Not voting in local elections is rational. Voters need better reasons to engage

With less than a week until voting in local elections closes, it seems early voter turnout may have increased compared to 2022 – up from 10% of eligible voters to about 18% at the same stage this year.

Still, the final turnout will likely be within the expected range – around 45% across New Zealand, with maybe 35% in Auckland (where the mayoral race had attracted only 10% of eligible voters by late September).

Cue commentators diagnosing the imminent demise of local democracy, followed by their prescribed remedies: the voting system should change, there should be more or less postal voting, local and national elections should be synchronised, schools need more civics education.

But is local democracy really in such parlous straits? My research into regional council democracy suggests otherwise.

On the whole, I’ve found eligible voters who choose not to vote are sensible and not simply apathetic or antidemocratic. After all, more than three-quarters of them (77%) voted in the last general election – they are not switched off.

Rather, they are acting quite rationally. Voting involves costs as well as benefits. Voters have to find out who the candidates are and what they stand for, and then decide who is most likely to deliver on what they promise if elected.

Reading election pamphlets and attending candidate meetings, then making sense of it all, takes time and effort. Voters will therefore only engage if they think the benefits of voting will outweigh the costs, and their own welfare will improve as a result.

On the available evidence, more than half of New Zealand voters think the effort to vote in local elections is unlikely to be worth the return.

Who are we voting for?

General elections are different. Candidates’ party affiliations reduce those voting “costs” because party manifestos set out their political positions and goals.

We might not know the candidates, but we know where their political values lie and how they are likely to vote on issues. Also, we assume some sort of vetting procedure has weeded out the liabilities.

This is not the case in local elections. Historically, New Zealand has preferred to keep overt party politics out of local government – despite the known party connections or affiliations of many supposedly non-aligned candidates.

Typically, only a few national political parties front up in local elections, and then only within a few councils (typically the Greens and Labour, and now ACT in the main centres).

Without much easy political branding to rely on, how are voters to know whether their candidates’ values align with theirs?

The Electoral Commission publishes candidate profiles. But mostly these consist of broad, anodyne statements, often accompanied by a promise to keep rate increases down.

A watchdog group such as Democracy Action can provide further information for voters to compare candidates. But they, too, are limited by candidates’ willingness to provide any information about themselves.

Voters are realistic

But does this matter? It’s impossible to provide an objective measure, but the 45% of eligible voters who do turn out generally deliver credible councillors and mayors – despite some of the very fringe or prank candidates on offer.

Having worked closely with regional, city and district councillors over the years, I remain impressed by their competence and commitment to their councils and citizens.

A few mavericks can make it to the council table, yes. But we could say the same of some backbench MPs in parliament. More than a third of the country’s mayors have now served at least two terms and are seeking another, suggesting their competence is recognised.

Also, and without being cynical, voters know changing councillors is unlikely to alter local body behaviour much. Councils’ discretionary expenditure is extremely limited, with the bulk of their budgets committed to roading and water infrastructure.

The government’s Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill aims to reduce that discretionary spending even more.

Voters wanting lower taxes don’t expect much from local government, either. A two-person household on median incomes pays nearly NZ$40,000 to central government in income tax and GST, compared to just under $4,000 for an average city or district rates bill.

Real issues engage voters

Tertiary students and renters are also unlikely to engage. Most of my students laughed sheepishly when I asked them before the previous local election whether they had voted.

Neither group has skin in the game: they don’t pay rates (their landlords do), and quite possibly they will have finished a degree and left town before they can enjoy any benefits from a change in council representation.

This may help explain why smaller councils have much higher voter turnouts than large metropolitan areas, such as south Auckland, with high numbers of renters and young people.

None of this is meant as an excuse for tolerating less democracy. In fact, as my research has shown, when a local controversy or crisis emerges, voters do engage.

In the previous election, flood management on the West Coast, Wellington’s public transport problems and Canterbury’s water pollution issues all galvanised voters for the affected councils.

Here’s a prediction: when the full ratepayer bill for the central government’s “Local Water Done Well” infrastructure policy comes through, the 2029 local government elections will become more engaging contests and turnout will increase.

It’s too early to write off local democracy just yet.