Order For Regional Council Candidate Names To Be Random
At the 30 April meeting, councillors were asked to consider three options for regional council candidates, all of which cost the same:
Alphabetical order: the candidate names are arranged in alphabetical order of surname.
Pseudo-random order: the order of candidate names is determined randomly, and all voting documents use that order.
Fully random order: the order of candidate names is arranged randomly for each voting document.
A council report said that in the 2022 local government election, 73 per cent of councils used fully random order, 25 per cent alphabetical and 2 per cent pseudo-random.
At the time of writing the report, no local councils in the Waikato region had determined their ordering preference for this year's election.
The Local Government Commission considered the impact of candidate name order on election outcomes as part of its Review of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Electoral Act 2001. This included a limited analysis of data from the 2007 local elections and a review of relevant international research. The commission concluded that the issue is complex, and there is currently no definitive evidence that can be directly applied to local elections in New Zealand.
However, a selection of key research papers compiled by Taituarā consistently found that candidates listed first on the ballot generally receive a higher share of votes. This effect is especially pronounced in elections where voters have limited knowledge of the candidates.
The studies found the magnitude of the effect varies, with some studies reporting an increase of around 1 percentage point, and others noting gains of up to 3 percentage points for first-listed candidates.
With respect to the candidate profile book which accompanies voting papers mailed to voters in September, the candidate statements will appear in alphabetical order, no matter what order candidates are listed on the voting documents.
Candidate nominations open on 4 July and close at 12pm on 1 August. More information about the 2025 elections, including the job of councillor, can be found at waikatoregion.govt.nz/elections.
Election Day is Saturday, 11 October. In a decision made in September 2023, councillors agreed to stick with the first past the post voting system.
This meeting was livestreamed. You can watch the recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/QQEShbPOFKs
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
2 days ago
- 1News
Fact check: Trump exaggerates, misstates facts on Washington DC crime
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his administration will take over policing the nation's capital city in what the Republican said is an effort to bring down rising crime rates in Washington, DC. But Trump exaggerated or misstated many of the facts surrounding public safety in Washington, where the crime rate has fallen in recent years, while leaving out much of the context. Here's a closer look at the facts: Statistics rebut Trump's claims about violence crime in Washington A Metropolitan Police Department police cruiser blocks a street leading to the White House on Election Day in 2020. (Source: ADVERTISEMENT TRUMP: 'It's getting worse, not getting better. It's getting worse.' THE FACTS: Statistics published by Washington's Metropolitan Police contradict the president and show violent crime has dropped in Washington since a post-pandemic peak in 2023. According to the data, homicides, robberies, and burglaries are down this year when compared with this time in 2024. Overall, violent crime is down 26% compared with this time a year ago. A recent Department of Justice report shows that violent crime is down 35% since 2023, returning to the previous trend of decreasing crime that puts the district's violent crime rate at its lowest in 30 years. That report shows that when compared to 2023 numbers, homicides are down 32%, armed carjackings are down 53% and assaults with a dangerous weapon are down 27%. The city's statistics have come into question, however, after authorities opened an investigation into allegations that officials altered some of the data to make it look better. But Mayor Muriel Bowser stands by the data and said Trump's portrait of lawlessness is inaccurate. Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser speaks during a news conference on President Donald Trump's plan to place Washington police under federal control and deploy National guard troops to Washington (Source: Associated Press) ADVERTISEMENT 'We are not experiencing a spike in crime," Bowser said on MSNBC Sunday. "In fact, we're watching our crime numbers go down.' Murders in 2023 in Washington were high, but not the highest ever TRUMP: "Murders in 2023 reached the highest rate, probably ever. They say 25 years, but they don't know what that means because it just goes back 25 years." THE FACTS: In 2023, the District of Columbia recorded 274 murders in a city of about 700,000, its highest number in 20 years. But the city's own crime statistics from the 1970s, 80s and 90s, when the population was smaller, show much higher numbers of homicides. In 1990, for instance, the city reported 498 homicides. The next year saw 509, and 460 in 1992. Decades of statistics on crime in the city is available online. Washington murder rate compared to international capitals ADVERTISEMENT Washington DC (Source: Getty) TRUMP: 'The murder rate in Washington today is higher than that of Bogota, Colombia, Mexico City. Some of the places that you hear about as being the worst places on Earth, much higher. This is much higher." THE FACTS: It's true, but Trump isn't telling the whole story. Washington does have a higher homicide rate than many other global cities, including some that have historically been considered unsafe by many Americans. But Trump is leaving out important context: the US in general sees higher violent crime rates than many other countries. While Washington is one of America's most dangerous big cities, others have higher crime rates. Trump blames cashless bail for crime without evidence TRUMP: "This dire public safety crisis stems from a public safety crisis that is directly from the abject failures of the city's local leadership. The radical left City Council adopted no cash bail. By the way, every place in the country where you have no cash bail is a disaster." THE FACTS: Data has not determined the impact of cashless bail on crime rates. Studies, many of which focus on recidivism of defendants rather than crime rates, have shown mixed results. ADVERTISEMENT The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including poll numbers paint grim picture for leaders, Trump sending the National Guard into Washington, and where have all the coaches gone? (Source: 1News) A 2024 report published by the Brennan Center for Justice saw 'no statistically significant relationship' between bail reform and crime rates. The nonprofit looked at crime rate data from 2015 through 2021 for 33 cities across the US, 22 of which had instituted some type of bail reform. Researchers used a statistical method to determine if crime rates had diverged in those with reforms and those without. Ames Grawert, the report's co-author and senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Justice Program, said this conclusion 'holds true for trends in crime overall or specifically violent crime.' Similarly, a 2023 paper published in the American Economic Journal found no evidence that cash bail helps ensure defendants will show up in court or prevents crime among those who are released while awaiting trial. 'I don't know of any valid studies corroborating the President's claim and would love to know what the Administration offers in support,' Kellen Funk, a professor at Columbia Law School who studies pretrial procedure and bail bonding, told The Associated Press in a July 25 fact check. 'In my professional judgment, I'd call the claim demonstrably false and inflammatory.' The Trump administration has cited a 2022 report from the district attorney's office in Yolo County, California, that looked at how a temporary cashless bail system implemented across the state to prevent Covid-19 outbreaks in courts and jails impacted recidivism. It found that out of 595 individuals released between April 2020 and May 2021 under this system, 70.6% were arrested again after they were released. Funk, contacted Tuesday, noted that Washington DC reformed its cash bail system in the 1990s. ADVERTISEMENT 'What the President is declaring to be an 'emergency' is a system that has functioned much better than cash-based bail systems for nearly thirty years now, including during the recent historic lows in reported crime in the District,' he said, adding that 'the DC bail system has served as a model for bipartisan bail reform efforts in New Jersey and New Mexico over the past decade'.
Scoop
29-07-2025
- Scoop
Voting Reforms, Prisoner Bans And Enrolment Changes - What You Need To Know About The Electoral Amendment Bill
Explainer - The Electoral Amendment Bill faces its first reading today in Parliament. But what does it actually say? The government has announced sweeping plans to change electoral processes before the 2026 election. In announcing the bill last week, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government was "overhauling outdated and unsustainable electoral laws". However there's been pushback at the proposed changes, especially the elimination of Election Day enrolment. The bill is set to face its first reading in Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. Here's a breakdown of what the bill proposes and the reaction to it. What the bill is The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to treating on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Here's the main points. You will no longer be able to enrol to vote on Election Day Same-day enrolment will be a thing of the past if the bill passes. "Allowing late enrolments, however well intentioned, has placed too much strain on the system," Goldsmith said. "The final vote count used to take two weeks, last election it took three. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." Voters had been able to show up during the advance voting period and enrol at the same time, as well as on Election Day, with their vote being counted as a special vote. The government wants to close enrolment before advance voting begins, with people needing to enrol or update their details by midnight on the Sunday before advance voting starts on the Monday morning (in other words, 13 days before election day). The legislation sets a requirement of 12 days advance voting at each election. The changes could mean special vote processing could get underway sooner. Speaking to Morning Report this week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "we want enrolment to happen before early voting starts". "The experience last time was by virtue of having on the day enrolment we ended up in a situation where it took us three weeks to count the vote, which was the longest it had ever taken us as well. "We want everyone to participate, you've got plenty of time to do so. "They can participate in the voting, they just need to do it and get themselves organised earlier, that's all." University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said the change might affect future election results and how they lean politically. "As a whole, since 1999 special votes have favoured the parties of the left - resulting in their picking up one or two more seats in the House at the expense of parties on the right. Restricting same day enrolment and voting can thus be predicted to reduce the number of votes cast by groups that support left-of-centre parties." However, he said that impact could be offset by voters enrolling earlier. "However, the groups most affected here - younger voters, those who are transient, and minority populations - are the hardest to reach through education campaigns and the like. That means we can predict that there will still be a substantial number of people not properly enrolled when voting commences, who will as a result lose the right to have their vote counted." The changes won't actually stop people from casting a ballot on election day, he said. Special votes must still be processed. "It's just that they won't be included in the final vote count once it is determined that the person has not enrolled to vote by the required time," Geddis said. "As such, the effectiveness of this change in reducing the burden on electoral officials is open to question." The bill would also introduce automatic enrolment updates so the Electoral Commission can update people's enrolment details using data from other government agencies, and remove postal requirements for enrolment. What are those special votes again? Special votes are anyone who isn't on the electoral roll or unpublished roll, lives overseas or vote away from a polling place because they can't get to one. The number of special votes have been growing which has resulted in seats swinging in the final count compared to election night. In 2023, nearly 21 percent, or 603,257 of all votes cast, were special votes. Only 78,030 of those were from overseas voters. Processing them takes more time than regular votes. Goldsmith said late enrolments placed too much strain on the system. "If we leave things as they are, it could well take even longer in future elections. The 20-day timeframe for a final result will likely already be challenging to achieve at the next election without changes." If you're in prison serving a sentence, you'll no longer be able to vote, period The bill disqualifies all prisoners convicted and sentenced from enrolling and voting while in prison. It doesn't apply to persons who have committed a crime but are detained in a hospital or secure facility. In 2020, the Labour government amended the law so that only people serving a term of three or more years were disqualified. The National-led coalition government had earlier signalled the change back. "Everyone understands that if you violate the rights of others, you surrender certain rights of your own," ACT justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said. "Reinstating the ban on prisoner voters makes the consequences for crime clearer." Does this all make it harder for people to vote? Some have said the new bill will disenfranchise voters, while others are applauding it. "This is a significant, but necessary change," Goldsmith said. "The Electoral Commission will have plenty of time to run an education campaign to ensure people understand the new requirements." In a Regulatory Impact Statement prepared earlier this year, the Ministry of Justice did not support closing enrolment earlier. "Its impact on reducing special votes is uncertain, while its impact on democratic participation could be significant," officials said. And the government's Attorney-General, Judith Collins, has also said the legislation could breach the Bill of Rights. In a report, Collins concluded that the bill appeared inconsistent with the right to vote, to freedom of expression and the rights of prisoners in certain circumstances regarding changing penalties. She pointed to section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which states that every New Zealand Citizen who is of or over the age of 18 has the right to vote. "The accepted starting-point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy," the report states. "A compelling justification is required to limit that right." Geddis said that Collins' report was not surprising. "We know that banning all prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as the Supreme Court has declared this to be so. And in relation to removing same-day enrolment and voting for the entire voting period, the fact that there are other ways to address the problem of a slow vote count without taking away people's right to vote means it is not a justified limit. As such, the Attorney-General's conclusions are to be expected." Green Party spokesperson for Democracy and Electoral Reform Celia Wade Brown said: "These changes represent a dark day for our democracy. "Requiring enrolments before voting starts will see even more people miss out from expressing their democratic right. In the last General Election, over 200,000 people enrolled to vote or updated their details in the last 12 days. These changes would see all of these people miss out on having their say." ACT's Stephenson disagreed, calling late enrollees "lazy". "Democracy works best when voters are informed, engaged, and take the process seriously. It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away." ACT leader David Seymour also weighed in for the change, saying"frankly, I'm a bit sick of dropkicks that can't get themselves organised to follow the law." Those comments were later called "unhelpful" by Justice Minister Goldsmith. "I disagree with that language ... It's not language I would use," Luxon told Morning Report. Geddis said it was worrying to see an "apparent dismissiveness" by the government of concerns. "They are being warned that their proposed legislation will remove a fundamental right from thousands of New Zealanders without good enough reason. "Their response then seems to be that this is a trifling matter which can be overlooked because it is easier and more administratively convenient to simply stop allowing same day enrolment and voting. "Or, even worse, that the people whose rights are being limited are just 'dropkicks' who do not deserve any respect." Political donation changes The government has also announced that it will slightly increase the threshold for anonymous political donations. "The donation threshold for reporting the names of party donors is also being adjusted from $5000 to $6000, to account for inflation," Goldsmith said. The Greens' Wade Brown criticised that. "While the government has taken away votes from people in prison and made it harder to vote in general, it has made it easier for wealthy people to donate to political parties from the shadows by raising the disclosure threshold to $6000," she said. What is treating, and why are they cracking down on it? Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It's already an offence, but the bill aims to make it clearer what exactly isn't allowed. The bill creates a new offence that prohibits the provision of free food, drink or entertainment within 100 metres of a voting place while voting is taking place. It will be punishable by a fine of up to $10,000. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating," Goldsmith said. "This will make the rules crystal clear." Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10 metres of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. In a Regulatory Impact Statement, Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." Complaints about possible breaching of treating by providing food at a polling booth at Manurewa Marae were investigated after the 2023 election. It found those did not meet the test for treating. What's next? The first reading today will determine the path forward for the bill. If it passes a first reading, it's referred on to a Select Committee for further development, then will be further considered by Parliament. Geddis said these reforms were left to a simple majority of votes in Parliament like any other piece of legislation. "Because the government has a majority in Parliament, if it wants to do this, it can. It's just a question of whether it's the right thing to do," he told RNZ's Checkpoint.
Otago Daily Times
29-07-2025
- Otago Daily Times
Electoral Amendment Bill passes first hurdle
Legislation banning prisoner and same-day voting has passed its first reading. The House heard spirited speeches for and against the controversial electoral law changes today. The Electoral Amendment Bill claims it "makes a range of systems improvements to support the timeliness, efficiency, integrity, and resilience of the electoral system". It makes a suite of changes including ending same-day voter enrolment, banning prisoner voting, changes to "treating" (such as offering free food) on Election Day and expanding anonymous political donation limits. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the system was strong but needed "constant maintenance". "Confidence in the Electoral Commission has fallen in recent years, and we know the system has come under significant strain. "This bill overhauls a number of our dated and unsustainable electoral laws. The package of amendments will strengthen the system, helping to deliver timelier election results, manage the costs, clarify rules, and provide more efficient services to voters." Same-day voting did make it easier for some people to vote, but it also removed the incentive for people to get enrolled before the election, he said. "We had the Electoral Commission, on one hand, with one message saying, 'Get enrolled; get enrolled', and they were funded with many millions of dollars to encourage people to enrol, which the law says you should do; but, on the other hand, they were also saying, 'By the way, don't bother, because you can just rock up on election day and vote'. "More people heard the second message than heard the first message. As a result, more and more people were turning up and enrolling when they voted. That's led to more and more special votes and pressure on the count." Goldsmith said he had received advice that the final count, which took three weeks in the 2023 general election, could take even longer in future elections. Labour's justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said it was a dark day for democracy, arguing the changes would make it harder for people to vote. "Politicians should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder. That's how we make sure that everybody's voice is heard, that everyone gets a say, and that this democracy - this Parliament - is truly representative. Webb pointed to Attorney-General Judith Collins' report that found the proposals were inconsistent with people's rights as further reason the legislation should be scrapped. "The Attorney-General, frankly, slated this bill. I have never seen an Attorney-General's report which is so bluntly vicious and damning, saying things like 'freezing registration earlier in the voting period has the potential to harm confidence and trust'." ACT Party justice spokesperson Todd Stephenson said shifting the enrolment deadline from the day of the election to 13 days before was a "modest change". "Voting in a democracy such as ours does come with some responsibilities, and it's one of those responsibilities to actually be on the electoral roll - that's a legal requirement. "If you can't be bothered doing that within a short period before an election, you've really got to question whether you have a commitment to being a participant in our democracy." Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson said it was already clear the bill would not achieve what its proponents were promising. "This bill proposes the exact opposite of a modern and robust, effective democracy, because it intentionally seeks to deny entire groups of people and communities from having easier access to be able to enrol and to be able to vote, while at the same time it is shifting the threshold for donations to be declared." Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said the changes were cynical. "It's not a coincidence that the very communities who would be silenced are the same communities that wouldn't vote for this government, and probably the same communities that made up the netballers on the weekend. "They say they're fixing democracy, but let's remember: this is the same government that has abolished Māori wards, introduced the Treaty Principles Bill, dismantled co-governance, Te Aka Whai Ora. And we know, again, why they do not want to see 16-year-olds voting." The legislation is now off to select committee, having passed with support from coalition partners National, ACT and New Zealand First.
