KJCherokee

In a recent thread someone took me to task for referring to Australia's democratically elected government(s). I realise that should have been "democratically" elected government as I certainly don't believe that with Australia's voting system we end up with the government that the majority wants.

The biggest problem I have is that you can't NOT vote for either of the two major parties unless you happen to be in one of the few electorates where a minor party candidate (Greens, Katter Australian) or an independent has sufficient local support to end up above both of the majors on preferences. The only way you can register your disgust at the majors is by spoiling your ballot paper - you have to turn up at the polling booth or cop the fine.

OK, in the UK a candidate can get elected with only 40% or less of the vote (and significantly less than that of those eligible to vote) but at least all those who voted for him/her actually wanted him/her (or, more likely, their party) as their representative. In Australia a candidate has to end up with more than 50% of the vote after preferences - but a lot of those votes are from people who actually voted (as first, second, third or fourth preferences) for someone else and the vote ended up with the candidate from Labor or Lib/Nat only because, as a last resort, the voter preferred them to the other major - they wouldn't have received the vote at all if this preferential system wasn't compulsory.

And the farce of pretending we are voting for our local candidate, which is only true in the case of the independents. Our local member is only there to vote in parliamentary divisions along the lines determined by the leaders of their party, so when we vote we vote on the basis of who we want (or don't want) as Premier or Prime Minister. Which is going to make next September quite interesting as most people I know who aren't locked into supporting a particular party regardless of policy or personality (which I think of as the Ford v Holden syndrome) don't want either Gillard or Abbot.

Just look at what happened in Queensland last election. We had Bligh as Labor premier and a bunch of non-entities running the LNP: then realising that the LNP didn't stand a chance as it was they put up Campbell Newman as LNP leader, and based on his track record as Lord Mayor of Brisbane the LNP won in a landslide. No matter that many are now disillusioned, the LNP vote was for Newman alone regardless of who the candidate was in any paricular electorate.

Swerv-o

This is definitely the farce of the party system, and makes the entire thing undemocratic in my opinion. Your local member - in theory - is there to represent the majority opinion of the constituents, however their voting actions are suborned by the leadership and whips of the party they happen to be aligned with. The only time this doesn't happen is when the member is given a conscience vote - which they then make based on their own opinion, still not that of their electorate.

So the wishes of the electorate actually come third in any party aligned member's voting intentions, if the member can even be bothered to find out what they are. This was demonstrated in the vote on marriage reform we had here last year - there is/was massive popular support for allowing gay marriage, but the vote on party lines (or even a conscience vote for that matter) did not yield the result the majority wanted.

Highly undemocratic IMHO.


S

KJCherokee

A quick description of the Australian parliamentary system for anyone who doesn't know it.

There is the Federal (Commonwealth) parliament plus individual parliaments in each state and territory. They all have similar stuctures (except Queensland which does not have an upper house), so apart from numbers what applies to federal also applies to states.

The lower house (House of Representatives) has 150 members, so a party needs 76 seats to form government. MP's are elected from individual constituencies (like the UK) which contain roughly equal numbers of voters. The upper house (the Senate) has 76 members with 12 from each state and 2 from each territory, who are elected in a state-wide ballot.

A parliamentary term lasts 3 years for the lower house and 6 years for the senate, so at each federal election all the lower house members and half the upper house members lose their seats and have to stand again.

Voting is by a 'single transferrable vote' which means that on the ballot paper will be all the candidates for the seat and you have to number them in order of preference. When the votes for the lower house are counted, firstly all the first preferences are counted: if any candidate gets over 50% of first preferences they are elected (this doesn't often happen). If no-one gets over 50% then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and his second preferences are distributed: this goes on until preference distribution gives one candidate the necessary 50%+. In polls this is referred to as the 'two party preferred' situation.

A similar situation is used for Senate elections, except that in that case the total number of votes available in each state or territory is divided by the number of senate seats being contested + 1 and the resultant number is the 'quota'. Once any one candidate has a 'quota' of votes they are automatically elected and their surplus votes (if any) are distributed according to preferences. There can be up to 80 candidates for each senate election (although 25-30 is probably more common) so each voter either has to number all the boxes in order or just put a '1' against the group (Lib, Nat, Lab, Green, Fred's Loony Party, etc) he most wants and have the preferences distributed as that group has advised the electoral commission.

Voting (or rather attendance at the polling booth) is compulsory for all persons on the electoral roll, and you can be fined for not attending (or putting in a pre-ballot or postal vote).

KJCherokee

A further explanation for UK readers: both the Liberal party and the National party are the equivalent of the Tories in the UK, but traditionally the Liberals have most of their support in the cities whilst the Nationals gain their support in the country electorates. This means that the conservative governments are always a coalition of these two parties as neither can gain enough votes to govern by themselves. Why they don't amalgamate (which they have done in Queensland where the current state government is the Liberal National Party or LNP) is beyond the comprehension of most people: after all even if the Nationals (who are by far the smaller) don't agree with the Liberals they aren't going to vote with Labor to defeat them!

GarryP

The national party are equivalent to the "pro hunting, set the dogs on the riff raff" tories, and the liberals to the "let's privatise it so I can sweep up the contracts with my services company and add another nought to my assets" tories.

Labor are approximately the UK liberals.

And as far as the op is concerned, they need a 'None of the Above' option. If that wins, all candidates are barred from standing again, and its rerun. You should never be forced to vote for a least worst.

Swerv-o

That's a genius idea!


S

KJCherokee

Not a bad idea, but what I want is the option to vote for Fred and not have my vote count for anyone else if Fred doesn't win.

Swerv-o

The preference flows make it very difficult to actually work out where your vote is going. I think it's unnecessarily complex, particularly for a nation that is generally politically apathetic. The complexity of the preference system encourages people to mark 'above the line' and hence allow the powers that be to make the preference choices for them - essentially diluting their vote - particularly when people are rushed for time in a busy polling station.

I plan to apply for a postal vote, and will then take the required time to mark each candidate on the A0 voting paper so that my voting preferences are made how I wish, but I suspect that I will be in a very small % of people that actually do this...


S

KJCherokee

According to Wikipedia less than 5% vote 'below the line' in Senate elections. Actually I'm surprised it's that high.

GarryP

It amounts to the same thing.

You don't think anyone other than Fred is capable of doing the job, therefore if Fred gets knocked out you don't want any of the others to win. If you don't mind one of the others getting in, but don't particularly care which one, then you can just mark the rest at random (and if everyone does the same, then its just a noise floor).

It should be noted that "None of the Above" could be implemented without anyone else's agreement. All it needs is a single interest party setup - who state that if they win the only thing they will do is pass a law banning the candidates who lost to "None of the Above" from standing, then resign and call another election.

KJCherokee

There's an interesting example of a House of Representative election on the AEC website which indicates how the candidate who got nearly 50% of the first preference votes can end up losing.

arkon

What a great idea, gets my vote. I would also like to suggest politicians don't get paid to do the job. They do it for free for the love of the country.

Mr Grumpy

The preferential voting system is fair fairer then the fascist first past the post system. That system is where you can be ruled by someone the vast majority of people don't want. Atleast in preferential you can choose the next least bad option.

Ultimately the best voting system in the world is the pure proportional representation system where there are no electorates or 'communities' and it is a purely statistical numbers game. You get 10% of the vote you get 10% of the seats ect.

Swerv-o

There's a lot of professions that should be more like that sadly. And welcome back - it's been a while...



The issues of first past the post is certainly exaggerated by voter apathy, where you are essentially ending up with the candidate that the majority of the people who voted voted for.

PR is OK, but inevitably leads to lots of horrible splinter parties and consequently unstable governments. Have a look at Belgium as an example...


S

Sherlock Holmes

Are you suggesting that the Oz Labor Party is slightly right of centre??? They seem as commie to me as any other Labour Party.

Just wondering.