Options for the election of councillors

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

City Wide (or at-large)

All voters in the city vote for all councillors to represent the city as a whole

Pros and cons of ‘at-large’ representation systems include:

good for relatively small compact cities and where the population is similar in its characteristics
but can still be good for other cities if they have, for example, community boards
good for effectively representing communities of interest that are spread across the whole city, such as particular ethnic groups or interests such as disabled people
but the effort and cost required for candidates to campaign for election across the whole city may be a barrier
allows all voters to vote for all candidates standing for election
but is likely to result in a longer list of candidates which may discourage voters from voting
encourages councillors to take more of a city-wide view in their decision-making and is in line with the declaration councillors are required to make, when they are elected, to act in the interests of the city as a whole
but council decision-making may risk not taking more local concerns and interests into account

Wards

voters in defined local areas (called wards) vote for councillors to represent that area or ward

Pros and cons of a full ward system of representation include:

ensures representation for local areas
but may encourage more focus on local issues in council decision-making at the expense of city-wide ones
having locally elected councillors is likely to encourage more participation locally
but this participation will need to be balanced by consideration of city-wide interests
easier and cheaper for more candidates to stand for election to council
but more difficult for candidates representing city-wide interests, such as disabled people, to be elected
voters have a shorter list of candidates to consider and choose from at elections
but voters have less choice in who will represent them
councillors are easier to get in touch with locally and it is easier for residents to hold them accountable
but may encourage councillors to take a narrower, more local view in their decision-making rather than a city-wide view

Mixed At-Large & Ward system

voters vote for some councillors to represent the city as a whole and for some councillors to represent their local area or ward (i.e. a mix of the other two options)
the mixed ‘at-large’ and ward system of representation can be a way to balance the various pros and cons of both the ‘at-large’ system and the ward system

The majority of councils around Aotearoa New Zealand have a full ward system of representation

53 out of 67 councils use the full ward system
8 councils are elected 'at-large'
6 councils are elected with a mix of 'at-large' and wards, including Hutt City Council

The decision on which system to chose needs to reflect the communities in the city and in particular if these are city-wide or more local in nature.

Consultation has now closed. Keep an eye on this page for updates.

2 comments

Recently active Posted first

Options for the election of councillors

City Wide (or at-large)

All voters in the city vote for all councillors to represent the city as a whole

Pros and cons of ‘at-large’ representation systems include:

good for relatively small compact cities and where the population is similar in its characteristics

but can still be good for other cities if they have, for example, community boards

good for effectively representing communities of interest that are spread across the whole city, such as particular ethnic groups or interests such as disabled people

but the effort and cost required for candidates to campaign for election across the whole city may be a barrier

allows all voters to vote for all candidates standing for election

but is likely to result in a longer list of candidates which may discourage voters from voting

encourages councillors to take more of a city-wide view in their decision-making and is in line with the declaration councillors are required to make, when they are elected, to act in the interests of the city as a whole

but council decision-making may risk not taking more local concerns and interests into account

Wards

voters in defined local areas (called wards) vote for councillors to represent that area or ward

Pros and cons of a full ward system of representation include:

ensures representation for local areas

but may encourage more focus on local issues in council decision-making at the expense of city-wide ones

having locally elected councillors is likely to encourage more participation locally

but this participation will need to be balanced by consideration of city-wide interests

easier and cheaper for more candidates to stand for election to council

but more difficult for candidates representing city-wide interests, such as disabled people, to be elected

voters have a shorter list of candidates to consider and choose from at elections

but voters have less choice in who will represent them

councillors are easier to get in touch with locally and it is easier for residents to hold them accountable

but may encourage councillors to take a narrower, more local view in their decision-making rather than a city-wide view

Mixed At-Large & Ward system

voters vote for some councillors to represent the city as a whole and for some councillors to represent their local area or ward (i.e. a mix of the other two options)

the mixed ‘at-large’ and ward system of representation can be a way to balance the various pros and cons of both the ‘at-large’ system and the ward system

The majority of councils around Aotearoa New Zealand have a full ward system of representation

53 out of 67 councils use the full ward system

8 councils are elected 'at-large'

6 councils are elected with a mix of 'at-large' and wards, including Hutt City Council

The decision on which system to chose needs to reflect the communities in the city and in particular if these are city-wide or more local in nature.