Some readers may recall a campaign run in the Northern Ward in 2004 – “123 For North”. Basically they were asking people to rank the right wing candidates 123 in a particular order which had the effect that Ngaire Best, who was an incumbent, lost her seat as she didn’t get enough first preferences to stay in the race – she was the one they were suggesting you give your 3 to.
They didn’t really understand STV and they were still thinking in a FPP mindset. Farrar’s article yesterday suggests he still doesn’t get it as he was talking up giving his 3 to Iona Pannett. As you hopefully know the most important thing is who you give your 1 to and you get one vote that can be used by others to get them up if your first preference is out or elected.
Logically there are three possible things going through his head…
- Ian McKinnon and John Bishop don’t stand a chance of being elected hence his generous offer of giving Iona his 3rd preference. (Also – interesting that he doesn’t endorse Adam Cunningham).
- He’s looking for some Green loving…
- He simply doesn’t get STV.
WCC Watch 
I’m not going to get into a lengthy debate with an anonymous blogger, but you need to understand how STV works better. I understand it very well.
Ian and John get my first two preferences as they are my first and second choices. If I don’t give them the top preferences, then they may not get elected.
If they end up with a surplus of preference votes, then a proportion will go to those with lower ranked preferences. By ranking Iona No 3 it means she will marginally benefit by being at No 3 instead of a lower rating.
I suggest you go and find out more about how STV works.
Adam Cunningham looks like a good candidate too, but I generally didn’t bother trying to rank candidates below the top three.
I think the value of tactical voting under STV is underplayed. In Lambton it seems pretty clear Mckinnon and Pannet are going to get in. Third place is the real race. For those not wanting ACToid John Bishop or Pubman Cunningham to slip through, the only non-insane candidate is Marcus Ganley.
Agree with dpf completely.
Still dirty about stuffing up Ngaire’s campaign in 04 David?
By ranking Ian 1, you have given yourself 1 vote as he will likely be elected during the first iteration. So WCC Watch’s point is correct, you talking up John Bishop and Iona is as dumb as you convincing Ngaire Best to encourage people to put a 3 next to her name.
Abe is someone else who does not understand the concept of surplus votes and how they are transferred in proportion to lower preferences.
I’m not so much amazed at how ignorant some people are, more amazed at how ignorant they are when they claim to understand STV, when it is obvious they do not.
Such a sunny day and dpf comes along and starts abusing people for having an opinion.
If you want to be as ‘smart’ as dpf read this – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote. I think the blog attack extension of the National Party Research Unit actually forgot about Cunningham or thought his connections with finance company owner Mike O’Sullivan are electoral poison. Whatever, Adam should have run in Eastern Ward. He would have got in easily, as it’s a terrible slate of candidates.
Well you go ahead in your deluded world thinking your 3 rating will have any effect on Iona’s vote. But back in the real world, the best example of your intimidating political savvy was the hopeless 123 for North campaign where you buggered the hapless Ngaire’s chances in 04.
If there is one thing more enjoyable than clubbing fur seals it has to be bashing penguins.
Putting to one side the stimulating STV strategy debate, I feel compelled to point out that the likely result in Lambton is Ian McKinnon and Iona Pannett in the top two and daylight 3rd. Deservedly so as they are 2 of the hardest working councillors and each represent their constituiencies ably. Cook looks like she is just going through the motions and will need to fire up to hold off the challenge from Ganley and Bishop.
Stephanie Cook could increase her voter appeal by using her red Toyota SUV in her campaign pictures. Greens that like cars would vote for her as well as petrol heads and Thorndon lawyers. Oh well, red boots it is then.
Abe (and the main post’s author), what are you talking about? Mr Farrar should vote for who he wants on the Council, in order of preference. He appears to have done that, with 1 for McKinnon, 2 for Bishop and 3 for Pannett. What is wrong with that?
How do you reason that he must think “Ian McKinnon and John Bishop don’t stand a chance of being elected hence his generous offer of giving Iona his 3rd preference.”
Isn’t the point, he wants Ian McKinnon on. Failing that (or including it), he wants Mr Bishop. Failing that (or including it), he wants Ms Pannett.
Abe, of course his “3” vote has an influence on Iona Pannett’s vote. That’s the whole point of STV – your rankings always affect things all the way through the iterations.
I think the point is Farrar, if he wants a centre right ticket, should put Ian 1, Bishop 2, and Cunningham 3 as I will be doing. Cook should go last and Pannett second to last to keep out the Greens
DPF’s vote (ie. his 1st preference – because that is his only vote) will only be ‘released’ once McKinnon is either elected (so only a small portion will be released) or excluded, whereby the whole vote will be transferred to his second choice, assuming that person hasn’t been elected or excluded – and so on. As long as McKinnon stays in the count or is elected, most of that vote will be attached to his name and only the portion that isn’t needed is transferred. That’s why it’s vital to rank as many candidates as possible to ensure your vote stays ‘alive’ as long as possible.
I love the way people try and put their own FPP interpretation on how STV works. It isn’t rocket science!
But then you start ranking people you don’t like. doh
Well Tom you can choose to use the system as it should be, or you can continue to have your head in the sand and think that because there are 3 seats you should rank 3 candidates. Very FPP.
It’s fine not to rank candidates, but you are not using your vote to its maximum effect.
Tom – but its pretty clear Mr Farrar doesn’t want a centre right ticket. He didn’t say that; you’re just assuming that. He explicitly said he wanted McKinnon, Bishop, and Pannett.
Xenoplexy. Stephen Franks, the 2008 National Party candidate for Wellington Central, has voted McKinnon, Bishop, Cunningham. http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=3000. So that’s the centre right ticket, to avoid like the plague – although McKinnon is a decent chap who I support. Most of the older Tory chaps seems to have a soft spot for Iona. Stephen likes her because she likes dogs.
Interesting at the bottom to see John Bishop’s comment – he’s a blog addict – and the unrequited love shown by Bishop for McKinnon and his utter contempt for Pannett. “Ian McKinnon is enormously hardworking and a wonderful councillor. The coverage of the Lambton Ward in the Wellingtonian was a travesty of accurate and impartial journalism. The idea that Iona Pannett led while Ian assisted is just a gratuitious insult. Ian doesn’t endorse me or any other candidate, but I am certainly free to endorse him and I do so wholeheartedly.” He seems deranged.
Franks doesn’t however like the idea of the maximum number of ordinary people voting – low grade votes. “The money spent on encouraging low grade votes in local authority elections is even more wasted than money spent for the purpose in central government elections.” That’s because he is probably a facist. Can you believe this sort of outrageous BS in the 21st century. http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/?p=1706. No wonder he lost.
Bishop displays all the lack of moral fibre one would expect from an ACT alumni. The really pathetic thing is that he campaigns on “inclusion” and “working with everyone”. The really great thing is that he’s run such a duplicitous and negative campaign he’s highly unlikely to get on Council.
Digby – I guess we’ll see, I’ve heard a lot of people voting for him because of his stance on parking and also artificial pitches. Striking a real chord in the community.
I thought Ganley was the one who started the talk about artificial pitches — did i have that wrong?
Ganley has had it as a policy for a while – not too sure who mentioned it first. Bishop has said he thinks ‘pay for play’ is a way of funding it which separates him from the other candidates.
Mystery Morrison had a front page spread from his mate Joseph Romanos claiming that artificial pitches were his number 1 priority too. The article didn’t mention that he had earlier this year voted against fast tracking pitches. A hypocrite. Bishop will be no different. He is saying what people want to hear. If he gets into power it’ll be cuts everywhere to pay for roads and shifting the rates differential onto households.
From what I hear actually Bishop started it and Ganley followed. “Pay for Play” is actually a pretty good policy – it means those who use the pitches pay partially for them, which is fair, as opposed to everyone through their rates (whether they use them or not).
Johnny I just have no idea where you got that from
erm — showing your colours, xenoplexy. you think that public spaces are not a public good, that people should be excluded from them on their ability to pay?
Get what from? Morrison is a fraud. Andy Foster says he is too-17 August: “In the June budget my amendment to bring forward just one turf by one year (as a start) was lost 5 (Andy Foster, Celia Wade Brown, Iona Pannett, Rob Goulden, Stephanie Cook) to 10 (Kerry Prendergast, John Morrison, Helene Ritchie, Hayley Wain, Ngaire Best, Jo Coughlan, Ian McKinnon, Bryan Pepperell, Ray Ahipene Mercer and Leonie Gill).”
What does that say about John Morrison.