"Whatever central government chooses, offering half-baked solutions or tinkering on the edges is not good enough. The time to act is now."

More than six months ago I said:

"It’s an election year, so you are going to get your share of people pitching their case to serve, and it can be a real drag for some people. I can only say to them that at least it will be over come October.
Nevertheless, when the final results come in some will be happy, and some won't, but no one should be happy with a low voter turnout. It’s atrocious when two out of every three voters left their ballots on the table (if they got them). I’m convinced that it is not due to one factor, but a horrible recipe that has been baking for some time."

Now that we have just been through another election, turnout is still atrocious. Even with all the changes councils have made to improve access, including longer voting periods, voice voting over the phone, language packs, and more polling booths, most of the country still saw only a fraction of voters take part. This is not just a Porirua problem; it is a nationwide one.

As journalist Hayden Donnell wrote in The Spinoff:

“The reasons for our dire local election participation stats are well-canvassed. Few people still know how to post a letter, and the ones who do are disproportionately ancient. People don’t care about local government, despite some articulate and not at all deranged attempts to impress upon them its importance. It’s hard to tell all the virtually identical men in the booklet apart...
But the situation is no longer sustainable. Voter turnout across the country was sitting at 32% on election day. In Auckland, it’s unlikely to crack 30%. A supermajority of New Zealanders are looking at local government elections and issuing a resounding meh...”

Virginia Fallon, writing in the Sunday Star Times, reported that this year’s turnout of 32.65% was the lowest in 36 years, with fewer than one in three New Zealanders casting a vote. Urban turnout fell below 30%, provincial areas were at 38.3%, and rural turnout reached 43.6%.

Professor Andrew Geddis of the University of Otago warned:

“Once you start getting down to that level, when you’re representing less than one in four voters, it saps you of a mandate. It makes the position of local government problematic in the way it makes decisions.”

Geddis also noted that low turnout forces councils to spend more time and money consulting to compensate for the lack of legitimacy. Even Nick Smith, chair of LGNZ’s electoral reform working group, has admitted the system is “on life support”. 

As I see it, we have three clear pathways for serious reform: compulsory voting, synchronising local elections with the general election, or standardising in-person polling. Each comes with trade-offs, but all demand bold action if we are to stop our democracy from leaking further.

One more thing: before I go into these options, we need better from people like the Prime Minister who supports online voting for future elections, though he believed the current system “does actually work – people just need to get off and do it”. His musings are from cloud cuckoo land, and should not be taken seriously. 

Option 1. Compulsory Voting (CV)

Evidence from Australia shows that CV could lift participation from around 40 percent to over 80–90 percent.

Pros

• Directly addresses the “rational choice” problem. A small fine changes the calculation for those who would otherwise abstain.

• Ensures councils have a genuine mandate representing everyone, not just older, affluent voters.

Cons

• Philosophical objections exist. Some see it as an infringement on the freedom not to participate.

• Concerns about “donkey votes” are largely unfounded. Our ballots are randomised, so candidate order is not alphabetical. A clear option can be provided for voters to formally indicate they refuse to support any candidate. The secret ballot allows protest votes while keeping overall results representative.

Option 2. Synchronising the timing of Local Elections with General Elections

Synchronising local elections is arguably the second most effective option. International experience shows it can double turnout in low-participation contests. Local government is defined by legislation and is not independent, so why should its elections be any different?

Pros

• Overcomes the “second-order election” problem. Local contests ride the wave of national media attention and citizen mobilisation, reducing the extra effort needed to vote twice.

• Makes it easier for voters to understand political allegiances. In Porirua, Labour, Green, and ACT candidates were visible, yet independents were still able to win.

Cons

• Some groups, including LGNZ, argue against synchronisation, particularly in the context of four-year terms.

• I disagree. The loudest objections to partisanship often come from those whose views do not align with the majority of voters. Claiming to be independent can appear either gutless or deceitful. Synchronisation does not prevent independent candidates from succeeding.

3. In-Person Polling Booths (Standardisation)

For those unwilling to adopt CV or synchronisation, there is a practical middle-ground: moving away from postal voting entirely.

Why it is necessary

• Postal voting is failing, especially for younger, transient, or digitally disengaged voters.

Why it works

• A physical polling day/week turns local elections into a visible civic event, boosting turnout through social pressure.

• Aligns with the process people already use for General Elections.

• LGNZ and other groups advocate this reform as it improves access without forcing partisanship or participation.

Incremental improvements alone will not save local democracy. Councils have done what they can, but turnout remains dismally low. If we want our councils to reflect the full population and maintain public trust, central government must lead on structural reform. Compulsory voting, synchronisation, or standardised in-person polling are not perfect, but they are the hard choices we must confront.

Whatever central government chooses, offering half-baked solutions or tinkering on the edges is not good enough. The time to act is now. 

I would be happy with any of these three if they improve voter turnout, although I am mindful of the expression that you should not have politicians setting election rules, just as you would not have panel beaters designing intersections. The status quo is not working. We either have a revolution of our rules, or our democracy dies in darkness.

And this is not just about elections. In another post, I will explore how we could fundamentally change the way we engage with communities outside of formal voting periods, making participation meaningful year-round.