Big tick energy: Mayoral aspirant's push for ticks could render votes invalid

Nicole Mathewson Reporter from Dunedin News

From reporter Hamish McNeilly:

Election advertising from a sitting councillor urging voters to give her a ‘tick’ may render their votes invalid.

Carmen Houlahan is again running for the Dunedin City Council and the mayoralty, under the slogan ‘Carmen 4 Change’.

However, some of the first-term councillor’s electoral advertising – including her website – has raised eyebrows, after showing a ‘tick’ next to mayor and council.

That is because Dunedin, like some other centres, uses Single Transferable Vote (STV) in voting for the mayor or city council.

That means you rank your preference by using numbers, not ticks.

Houlahan told Stuff voters could give her a “number one” ranking to avoid any confusion.

Confusingly, a tick – rather than a ranking system – is what you use for the Otago Regional Council, which uses First Past the Post voting system. Both councils’ voting forms were located in the same documents sent to voters.

While Dunedin City Council deputy electoral officer Clare Sullivan could not talk about specific candidates, she confirmed that putting a tick in a box on an STV voting paper could render a vote invalid.

Voting papers for the Dunedin City Council had specific instructions telling voters to rank their preferred candidates.

If a voter ticked only one person for the mayoralty, their intention was clear and their vote would be deemed valid – and counted accordingly.

“But if they have voted for more than one person ... it is too hard to determine which person is the preference.”

A vote would still be valid if a person did the opposite for the Otago Regional Council, so if a person ranked the required number of candidates – rather than ticked – their vote would be counted.

“We would know who you were voting for,” she said.

In 2019 the voter return in Dunedin was 45.6% (42,618 voting papers), excluding special votes.

In that mayoral race, there were 107 informal votes and 504 blank votes. There were 415 informal votes and 522 blank votes for council candidates.

Sullivan said informal votes were ones incorrectly filled out. While it was difficult to say why some people returned blank votes, it appeared some people voted for one council, but not the other.

“Information is unclear as to whether there is less informal, or blank votes under STV.”

But when votes were processed “we do look very carefully to understand the voter’s intention”, she said.