-wing is summed up as that good old Kiwi saying, giving everyone “a fair suck of the sav”.

It is promoting the common good and community interests, over the private interests of just the wealthy and powerful.

Or more nerdily: it is economics which prioritize social equality, collective responsibility, and government intervention to address economic inequality. It is policies aimed at reducing the significant effects of income gaps, supporting a robust social safety net, and often promoting public ownership or control of essential industries.

Or in pragmatic terms: Left/progressive is candidates whose values and policies more align with the Green Party/Te Pāti Maori/Alliance Party’s policies, and those who more align with Labour’s policies are Centre-Left.

____________________________________________

7 – The Fine Print

This document is my personal opinion, which I, as a Left-winger, use to determine my voting preferences. These opinions are based on the method described above in ‘How do I determine this list?’. This is not election advertising in the legal sense, as it an individual publishing their personal political views online without making or receiving payment (but just in case someone wrongly deems this as election advertising: Promoted by Mark I Baxter, email: baxdesign at gee mail dot com).

If you feel I've seriously misunderstood or misjudged a candidate's position, or made any factual mistake please contact me (details below) with supporting information, and I'm very happy to correct any misunderstandings.

____________________________________________

8 – Transparency

I am real life friends or acquaintances with a number of candidates; for transparency here is a list: Mandy Mayhem-Bullock, Lee Vandervis, Marie Laufiso, Carmen Houlahan, Jim O’Malley, Sophie Barker, Steve Walker, and Karl Hart. And I believe I’m a relative of Brent Weatherall.

I’m also social-media friends with several other candidates (who can be seen on my profile), but unless listed above I’ve generally never met them more than once or just in passing, and some not at all, so I haven’t listed them specifically here. Likewise with people I’ve only meet in passing at protests or in organisations etc are not listed.

No funding or payment is received for this work by myself or my volunteer researchers/auditors/ghost-writers, -- Though I have been offered the occasional beer; I suggested they instead sponsor whichever charity I next do a maniac charity scooter ride for.

Cheers,

Mark I Baxter

baxdesign at gee mail dot com

[please put something relevant and clear in the subject line, or you email may not bee seen]

____________________________________________

Appendix B

1 – How does STV work, and why is it better?

You don’t need to know the maths of STV to use it (it’s as easy as ranking the candidates you want). But this car show example helps show STV’s two main democratic advantages over the outdated First-Past-The-Post system:

STV ENSURES a candidate MUST have a REAL majority of votes to win.

STV stops the ‘vote splitting’ effect, and the need for ‘tactical voting’.

There’s a bunch of car fans at a show and the majority are die-hard Holden fans. The 3 cars entered for the People’s Choice Car-of-the-Show title are a classic Holden Torana in its 1970s Bathurst racing colours, a modern shiny black Holden Commodore with an impressive engine, and a Kermit green Honda Civic turbo covered in spoilers, Asian market accessories and stickers.

The results of the FPTP vote are:

- Holden Torana -- 25%

- Holden Commodore -- 36%

- Honda Civic -- 39%

Result: WINNER (FPTP): Honda Civic

So under FPTP the Honda Civic would win with only 39% of the vote - even though 61% of voters voted for a Holden, and never for a Honda.

Wait, WHAT? - how did the HONDA WIN when the MAJORITY of voters were are die-hard HOLDEN voters?

You see what happened is that the Boomer Holden voters mostly voted for the classic Torana, while the younger Holden voters mostly voted for the more modern Commodore.

Hence, despite Holden voters being in the MAJORITY, their votes were SPLIT allowing the Honda to sneak through between them and win. FPTP allowed the MINORITY to win.

This is a fundamental flaw of FPTP whenever there are more than two candidates in an election. In a democracy the MAJORITY should ALWAYS win – but FPTP can’t guarantee that will happen in any election with more than 2 candidates.

To fix this fundamental flaw in FPTP you could have multiple elections, where the loser with the least number of votes is dropped out after each round, until eventually there are only two candidates left (like the French do for presidential elections). And that works.

However, that would involve having to hold more than one election - sometimes multiple elections. And no one wants multiple elections if avoidable.

STV achieves the same results as holding multiple elections would - but STV does that without the need to hold multiple elections. STV in effect does exactly the same thing as those multiple elections, ie it drops the loser with least votes out after each round, and transfers their votes to the voter’s next choice.

So if the same Car-of-the-Show used STV instead of FPTP, this allows voters to be able to rank the cars in order of their preference. Looking at the first preference votes no car would win in this first ‘round’, because no car got over the 50% threshold of support from voters:

Iteration 1:

- Holden Torana -- 25%

- Holden Commodore -- 36%

- Honda Civic -- 39%

Result: 50% majority not achieved by anyone, so no winner in Iteration 1 - go to iteration two…

Thus STV would then exclude the bottom ranked car (the Torana), and the votes for this would be car transferred to the Torana voters’ second preference of car (in this case the Commodore):

Iteration 2:

- Holden Torana -- excluded

- Holden Commodore -- 61%

- Honda Civic -- 39%

Result: WINNER (STV): Holden Commodore

So using STV, the Holden Commodore would be the winner - because the MAJORITY of voters PERFERED a Holden over a Honda. STV was not fooled by the Holden voters’ votes being initially split. STV ensures ONLY an actual majority can win.

Whereas FPTP was fooled by Holden voters having their vote split. FPTP effectively threw the Torana voter’s vote in the rubbish bin and they literally count for nothing, and allowed the minority Honda to win.