![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, the election is over and done, the counting goes on, and it looks like we're going to have a minority government no matter which party gets the most seats (so far it's looking like 73 all for both Labor and Liberal - which means the balance of power, which is currently held by 4 independents and a Greens member, is going to be crucial in getting legislation across the line). It hasn't been a big win for either of the major parties, although Tony Abbott is busy talking up the idea of the Libs having a mandate to form a government (they don't) and that the Labor party has lost out to the Liberals (they didn't - most of Labor's lost votes went to the Greens).
Either way, we're getting the two standard post-election behaviours out of things. The first is the party which is perceived to have "lost" the election (in this case, the ALP) is turning into a circular arse-kicking contest. The second is having people saying the election result proves we're doin' it rong, and we should change the way Australian votes are cast or counted. The old chestnuts which have been brought out for their regular polishing are "abolish compulsory voting", "bring in first-past-the-post counting" and "one vote one value".
Let's deal with each of these in turn. The "abolish compulsory voting" one is fairly straightforward - in Australia, as in any democratic nation, one of the responsibilities of a citizen is to participate in the political process by voting in elections. So in Australia, we take this seriously, and expect people to turn out and receive their ballot papers so they can vote. If you don't turn out and get your ballot paper, you can be fined. It's a small fine ($50 - you pay more if you're caught speeding) but it's enough to make people actually head down to the local primary school once every three years and get their ballot papers. Note I'm not saying it actually makes people VOTE - the compulsory bit stops when you receive your ballot paper. You don't have to fill in a valid vote (and the number of people who voted invalidly during this election increased, which some folks are seeing as another message to the various political players). But you do have to do your democratic duty and participate in the process - even if nobody's taking their time to spoon feed you all the information about your local candidates, or their policies or similar.
I happen to think this is a good thing for Australia, overall. For one thing, it means elections are much more representative of the opinions of the Australian public than any poll, write-in survey or other measure, because there's a sufficiently large sample being taken (approximately 90% of all Australians over the age of 18). It's also much more representative than the sample obtained in such places as the United States (where the election results measure the opinions of as little as 40% of the US voting population) or the United Kingdom (again, about 40% turn-out). To put this in perspective - an elected government in the US or the UK can represent the opinions of as little as 20% of the population. An elected government in Australia represents the opinions of at least 45% of the population.
There's also issues of accessibility to be considered. In Australia, participating in an election is an enforced responsibility. Thus there is a requirement on the part of the people who administer the election process (the Australian Electoral Commission) to ensure the maximum number of people are able to participate in the voting process with the minimum of inconvenience. This means our voting day is inevitably a Saturday (as compared to a Tuesday in the US), when the majority of people aren't at work. Those who are working generally are allowed to take time off to vote, or are encouraged to put in a postal vote. There's also numerous polling places which have facilities for absentee votes (voting in an electorate you're not registered in because you're at work, on holiday, etc). There are facilities for Australians who aren't going to be in Australia when an election occurs to cast a vote by post. There are specialist polling facilities which go around hospitals. There are efforts made to make polling places accessible to persons who are using either permanent or temporary mobility aids (although these vary in effectiveness). There are even efforts to make it possible for persons who have vision impairments to be able to cast a vote in privacy (rather than requiring a sighted person to assist). All of this is the reciprocal side of Australians being required to turn out and get their ballot papers at each election.
Overall, I feel the requirement to turn out and receive a ballot paper is one of the more important ones in the Australian political system. It means we have a system which is accessible, and it means we have a system which encourages participation.
Now, on to "first past the post" counting. At the moment, the Australian system is set up so that in order to win a seat in the House of Representatives, a candidate must achieve a number of votes equivalent to 50% of the vote plus one vote more. If a candidate achieves that amount of votes on first preferences, then no worries, they're elected. But what if none of the candidates achieves the necessary votes to become elected on first preferences alone? In such a case, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and their votes are sorted on their second preference. Then we run the query again: does any candidate have 50% of the votes plus one vote more? (In programming, this would be a while loop - while nobody has enough votes to win, keep eliminating candidates from the bottom of the pile, and redistributing votes according to the next preference down the line).
An example, if you will. Consider the House of Representatives seat of Goddzone, with a population of 100,000. There are six candidates standing - one from the Worker's Party, one from the Conservative Party, one from the Environmentalist Party, one from the Farmer's Party, one from the Christian Theocratic Party, and one from the White Supremacist Party (so in other words, a pretty normal spread for an Aussie electorate). Each voter on election day will receive their ballot papers, and they'll be instructed (both on the ballot paper and verbally by the AEC official) to number the candidates in order of preference from 1 through 6. Here's the numbers after the first preference count:
In order to win, a candidate will need 50,001 votes (50% of the voter population, plus one vote). Clearly nobody has won in this round. However, there is a clear choice for "candidate with the least votes" - the White Supremacist Party candidate. They're eliminated from the count, and their 1,000 votes are redistributed according to the second preference of each of the voters.
There's still no clear winner, even though the Conservative Party candidate is now ahead on votes. Time to eliminate the next lowest on the list - the Christian Theocratic Party candidate. Now, this is where it starts getting interesting, because while 2,000 of their votes are going to be counted on their second preference, the 200 which they got from the White Supremacist party candidate are now going to their third preference. There's also quite a few Christian Theocratic voters who had the White Supremacists down as their second choice, but they're already elminiated, so those votes have to be counted on third preferences as well. So here's the third round of counting.
Hmmm... looking like the Conservative Party is out in front but they're still not over the line. Time to eliminate the Farmer's Party candidate, and see what happens.
The gap is expanding at the top, but nobody's won yet. But now we're getting down to the brass tacks - and the Environmentalist Party candidate is eliminated.
The Worker's Party candidate, despite having trailed through most of the counting, actually winds up winning the seat, because they've achieved 50% plus 1 vote (or 50,001 votes). While nobody actually could choose between the Conservative and Worker's party candidates on the first vote, when it came right down to it, more people chose to have a Worker's Party candidate as their Federal MP. Now, had this been counted as straight "first past the post" counting (no preferences, no elimination, first votes are all you get) what the folks of Goddzone would have been facing was a by-election... and therefore another six weeks of political campaigning from the local candidates, in order to discover what has been made apparent through the nature of the preferential count.
On to the last hardy perennial complaint of the Australian voter, good old "why don't we go to one vote, one value?". This is usually brought into play by people who are complaining the Senate counting system is too hard, or who feel they're being ignored through the way the senate is set up. By and large, the largest proponents of one vote one value are metropolitan voters in New South Wales and Victoria (ie Sydneysiders and Melbournites), and by and large, the reason they're whinging is because their senate vote isn't "worth" as much as the vote of someone living in (for example) Karratha in Western Australia. To which the only reasonable answer is: yes, it's supposed to be worth less, because the Senate works on proportional representation.
The history of the senate's design is very straightforward. One of the big obstacles to Federation back in the 1890s (when the Australian system of government was being formalised) was the concern of those states with lower populations (but often greater land areas) that their voices would be lost in the melee. If you have a look at the make-up of the House of Representatives, it's a valid enough concern - it has been said elections are won and lost in Sydney and Melbourne, because most of the seats in the House are pretty much representing those two cities. To make up for this, and ensure the states which had less population got a fair go, the Senate was designed as the "state's house". Each of our seven states has twelve senators (and each of the territories has two senators), and the senators are elected on a proportional basis. So, the more people there are in a state, the higher the number of individual votes each senator has to achieve to be elected. If you don't like the fact your Senate vote isn't "worth" as much as mine (a misconception - your vote is worth the same to your senators as my vote is to mine), I'd suggest moving to a state with a lower population.
To be honest, a lot of the time when people are complaining about the quirks of the Australian system, it's because they're not familiar enough with the system itself or with the context behind it. The best way to explain it all is the Australian voting and electoral systems were designed as much as possible to provide everyone with a fair go. If people want to alter the system, my contention is they don't have to show their system would be more accurate, or quicker, or prettier. What they have to do is show it would be fairer for everyone. At present, the system ensures the maximum number of people turn out and participate in our democratic process and their voices are noted in the clearest possible fashion. It isn't perfect - but it's a damn sight better than the alternatives. Edit note 10.57am 24 AUG 2010: Sorry, but the cut tags don't seem to take in the tables, so I'm leaving this in "entirely too long" format.
Either way, we're getting the two standard post-election behaviours out of things. The first is the party which is perceived to have "lost" the election (in this case, the ALP) is turning into a circular arse-kicking contest. The second is having people saying the election result proves we're doin' it rong, and we should change the way Australian votes are cast or counted. The old chestnuts which have been brought out for their regular polishing are "abolish compulsory voting", "bring in first-past-the-post counting" and "one vote one value".
Let's deal with each of these in turn. The "abolish compulsory voting" one is fairly straightforward - in Australia, as in any democratic nation, one of the responsibilities of a citizen is to participate in the political process by voting in elections. So in Australia, we take this seriously, and expect people to turn out and receive their ballot papers so they can vote. If you don't turn out and get your ballot paper, you can be fined. It's a small fine ($50 - you pay more if you're caught speeding) but it's enough to make people actually head down to the local primary school once every three years and get their ballot papers. Note I'm not saying it actually makes people VOTE - the compulsory bit stops when you receive your ballot paper. You don't have to fill in a valid vote (and the number of people who voted invalidly during this election increased, which some folks are seeing as another message to the various political players). But you do have to do your democratic duty and participate in the process - even if nobody's taking their time to spoon feed you all the information about your local candidates, or their policies or similar.
I happen to think this is a good thing for Australia, overall. For one thing, it means elections are much more representative of the opinions of the Australian public than any poll, write-in survey or other measure, because there's a sufficiently large sample being taken (approximately 90% of all Australians over the age of 18). It's also much more representative than the sample obtained in such places as the United States (where the election results measure the opinions of as little as 40% of the US voting population) or the United Kingdom (again, about 40% turn-out). To put this in perspective - an elected government in the US or the UK can represent the opinions of as little as 20% of the population. An elected government in Australia represents the opinions of at least 45% of the population.
There's also issues of accessibility to be considered. In Australia, participating in an election is an enforced responsibility. Thus there is a requirement on the part of the people who administer the election process (the Australian Electoral Commission) to ensure the maximum number of people are able to participate in the voting process with the minimum of inconvenience. This means our voting day is inevitably a Saturday (as compared to a Tuesday in the US), when the majority of people aren't at work. Those who are working generally are allowed to take time off to vote, or are encouraged to put in a postal vote. There's also numerous polling places which have facilities for absentee votes (voting in an electorate you're not registered in because you're at work, on holiday, etc). There are facilities for Australians who aren't going to be in Australia when an election occurs to cast a vote by post. There are specialist polling facilities which go around hospitals. There are efforts made to make polling places accessible to persons who are using either permanent or temporary mobility aids (although these vary in effectiveness). There are even efforts to make it possible for persons who have vision impairments to be able to cast a vote in privacy (rather than requiring a sighted person to assist). All of this is the reciprocal side of Australians being required to turn out and get their ballot papers at each election.
Overall, I feel the requirement to turn out and receive a ballot paper is one of the more important ones in the Australian political system. It means we have a system which is accessible, and it means we have a system which encourages participation.
Now, on to "first past the post" counting. At the moment, the Australian system is set up so that in order to win a seat in the House of Representatives, a candidate must achieve a number of votes equivalent to 50% of the vote plus one vote more. If a candidate achieves that amount of votes on first preferences, then no worries, they're elected. But what if none of the candidates achieves the necessary votes to become elected on first preferences alone? In such a case, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and their votes are sorted on their second preference. Then we run the query again: does any candidate have 50% of the votes plus one vote more? (In programming, this would be a while loop - while nobody has enough votes to win, keep eliminating candidates from the bottom of the pile, and redistributing votes according to the next preference down the line).
An example, if you will. Consider the House of Representatives seat of Goddzone, with a population of 100,000. There are six candidates standing - one from the Worker's Party, one from the Conservative Party, one from the Environmentalist Party, one from the Farmer's Party, one from the Christian Theocratic Party, and one from the White Supremacist Party (so in other words, a pretty normal spread for an Aussie electorate). Each voter on election day will receive their ballot papers, and they'll be instructed (both on the ballot paper and verbally by the AEC official) to number the candidates in order of preference from 1 through 6. Here's the numbers after the first preference count:
| Worker's Party | 40,000 |
| Conservative Party | 40,000 |
| Environmentalist Party | 15,000 |
| Farmer's Party | 2,000 |
| Christian Theocratic Party | 2,000 |
| White Supremacist Party | 1,000 |
In order to win, a candidate will need 50,001 votes (50% of the voter population, plus one vote). Clearly nobody has won in this round. However, there is a clear choice for "candidate with the least votes" - the White Supremacist Party candidate. They're eliminated from the count, and their 1,000 votes are redistributed according to the second preference of each of the voters.
| Conservative Party | 40,400 | +400 2nd preferences from the White Supremacist Party |
| Worker's Party | 40,000 | |
| Environmentalist Party | 15,000 | |
| Farmer's Party | 2,400 | +400 2nd preferences from the White Supremacist Party |
| Christian Theocratic Party | 2,200 | +200 2nd preferences from the White Supremacist Party |
There's still no clear winner, even though the Conservative Party candidate is now ahead on votes. Time to eliminate the next lowest on the list - the Christian Theocratic Party candidate. Now, this is where it starts getting interesting, because while 2,000 of their votes are going to be counted on their second preference, the 200 which they got from the White Supremacist party candidate are now going to their third preference. There's also quite a few Christian Theocratic voters who had the White Supremacists down as their second choice, but they're already elminiated, so those votes have to be counted on third preferences as well. So here's the third round of counting.
| Conservative Party | 40,900 | +400 2nd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party |
| +100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party | ||
| Worker's Party | 40,500 | +500 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party |
| Environmentalist Party | 15,900 | +400 2nd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party |
| +500 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party | ||
| Farmer's Party | 2,700 | +200 2nd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party |
| +100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party |
Hmmm... looking like the Conservative Party is out in front but they're still not over the line. Time to eliminate the Farmer's Party candidate, and see what happens.
| Conservative Party | 42,050 | +1,000 2nd preferences from the Farmer's Party |
| +100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP) | ||
| +50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP) | ||
| Worker's Party | 41,800 | +1,000 2nd preferences from the Farmer's Party |
| +100 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party | ||
| +100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP) | ||
| +50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP) | ||
| +50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via CTP) | ||
| Environmentalist Party | 16,150 | +100 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party |
| +50 4th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party | ||
| +50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP) | ||
| +50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via CTP) |
The gap is expanding at the top, but nobody's won yet. But now we're getting down to the brass tacks - and the Environmentalist Party candidate is eliminated.
| Conservative Party | 47,625 | +5,000 2nd preferences from the Environmentalist Party |
| +200 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party | ||
| +300 4th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party | ||
| +25 5th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party | ||
| +50 5th preferences from the White Supremacist Party | ||
| Worker's Party | 52,375 | +10,000 2nd preferences from the Environmentalist Party |
| +200 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party | ||
| +300 4th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party | ||
| +25 5th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party | ||
| +50 5th preferences from the White Supremacist Party |
The Worker's Party candidate, despite having trailed through most of the counting, actually winds up winning the seat, because they've achieved 50% plus 1 vote (or 50,001 votes). While nobody actually could choose between the Conservative and Worker's party candidates on the first vote, when it came right down to it, more people chose to have a Worker's Party candidate as their Federal MP. Now, had this been counted as straight "first past the post" counting (no preferences, no elimination, first votes are all you get) what the folks of Goddzone would have been facing was a by-election... and therefore another six weeks of political campaigning from the local candidates, in order to discover what has been made apparent through the nature of the preferential count.
On to the last hardy perennial complaint of the Australian voter, good old "why don't we go to one vote, one value?". This is usually brought into play by people who are complaining the Senate counting system is too hard, or who feel they're being ignored through the way the senate is set up. By and large, the largest proponents of one vote one value are metropolitan voters in New South Wales and Victoria (ie Sydneysiders and Melbournites), and by and large, the reason they're whinging is because their senate vote isn't "worth" as much as the vote of someone living in (for example) Karratha in Western Australia. To which the only reasonable answer is: yes, it's supposed to be worth less, because the Senate works on proportional representation.
The history of the senate's design is very straightforward. One of the big obstacles to Federation back in the 1890s (when the Australian system of government was being formalised) was the concern of those states with lower populations (but often greater land areas) that their voices would be lost in the melee. If you have a look at the make-up of the House of Representatives, it's a valid enough concern - it has been said elections are won and lost in Sydney and Melbourne, because most of the seats in the House are pretty much representing those two cities. To make up for this, and ensure the states which had less population got a fair go, the Senate was designed as the "state's house". Each of our seven states has twelve senators (and each of the territories has two senators), and the senators are elected on a proportional basis. So, the more people there are in a state, the higher the number of individual votes each senator has to achieve to be elected. If you don't like the fact your Senate vote isn't "worth" as much as mine (a misconception - your vote is worth the same to your senators as my vote is to mine), I'd suggest moving to a state with a lower population.
To be honest, a lot of the time when people are complaining about the quirks of the Australian system, it's because they're not familiar enough with the system itself or with the context behind it. The best way to explain it all is the Australian voting and electoral systems were designed as much as possible to provide everyone with a fair go. If people want to alter the system, my contention is they don't have to show their system would be more accurate, or quicker, or prettier. What they have to do is show it would be fairer for everyone. At present, the system ensures the maximum number of people turn out and participate in our democratic process and their voices are noted in the clearest possible fashion. It isn't perfect - but it's a damn sight better than the alternatives. Edit note 10.57am 24 AUG 2010: Sorry, but the cut tags don't seem to take in the tables, so I'm leaving this in "entirely too long" format.
