LGOIMA Request Details: LG1889
Date received: 28/11/2019
Requested information: Council spending on election promotion and voter engagement
Status: Complete
Date responded: 06/12/2019
Response:
Dear Harry,
The responses to your questions relating to promoting the 2019 election are provided below. We have not provided any information pre-dating 2016 as it would require a significant manual search and collation exercise. Additionally, the costs are not broken down into the areas you have suggested for the reasons listed in our responses. Your questions and the responses:
• The total amount spent by the Council that went into promoting the election, and increasing voter turnout - for every council election since 2000.
Response: Not all of our election related promotional activities incurred an identifiable fiscal amount. This includes items created for our social media and our fortnightly community paper page. The identified total costs are:
2016 2019
Campaign related Not known $3,327
Routine election promotional costs
(for LGNZ, joint advertising, rate inserts etc) $8,455 $9,839
Note: for 2016 elections there was considerable community interest in the candidates that resulted in a turnout that exceeded the national average. Consequently majority of the promotion was done within existing channels and did not incur identifiable campaign costs.
• A breakdown of the spending that went into promoting the election and increasing voter turnout (e.g. through comms, publicity campaign, education campaign) - for every council election since 2000 (if the information exists. If it is too time-expensive, then can I request the information just for the 2016 & 2019 election).
Response: The costs have been attributed to the communication general budget and not split into campaigns. Note the figures are not available for 2016 without conducting a manual search.
• An outline of the strategy that was used by the Council to promote voting in this election.
Response: The strategy was to leverage off the information and campaign being run by LGNZ, to which we contribute as part of the routine costs. This was augmented by local advertising on our regular channels to encourage voting, and promote citizen hosted events.
• A list of new initiatives thought up by the Council this year that would promote voter turnout and voter engagement.
Response: Given the saturation advertising on TV, radio and print media about the need to vote and key dates we focussed on promoting citizen meet-the-candidate events in the two wards, and co-hosting a combined (councillor and mayoral candidates) meet-the-candidate event that we live-streamed on Facebook and MDC website. Additionally at the same event we used an internet based (mobile and web) question collation platform to enable those watching, and unable to attend, to ask the candidates questions through the event MC .
We also created a large ‘ballot box’ that was left in public places with relevant dates and allowed for questions or observations to be left – the weather did not allow this to be fully deployed as planned.
• Evidence of efforts made by the Council to encourage and increase voter engagement e.g. a "meet the candidates" event, a Mayoral debate, working with local news outlets to increase election coverage.
Response: see points made above. Additionally the local media was proactive in sourcing interviews with newsworthy candidates that lifted community awareness of voting.
The responses to your questions relating to promoting the 2019 election are provided below. We have not provided any information pre-dating 2016 as it would require a significant manual search and collation exercise. Additionally, the costs are not broken down into the areas you have suggested for the reasons listed in our responses. Your questions and the responses:
• The total amount spent by the Council that went into promoting the election, and increasing voter turnout - for every council election since 2000.
Response: Not all of our election related promotional activities incurred an identifiable fiscal amount. This includes items created for our social media and our fortnightly community paper page. The identified total costs are:
2016 2019
Campaign related Not known $3,327
Routine election promotional costs
(for LGNZ, joint advertising, rate inserts etc) $8,455 $9,839
Note: for 2016 elections there was considerable community interest in the candidates that resulted in a turnout that exceeded the national average. Consequently majority of the promotion was done within existing channels and did not incur identifiable campaign costs.
• A breakdown of the spending that went into promoting the election and increasing voter turnout (e.g. through comms, publicity campaign, education campaign) - for every council election since 2000 (if the information exists. If it is too time-expensive, then can I request the information just for the 2016 & 2019 election).
Response: The costs have been attributed to the communication general budget and not split into campaigns. Note the figures are not available for 2016 without conducting a manual search.
• An outline of the strategy that was used by the Council to promote voting in this election.
Response: The strategy was to leverage off the information and campaign being run by LGNZ, to which we contribute as part of the routine costs. This was augmented by local advertising on our regular channels to encourage voting, and promote citizen hosted events.
• A list of new initiatives thought up by the Council this year that would promote voter turnout and voter engagement.
Response: Given the saturation advertising on TV, radio and print media about the need to vote and key dates we focussed on promoting citizen meet-the-candidate events in the two wards, and co-hosting a combined (councillor and mayoral candidates) meet-the-candidate event that we live-streamed on Facebook and MDC website. Additionally at the same event we used an internet based (mobile and web) question collation platform to enable those watching, and unable to attend, to ask the candidates questions through the event MC .
We also created a large ‘ballot box’ that was left in public places with relevant dates and allowed for questions or observations to be left – the weather did not allow this to be fully deployed as planned.
• Evidence of efforts made by the Council to encourage and increase voter engagement e.g. a "meet the candidates" event, a Mayoral debate, working with local news outlets to increase election coverage.
Response: see points made above. Additionally the local media was proactive in sourcing interviews with newsworthy candidates that lifted community awareness of voting.