Electoral Reform Green Paper
Strengthening Australia’s Democracy (9-27 November)
The Electoral Reform Green Paper – Strengthening Australia’s Democracy discusses a wide range of potential changes to our electoral laws and systems, in areas including:
- the franchise (who is entitled to vote in Australia);
- voting systems for the House of Representatives and the Senate;
- arrangements for enrolling to vote and for maintaining the electoral roll;
- arrangements for the registration of political parties and nomination of candidates for election;
- campaigning for elections;
- arrangements for casting votes; and
- the counting of votes and determination of election results.
The Green Paper argues that the main challenge for governments is to preserve the key strengths and stability of Australia’s electoral systems, while striving for greater improvements to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of contemporary Australia. The paper outlines a number of possible changes that may have implications for our electoral systems, including:
- changes in methods of voting, with a greater number of postal and pre-poll votes being lodged;
- technological developments, with an increasing trend towards electronic transactions and interactions with government;
- demographic changes, with the Australian community drawn from an increasingly diverse range of places, a highly mobile Australian population, and an ageing population; and
- increased opportunities for harmonisation between the Commonwealth, states and territories.
The Green Paper also examines a number of options that could achieve increased participation in elections. More than 2.3 million Australians who were entitled to vote for the 2007 federal election did not fully exercise their right to vote, either by failing to enrol to vote, failing to cast a vote, or casting a vote that was informal and therefore not counted. Strategies for maximising participation in elections could include:
- improving enrolment processes;
- improving civic education;
- amending and harmonising rules for voting, or for accepting votes as formal; and
- improving and harmonising the accessibility of voting services.
In light of these issues, the Government is interested in your views on what changes should be made to our electoral laws and processes. In addition to this online discussion forum, written submissions have been invited by 27 November 2009. A list of specific issues for discussion and comment is set out in Chapter 15 - (PDF 71KB) of the Green Paper. Some starting questions that you might wish to consider are:
Which area, or areas, of our electoral laws should be the highest priority for reform?
What strategies do you think should be adopted to improve electoral participation rates?
Which area, or areas, should be a priority for harmonisation between the Commonwealth, states and territories?
A draw for places on the House of Representatives ballot paper replaced the previous alphabetical listing in 1984. Very often two or three close contests are determined by who obtained the higher spot and benefited from what is usually a modest donkey vote. Seven narrow victories in 2007 had that assistance: Swan was decided on donkey vote advantage in both 2007 and 2004.
Reasonably prominent political careers have hung by a thread on this account: for instance Peter Dutton and Fran Bailey squeaked back in Dickson and McEwen respectively in 2007, David Cox lost Kingston in 2004, Cheryl Kernot just won Dickson in 1998, Michael Lee barely survived in Dobell in 1996 and Warwick Smith lost Bass by 40 votes in 1993. One day government may be determined by who has had the luck of the draw in key close seats.
As party names appear alongside candidates’ names on ballot papers, rotating the order in which they appear to minimise donkey vote advantage would make sense. The Robson Rotation of names, in use in Tasmania since 1979 and the Australian Capital Territory since 1995, can do that in both single-member and multi-member electorates.
Major party machines prefer to control the order of election in Senate elections and then various operatives complain about it being too easy for smaller parties to work their way up to a quota. If they were to let voters sort out who gets elected by having names in party columns rotated and allowing the purely party vote to be spread out, they would make the most of their supporters’ efforts. For instance, if Labor or Liberal achieves 2.2 quotas, in practice its third candidate starts with 0.2 of a quota and is certain to be excluded towards the end of the scrutiny. With Robson Rotation, there could instead be three candidates with 0.9, 0.7 and 0.6 of a quota respectively, all of them with prospects of picking up preferences from elsewhere: two would still definitely be elected and the third might have a real show.
As a disenfranchised Australian living in France, I strongly support the removal of the current difficulties for Australians living abroad of remaining on the electoral roll (in particular the time limit of 3+1+1+1 years for enrolment and automatic disenfranchisement if an election is missed).
Under the Australian Constitution, eligibility to vote should be based on citizenship not residence.
Many countries provide simple mechanisms for their offshore citizens to be able to vote in all elections. Some countries (more and more) are introducing dedicated members of parliament representing expatriates (for example France).
It is disappointing to see that Australia is falling behind the rest of the world on this most important aspect of democracy.
I agree that expat citizens should be eligible to vote. But an equally pressing need is for such citizens and the millions who live in safe seats in Australia to be able to cast an effective vote for the House of Representatives. I have voted for major party candidates with care for some 44 years and have yet to elect a representative in the House of Representatives. Yet my Senate vote (always below the line) is always effective in leading to the election of a candidate of my choice.
A move to Hare-Clark (with Robson rotation of candidate name, optional marking of preferences and casual vacancies filled by recount) in multi-gender regions of 7, 5 or 9 members would give us all wide range of candidates to choose from in our preferred party and a very high probability of electing candidates of whom we approve.
The casual vacancy recount procedure used in Tasmania and the ACT means that the voters who lose their representative are directly involved in choosing the replacement.
Robson rotation makes it possible for the voters to have a real say in who gets elected rather than the part machine.
Optional marking of preferences is essential for voting in ANY electoral system. There is no justification for forcing voters to mark more than their genuine preferences. For 80% of voters only the first preference is ever considered, so it is outrageous if the vote is declared infomal because of an error in the lower preferences.
I agree. There is no need for State Electoral Commissions to have access to the Electoral Roll at all. I am a registered as a silent voter and I was amazed just how lacks security and access to my enrollment details are. The Victorian Electoral Commission readily access the electoral roll for matters that are not related to the casting of a vote or the conduct of the election. There is no restriction or secuity in accessing confidential information. The Electoral commissions also regularly access other sources of data in order to try and obtain personal information. Information that should not have access to. Information is readily onsold to third parties with or without the proper authorisation. the electoral commissions have no record of who hand when information had been accessed.. There is serious concern that staff may have accessed information for civil investigators under some form of inducement.
The government MUST act to ensure that private informatiion is protected and restricted. ONLY federal returning officers should have access to the silent register. Not junior staff of state offices.
In the absence of proper security people should think twice before registering to vote.
I think it could be argued that having an electoral roll that is freely accessible to the public is a contravention to existing privacy legislation. Privacy legislation says that personal information cannot be released for a purpose other than for the purpose for which the information was collected. I think the purpose for which this personal information is collected is primarily for the purposes of the administration of elections.
If you conducted a survey of the people currently accessing personal information on the roll, I think you would find that nearly all of them are not accessing roll information for the purposes of the administration of transparent elections, they are using the roll as a phone book - trying to locate people they can't find in the white pages. Not an issue? How about the head of a national security agency whose peronal details were publicly available until mid this year? How about the introduction of Smartroll? How many people who would like to be "silent" electors will have their name automatically, and possibly unknowningly, appear on a publicly available electoral roll? You don't even need to identify as an Australian citizen or permanent resident to access people's personal information on the roll.
Agreed - this is a laudable initiative, but appalling badly advertised.
Still, for what its worth...
I'm a UK citizen living in Australia. Married to an Australian with two Australian daughters. I arrived in 2006 so am not one of the UK citizens with 'grandfather rights' to vote.
In regard to the franchise, the stipulation that 'citizenship is the appropriate basis for awarding the franchise' is (a) clearly atiquated and (b) manifestly unjust. The principle of 'taxation without representation' applies here. While Australia has a large ex pat population with a vote (although it does appear to be inconsistently supported across the globe) it also has a large onshore population of tax paying residents who are unable to vote in elections that raise the governments whose laws they live under.
While we lived in the UK my wife was able, as a permanent resident (non EU background) to vote and be employed by government - both of which are unavailable to permanent residents in Australia. Granted this was on the basis of Commonwealth citizenship rather than an enlightened view of permanent residents generally - but still an improvement on the Australian situation.
Bizarrely perhaps, I find the current state of affairs an active disincentive to taking up citizenship. The current situation reflects a low regard for the contribution of the permanent resident population - extension of the franchise to Australian permanent residents has the potential to engage a substantial part of the Australian population in the life of the nation and increase our commitment to the Commonwealth.
Following on from my previous post, the most productive steps that can be taken to increase election participation are not to increase the penalties or reduce the barriers to voting, they are:
- Open up government decision-making and policy development processes to public scrutiny and critique (using Gov 2.0 approaches where relevant).
- Create open discussions with the public - genuinely asking the public what they want and need and how to solve civic issues, then listening and responding accordingly.
- Make government data freely available in machine readable online formats where it does not impinge on national security or commercial confidence, thereby allowing the public to inform itself and contribute meaningfully to public debates.
- Reduce red tape across the public sector, updating processes to utilise modern technologies and meet modern community values to increase the value the community feels they receive from their government.
- Broadening the participation base in political parties through more open selection processes where the membership are influential in selecting representatives.
- Provide greater opportunities for direct participation in government (for example the UK Youth Parliament) to encourage active interest and engagement in democratic processes.
- Reduce the strict party line doctrine in modern Australian political parties that has resulted in voters no longer selecting a representative of their electorate, but instead choosing between representatives of a party.
- Ensure that inappropriate conduct is prevented. Politicians should behave in a professional and responsible manner and demonstrate to their electorates why they should be trusted and respected. By losing the respect of their electorates they reduce peoples' respect in democratic processes - which could lead to a less democratic society for Australia in the future.
The key determinants for whether people will choose to vote or not is closely related to the level of the barriers erected against voting and the credibility of Australian democracy.
Others have commented on the issues regarding barriers, so I’ll limit my comments to the credibility area.
Representative democracy functions poorly where the public doesn't feel that their representatives are truly representative and accountable for their actions.
A recent example of how elected representatives can lose the respect of voters and potential voters is embodied in a recent Crickey article - Kate Ellis and the youth roundtable that wasn't (See Crickey article dated 23/10). No wonder that young people feel disengaged from democracy.
Instances like this diminish faith in government consultation processes and reduce the propensity of people to vote.
This is not an isolated instance. Recently the ACT government held an online consultation regarding their consultation processes in partnership with Bang The Table. The overwhelming message was that the ACT government had to ensure its consultation processes were legitimate and the input of the public was considered in subsequent policy formation and implementation. Paying lip service to public consultation disengages people from the democratic process, reducing their propensity to vote and diminishes their faith in both the government and the public service.
Proportional Representation
-- produces fair election results where all electors can directly elect the parliamentarian of their choosing
-- represents the will of the people in that all political views recieve representation in accord with the number of votes recieved
-- is democratic in that all electors have a vote that counts
-- is fair in that all votes carry equal weight
Proportional Representation
-- eliminates meaningless electorates of varying populations
-- eliminates the need to create marginal seats where relatively few electors can determine the result of an election
-- eliminates disenfranchisement of the majority of electors
-- eliminates the need for some electors to have second preference votes to determine who they do not want to win a seat
You make some valid points Edward, however, I still think the overseas examples you cited are substantially different from Australia with respect to the federation issue. For example, the US has a much larger population for starters, not to mention the fact that it was a country formed out of civil war. In any event, I would even go so far as to suggest that the US would also benefit from a central government elected by a proportional electoral system vastly different from the one they currently have.
The other point I would make is that the States are really just a legacy from the natural process of settlors arriving progressively in the early days and setting up the original state boundaries, parliaments etc. There was also the problem of tyranny of distance (largely overcome by advancements in travel over the past 100 years) which inevitably segregated / isolated people in one state from another. Had 21 million people arrived on large ships overnight and subsequently dispersed accross the Country in the same population distribution as exists in 2009, I dare say that the system would be vastly different from what we have today.
The States and Territories certainly served their purpose in the early days, but they are now just an archaic pain in the political proverbial... that is my view at least..
2. Introduction of a proportional representation electoral system for the House of Representatives and abolishment of the Senate altogether. Do I need to elaborate other than to refer to the 1998 Federal election in which Howard received only 39% of the national primary vote but still formed government with a healthy majority! There are a myriad of proportional electoral systems which differ from one another in minor respects, many of which have already been countenanced verbatim on this forum, I am confident the nation would be capable of selecting the best one via referendum on the issue.
3. While we’re at it (ie Referendum on the electoral system) why not abolish the States and Territories altogether and end the Commonwealth / State political ‘blame game’ once and for all. Centralisation of power to the Federal Government usually rings alarm bells with many and has often been used as an argument (not unreasonably) against major reform to the Federation. However, solution 2 (ie introduction of proportional representation electoral system) will provide the checks and balances against the concentration of power in the Federal Government by diluting its legislative capacity via the inevitably consultative form of government that would result from the proportional system (eg. During his second term in office, Howard would have had to negotiate with the other 61% of the House of Representative in order to pass any legislation. Once passed, however, such legislation would apply uniformly throughout the country and would have been developed, debated and enacted by all political parties and independents, each of which having influence on the statute books proportional to the percentage of the primary vote received.)
But perhaps I am being a little too simplistic…
Joel,
Re #3. Abolish the States.
Yes, you are right that having the states helps minimize the threat of too much government power in limited hands. However there is still another reason why countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, Switzerland and the United States have chosen to be a federation. That is: the recognition that we are not all peas from the same pod. With regards to our culture, our beliefs and values and our aspirations we are simply not a homogenous society. Not just in ethnic origin, but in every way we are a multicultural society; and in a multicultural society you can’t have the same laws to suit everybody. It’s not so visible in Australia (because for the last century the High Court has engaged in a creeping takeover of states’ rights in favour of the Commonwealth, despite the fact that practically every referendum put to the people advancing more central power has been lost) but in America for example, different states are showcases for different beliefs. Louisiana executes capital criminals while New York state doesn’t ; Texas allows the right to carry a concealed weapon while California thinks that is unsafe. Ditto gay marriage, land zoning, jury sentencing, politician recalls, compulsory seatbelt and helmet laws, medical marijuana use, state income tax, education funding, the list goes on.
Have a clear demarcation between the powers of the states and the commonwealth and the blame game will stop. And those who vote for a change of government in state elections and lose can always still win by voting with their feet.
For what its worth (not much I suspect) I propose the following 3 very simple solutions (in order of importance) which would, in my view, go a long way to improving democracy in Australia:
1. Greater regulation of the commercial media to ensure that false and misleading representations are curtailed. This may be seen as a contrary to freedom of speech, however, the proliferation of sensationalised news / current affairs reporting and unsubstantiated scaremongering does not equate with free speech. Such agenda pushing by the commercial networks (which obviously still achieve the greatest level of engagement with the populous despite the increase in online participation) creates misconception in the community which unduely influences voting patterns. Despite the extensive posts already made with respect to reforming the electoral system, which I agree is fundamental to improving our democracy (hence why I have included it as one of the 3 simple solutions), unfortunately the impact of such reform would be negated by the media's continued stranglehold on public debate in this country. As part of the reform of media regulation, a total ban on political donations and advertising would also need to be implemented. Why should one party / candidate have a louder voice over another simply because it spends more money on the election campaign? Surely in a true democracy, all candidates should have equal opportunity to present their policies to the people for them to decide based on impartial reporting by a properly regulated media. Although, I suspect the major parties would cry foul that this would be an unnacceptable afront to freedom of speech etc. To this I would counter, if you can't afford to pay for medium (ie commercial tv network airtime), what use is your right to free speech when you are unable to reach your audience... and even if you could afford your message would be drowned out by the vested commercial interest of the networks owners.
The Green Paper argues that the main challenge for governments is to preserve the key strengths and stability of Australia’s electoral systems. The Special Minister of State in his introductory message relies heavily upon information provided by the AEC with respect to enrollment levels achieved by that part of the population eligible to enroll.
The JSCEM emphasized this dependence on page 81 of its 'Report on the conduct of the 2007 Federal election' with the words
"One of the most disturbing pieces of evidence
received by the committee during the inquiry into
the 2007 election was delivered by the new Electoral
Commissioner, Mr Ed Killesteyn at the public hearings
in Canberra on 17 March 2009.
Mr Killesteyn told the committee that an estimated
1.2 million electors were not on the electoral roll: ...".
What seems to be missing is official information as to what parts of the eligible population are thought not to be enrolled. There is an overall similarity in estimated size, being of the order of one million in each case, of several readily identifiable components of the population that may be thought eligible for enrollment.
The Australian expatriates, clearly eligible to enroll, subject to the provisions of Section 95 of the CEA, number in excess of one million: the permanently resident British subjects, since 2002, likewise; how is the AEC estimate in detail made up?
The only studies of enrollment levels, one official, and one submitted to a previous inquiry, do not overlap in time and appear to be at total variance as to levels of enrollment achieved.
Given that one of the key strengths of Australia's electoral system has always been the preservation and accessibility to the public of the official records of election results, how is it that with the VTR as displaying during the finalization of the 2007 election results having been removed from public view by the AEC, the Parliament can trust AEC estimates of enrollment levels?
Quota-preferential proportional representation for the Senate was introduced in 1948 to avoid lop-sided ineffectual or hostile Senates previously elected under winner-take-all systems. Our arrangements were based on those in Eire, where optional preferential voting applies to this day and informal voting rates remain less than 1%, but Dr Evatt insisted on a full marking of preferences despite the cogent objections of Coalition MPs.
Informal voting levels skyrocketed with increasing nominations. Instead of the root of the problem being tackled in 1983, party boxes were introduced to make it easy for voters to endorse a registered list of preferences (or perhaps an unspecified one of two, or later, three - constitutionally dubious as Senators must be elected directly by the people): the alternative of having to mark at least ninety per cent of the squares “below the line” with no more than three departures from sequential numbering is utterly bizarre as a formality criterion.
This double standard disadvantages ungrouped candidates not entitled to a party box (unlike in South Australia) and cannot be justified. Most voters who mark a party box are unaware of the associated registered preference list(s). Sometimes they later discover they have contributed to a startling outcome, for instance Australian Democrat and Labor voters assisting in Senator Fielding’s election in Victoria in 2004 because party operatives wrongly assumed having more votes than him and sought to benefit from an anticipated flow of Family First preferences.
Party boxes should be abolished and simpler formality provisions introduced. The ACT example of ballot papers instructing voters to mark at least as many preferences as there are vacancies but any vote with a single first preference being accepted as formal is entirely workable, particularly if more voters come to understand that the marking of further preferences cannot disadvantage those whom they support most strongly.
The authoritarian formality provisions for both House of Representatives and Senate elections are extraordinarily punitive for no good reason. Had a more principled approach based on listening closely to voters’ wishes been adopted at some point in the past, we would not have the current significant differences between federal and state/territory criteria nor unnecessarily high levels of informal voting.
The requirement that all preferences (with the exception of one square that may be left blank) be marked in House of Representatives elections is outrageous. Only in a handful of electorates do Labor or single Coalition candidates fail to figure in the final two-candidate reckoning. In the vast majority of cases, Labor and Coalition supporters’ second preferences are examined only for checking formality. No credible reason can be advanced for declaring “incomplete” votes of this kind informal at the outset.
In other cases where an omission (except of the final number) or repetition occurs, voters’ views are also summarily rejected at the outset, even though there may be a complete numerical sequence to one of the last two candidates in contention. This approach is unlikely to obtain voters’ respect or engagement, nor promote an understanding that their marking of preferences is simply an instruction about the order in which candidates are entitled to benefit from that particular vote.
Our democracy gets badly distorted because only around half the formal House of Representatives votes are effective. Adding unnecessary hurdles in the path of casting a formal vote worsens things. Electoral authorities would have far greater success in their educational efforts if formality criteria were based on defensible principles built around a preparedness to recognise voters’ real views.
Our electoral system needs greater respect for voters’ wishes through guarantees of regional representation closely aligning with levels of voter support.
Currently around two-thirds of single-member electorates are seen as generally safe for one party or another. Obtaining pre-selection for the dominant party is what the political contest usually comes down to. Voters cannot be blamed for being less than enthusiastic if they live in a safe seat and find unedifying the scrambles for these after redistributions or campaign offers to shower facilities disproportionately on relatively few marginal seats.
Regularly Labor and the Coalition win few or even no seats in a region where they have forty-or-more per cent two-party-preferred support. The composition of the House of Representatives does not properly reflect the geographical support base for either side of politics, as well as failing to provide equitable representation for smaller parties and independents. Worse, at times there are artificial “landslide” effects when support for one of the contenders for government weakens noticeably, leaving the opposition demoralised with attenuated numerical presence in the new parliament: increased executive arrogance often follows.
Instead of such distortions in political activity and representation, we need significant candidate and party competition in all areas, and voters’ wishes rather than preselectors’ decisions determining the composition of the House of Representatives. This would best be achieved through Tasmania and the ACT’s Hare-Clark system of proportional representation (with Robson Rotation of candidates’ names in party columns), in electorates returning five, seven or nine members. Until we move to a system of “effective voting” where voters feel empowered no matter where they live, we should not be surprised at disengagement such as a reluctance to enrol or vote, or relatively large numbers of deliberately informal votes being cast.
I would not advocate the Tasmanian or ACT system. The last bundle is semi proportional at best and seriously distorts the outcome of the ballot primarily due to the method of segmentation. Each vote for hold equal value under the Tasmanian/.ACT and Australian Senate system votes are not equal. The system used for counting PR elections is outdated, designed to facilitate a manual count not provide democratic representation. Take a look at the 2007 Queensland Senate election. Under the system used the Green's candidate Larissa Waters should have won the sixth seat. The reason she did not was due to the method of segmentation and distribution of the vote.
A simple test of the system is to recount the QLD senate vote using only the last seven candidates remaining and count the ballot a fresh Larrisa Waters would have been elected. Meek method or the wright system should be used.
If we can not fix it then we might as well adopt a party list system as used in Europe
How about some provisions for e-voting? Or even the ability to use a ball point pen to fill out the form? Get with the times AEC you dinosaur!
Do not under any circumstances introduce electronic voting. As a software engineer, I can say that e-voting is a very dangerous proposition. Electronic equipment can easily be tampered with to incorrectly record votes - for instance 'accidental' miscalibration of touch screens so that pressing on one candidate causes another candidate to be selected.
In a paper system, recounts are possible and there is cross-party scrutiny of the counting process. Paper systems don't fail catastrophically like electronic systems do - what if there was a power failure. Do people in affected areas then don't get to vote?
Please no - the paper system has served us well. Don't change it.
Electronic Voting - We already do it in Australia !
Just want to draw everyone's attention to the fact that Australia has already successfully used Remote Electronic Voting (REV) for approx. 1500 Australian Defence Force personnel in the 2007 Federal election. (for ADF personnel in 4 countries - Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor and the Solomon Islands). You can find details at the AEC website (I can't place the weblinks here unfortunately as PM&C don't allow this, but a Google search will find it or look on the AEC website under voting, then e-voting) and at the Parliament House website where there is a useful report into the conduct of the 2007 federal election (see Chapters 2 &3).
Of course some other countries have also beaten us to the punch and already use internet voting on a wide scale. Estonia is one example.
So how did it go ?
The AEC and the ADF both declared it a sucess and I quote the AEC conclusion that "the trial (in 2007) provided a convenient, reliable and secure method of voting in a federal election with voter feedback indicating a high level of satisfaction".
Was there any tampering, power failures, etc. as "newhoggy" sensationally and alarmingly warns of ? No - it worked well and smoothly.
Probably the biggest drawback was that it cost more than voting in Australia. Of course this is no surprise as it was a small scale trial and it was obviously a new exercise, etc. If conducted on a larger scale the cost per vote would almost certainly drop dramatically and approach the cost of voting in Australia.
So why don't we conduct a wider trial in 2010 with technology that's advanced an additional 3 more years ?
I would not say it was successful. There are a number of issues pertaining to the security of the electronic ballots that needs to be properly addressed. In Victoria the Electoral Commission had accessed polling vote results before the close of the pol and without Scrutineers being present. OK this was a trial run BUT it has a lot to be desired. We are far from being in a position where online voting can be implemented across the board. Much more needs to be done to ensure that the system is open and transparent and subject to proper scrutiny.
Electronic Voting - Who else is using it ?
Further research shows that Switzerland also uses Remote Electronic Voting.
France held experiments recently enabling French Expats to vote but it seems there were some issues. The UK and the Netherlands have also had some trials with mixed outcomes..
The US Democratic Primary also successfully used Remote Electronic Voting to enable people to vote from over 160 countries in 2008.
There seems to be a trend here...more and more countries trailing e-Voting and gradual success, particularly for smaller countries with good technology.
So, how much longer will Australia keep its hundreds of thousands of expat voters disenfranchised ??
This would also prevent getting de-registered (sometimes without realising) and come voting day, not being able to make a vote that counts.
And the requirement to fill in paper forms to change address is inefficient and slightly anarchic. Couldn't the AEC link with other agencies such as medicare and centrelink so that address details could be updated automatically - or at least have an online form?
Of course as a New South Welshman my other gripe is that my vote always counts for less than the votes of people residing in other states. The green paper repeatedly cites the maxim "one vote, one value" despite demonstrating that our constitution makes honouring that idea completely impossible.
Ideally I'd like to see the electorates for the lower house be divided according to equality of population and ignoring state boundaries. Then we'd have one vote, one value in the lower house at least.
As for the Senate, this was never intended to honour the "one vote, one value" idea but rather to ensure representation for various groups with different interests. Unfortunately our state and territory divisions (on which the senate seats are apportioned) are the products of rather arbitrary historical forces and are only vaguely representative of the different interest groups in our country. If I could rearrange things in any way I saw fit the Senate would apportion seats not by the state groupings we have now but rather have groups for voters in each of the major cities plus groups for each of some number of rural areas plus a group specifically reserved for the Aboriginal Australians.
Of course achieving all this would pretty much require taking the constitution and ripping it to pieces, we're pretty much stuck with what we've got whether it makes sense or not.
Hello Justing,
With regards to your gripe on the Senate…
I fully agree that the principle of ‘one person one vote’ falls well short in Senate elections.
However the impression you are giving is “let’s still violate the principle, but instead of the states and territories as electorates, let’s make them the major cities, some rural areas and the Aboriginal community”
Would not a much simpler and fairer solution be (similar to your suggestion for the lower house) that the proportional representation system for the Senate be extended to a one zone system of all of Australia: ie instead of twelve Senators for the seven million citizens of NSW and a similar number of Senators for the 11,537 Tasmanians (a possible exaggeration) why not just 76 Senators for all Australians no matter where they live. Thus every voter would have the same Senate ballot paper to fill in and no voters would be given in effect, more votes, because of their residence. As an added bonus, there would be a greater chance of an Aborigine or other minority getting elected as he/she could garner votes from all states and territories instead of just the one with the highest proportion of his/her demographic.
With regards to the original intent of the Australian Constitution to protect the smaller states from being proverbially walked over by the larger ones (well that happens now anyway – just look at the Tasmanian Dams Case of 1983): to honour the intent of the original constitutional agreement, certain states’ rights provisions could possibly be added to the Constitution at the time Section 7, mentioning the Senate apportionment electoral system, was modified. For Example: "Section 129. The Federal Government has no authority to interfere in state matters with regards to …..”
As a New South Welshman I'm a big fan of the option to exhaust one's preference.
In the lead up to an election I make a serious effort to find at least some information on every single candidate so that I can make the best decision possible when distributing my preferences. Unfortunately there are always some drongoes who just like the idea of having their name on the ballot and don't even bother to let us know who they are.
These are the idiots I don't bother ranking.
I would like to see one of three options used:
1. extend the option to exhaust preferences to all elections.
2. Make it harder to get your name on the ballot, this will discourage non-serious candidates.
3. Require all candidates to supply a 1000 word submission on who they are and what they stand for which will be centrally hosted on the website of the relevant department.
If you advocate and adopt optional prefernttial you might as well aopt a party list system. Above the line ticket votes in particular should not be allowed to use otpional preferntial voting - A ticket vote should express a preference for all candidates. There should also be the option to nominate the percentage eight that each above the line ticket vote carries.
Parties/groups should be able to register three tickets and nominate the percentage split for each ticket
Voters should also have the option t preference above the line.
The most important thing we need to do is fix tghe way we distributed the preferences to ensure that it is accurate and each vote is treated equally. The Tasmanian and CAT system does not meet the one vote one value principle. All votes should be taken into consideration when distributing a candidates surplus not the last bundle. There should be one transaction per candidate, Surplus or redistribution of an excluded candidate preferences) the Count should be reset on every exclusion and started a fresh., The process continuing until all vacant positions are filling in a single iteration.
The system advocated by the proportional representation society is out dated and just as seriously flawed as the Australian Senate system. It was design in the early 20th century before calculators were used. It's time to update and move into the 21st Century and relegate the old system to the history books.
The distortion in the segmentation of the vote is made worst in smaller electorates were its impact is far greater..
WE NEED TO FIX THE WAY WE COUNT THE VOTE FIRST AND FOREMOST. YOUR WOULD NOT ACCEPT YOUR DIVIDENDS, SHARES AND INTEREST BEING COUNTED AS WE COUNT VOTES.
Near enough is not good enough.
I with points 1 and 3.
Point three about candidates (and here I mean candidates NOT their political parties) furnishing a statement about themselves would be very helpful indeed. It would also mean that citizens have some kind of standard (separate from their leader or party's campaign promises) to hold their elected representatives to.