Is that being elected?!?

[ralf-nz]

"As the number of candidates does not exceed the number of vacancies to be filled, I hereby declare ... to be elected." Excerpt of "our" papers here from this week.

This is in accordance with "Local Electoral Act 2001 No 35 (as at 24 January 2009), Public Act", section 63, which reads:

"If number of candidates does not exceed number of vacancies, candidates to be declared elected

(1) If, at the close of nominations for an election, the number of candidates does not exceed the number of vacancies to be filled, the electoral officer must, as soon as practicable after the close of nominations, declare all nominated candidates to be elected.

(2) A declaration under subsection (1) must be given by public notice in the prescribed manner."

Should there not be a voting to determine if they receive enough votes for a certain quorum.

Else it might happen that they are just supported by themselves and / or those who nominated them.

[Duncan74]

But as you need to have someone in post, then the system is that anyone is better than no-one.

And if people didn't want person X to get the job, then they should have stood to oppose.

What's the point in expending all the money to administer an election if there's only a certain outcome?

[ralf-nz]

But as you need to have someone in post, then the system is that anyone is better than no-one. And if people didn't want person X to get the job, then they should have stood to oppose.

What's the point in expending all the money to administer an election if there's only a certain outcome?

I do not agree that you necessarily "need to have someone in post"!

If there is no candidate at all that constituency could easily be governed by the one higher up in the hierarchy; e.g. community (board) by city/district (council).

I do most strongly not agree either "that anyone is better than no-one".

Though I don't like a stand still I deem that better than going in a wrong direction.