Lyle Allan, Paul Dahan, and Leanne Williams (1995) Introduction to Australian Government. Melbourne, Victoria: RMIT University Instructional Design Group. UNIT 5

PAGE 1

AUSTRALIAN VOTING AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

LEARNING OUTCOME

On completion of this unit you will be able to identify and evaluate the various voting methods used to elect representatives to public office.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

To achieve the above learning outcome you will need to complete the unit assignment and a final examination to demonstrate that you can:

. Define the term voting.

. Explain the meaning of and distinguish between a voting system and an electoral system.

. Distinguish between the various types of voting systems in operation in Australia, and explain theiroperation in particular electoral systems.

. Define the terms gerrymander and malapportionment.

. Explain the way in particular groups contesting an election can either benefit or be handicapped by theuse of particular electoral or voting systems.

PAGE 2

INTRODUCTION

This unit begins by defining the term voting. We then explain the function of voting in a representative democracy, and distinguish between a voting system and anelectoral system. We then classify voting systems as plurality, majority preferential or proportional. An evaluation is then made about the use of the various voting systems in particular electoral systems. The relative merits and objections for each type of voting system are then considered. We then evaluate unfair methods used in the operation of particular electoral andvoting systems, in particular the gerrymander and malapportionment. We look at examples where such methods are deliberately designed to advantage particular groups (to the disadvantage of other groups) contesting an election.

VOTING

Voting is the process by which electors, people entitled to vote, can choose between candidates contesting an election, or between competing positions.

Voting is a formal procedure. Before the act of voting may take place a returning officer must be appointed. Thereturning officer is an official appointed to conduct an election. It is the duty of the returning officer to ensure that an election is conducted in a fair, efficientand responsible manner. It is also the duty of the returning officer to declare the result of an election after the votes have been counted.

Voting Arrangements

In Australian people normally vote at a polling booth, anarea set aside where voting procedures are conducted. Normally part of a school, church hall or public buildingwill be used as a polling booth for federal, state and municipal elections. Mobile polling booths are also used to enable the sick or infirm in hospitals and institutions to exercise their right to vote. Voting

procedures can also be carried out by post when, for example people are ill or are away from their normal place of residence on holiday or business. There is also provision in federal and state elections for absentee voting, where a vote may be cast by an elector at a convenient polling booth in an electorate away from that in which they are enrolled to vote.

PAGE 3

In local government elections in Victoria there is now provision for pre-poll voting, in which electors may casta vote at a place specified by the returning officer (normally the municipal offices) in the week or so beforethe day fixed for the holding of the poll. Elections in Australia are normally conducted on a Saturday, although some municipalities in Victoria conducted elections on a Thursday until as recently as the mid-1970's, when the Hamer government ended the practice.

Voting Defined

The act of voting is carried out by marking a ballot paper, and depositing the completed ballot paper in a locked ballot box. At a polling booth the voter is personally responsible for placing his or her ballot paper in the ballot box. After the expiry of the time fixed for polling the ballot box is opened and the ballotpapers are counted.

REFERENDUMS AND PLEBISCITES

When people at an election are able to choose between alternative questions the poll is referred to as either areferendum or as a plebiscite. Each term has a specific meaning.

Referendum

The result in a referendum will normally be binding, withthe qualification that sometimes a particular majority will be required. In a referendum to change the Australian Constitution, for example, a majority of the electors as a whole and a majority of electors voting in each of a majority of the states must approve a proposed change before it can become part of the Constitution. In Victoria in 1930 a sixty per cent "yes" vote was requiredin a prohibition referendum. Victorians were asked whether or not they wanted a complete ban on the sale of intoxicating liquor throughout the state. In Victorian local government referendums are often held on the question of rating. Voters are asked to choose between two principal rating systems. These are, firstly, the site value system, where rates are levied on the unimproved value of land. The American economist Henry George advocated a single land tax as the only source of government tax revenue, and his views have had much influence in Australia. The second method, rating on capital improved value, levies rates on the value of buildings as well as land. The decision in a rating referendum is binding on a local Council for three years.

PAGE 4

Plebiscites

The vote in a plebiscite is an expression of opinion by the electorate. It is not necessarily binding. A plebiscite was held in Australia in 1977 to approve a "national song." The Fraser government adopted the resultof the plebiscite, a majority vote in favour of "Advance Australia Fair," despite a personal preference by the then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser for an alternative choice, "Waltzing Matilda." In local government in Victoria plebiscites are sometimes held where Councillorsseek guidance on a particular issue. These proposals might include the issue of "big bins" for rubbish

disposal, or the building of a new Town Hall. Councillorswill generally be influenced by these local plebiscites, but need not necessarily adopt the position supported by majority vote.

Voting is an important function in a representative democracy. By voting electors can freely choose between competing candidates or, in the case of a referendum, positions. Voters can also change a government or even particular candidates seeking to be re-elected if they are dissatisfied with their performance.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN VOTING AND ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

An important distinction must be made between a voting system and an electoral system. An electoral system refers to the way in which the representative institutions of a country state or local government authority operate. The number of members to be elected, whether they are elected by single-member or multi-memberelectorates, the apportionment of electoral boundaries, and the term of office of elected members are all features of an electoral system.

The term voting system is much narrower. It refers to theway in which votes are counted. It is impossible to discuss a voting system without reference to the relevantelectoral system. The choice of voting system used will frequently depend on other features of an electoral system. It would be impossible to use a proportional voting system, for example, in an electoral system that only uses single member electorates.

PAGE 5

VOTING SYSTEMS

Plurality Voting

This method of voting is normally referred to in Australia as simple majority or first-past-the-post. The elector is required to vote only for as many candidates as there are positions (vacancies) to be filled. This method is used with single member electorates in elections for the British and Canadian House of Commons, the Congresses of the United States and the Philippines, and the Parliaments of India, New Zealand, Singapore and most former British Colonial countries. It was generally used in Australia last century, and was used in electionsfor the Commonwealth Parliament until 1919. The voter normally marks his or her ballot paper with a cross (X) or sometimes with a tick beside the name of the preferredcandidate.

As an example in a single-member electorate with three candidates:

Downing 550Cheaping 500Kermit 200

Downing would be declared the successful candidate. Downing has more votes than any other candidate, and would therefore be the winner. Note that Downing is not supported by a majority of voters. If Kermit was not a candidate it is possible that her supporters may not havewanted Downing to be elected.

The usual objection to the plurality voting system is that a vote for a minority candidate (in the example above Kermit) can be wasted, and that a candidate who is not preferred by a majority of the electorate could be elected. Frequently under plurality voting a candidate with a very small proportion of the total vote is elected. This is frequently the case in an election whereone person is to be elected, and the election is contested by a large number of candidates.

Plurality voting is generally undesirable in electoral systems with multi-member electorates which are contestedby political parties. It is generally the case that a party obtaining a plurality for its candidates will win all of the seats. In the Australian Senate before 1919, with plurality voting and a whole State forming one electorate, this normally occurred. At the Senate election in April 1910, for example the Labor Party, witha plurality of votes in every state but only 50.30 per cent of the national valid vote, won all 18 Senate seats being contested.

NoteThe words below in italics were part of the draft but were omitted from the published version:This feature of plurality voting occurs also with the majority-preferential system in multi-member electorates. The lopsided representation for a party winning a majority of votes in all or almost all states continued to be a feature of Senate elections under the majority-preferential system between 1919 and 1946.

PAGE 6

Second Ballot

This method involves a run-off poll in a single-member electorate if no candidate obtains an absolute majority (or one half plus one) of the total vote. The method is expensive, in that much additional organisation is necessary for an additional poll to be conducted, usuallyone week later than the original election. It also results is deals and regroupings. This method was used in New South Wales between 1910-18, but the number of second ballots was small owing to the fact the one or other of the candidates from the two major parties contesting state elections in this period normally obtained an absolute majority of the votes. The

"second ballot" currently operates in France, in some southern states in the United States, and recently in Italian local government Mayoralty elections. Usually inFrance several candidates will withdraw, so that the second ballot is normally conducted between one candidatefrom the Right and one candidate from the Left. New SouthWales practice prior to 1918 did not allow for withdrawals, but confined the second ballot to the two leading candidates in the first ballot. In recent local government elections in Italy (November 1993) the second ballot was used in the direct election of Mayor by the wider electorate (rather then by Council members only, the present practice in Victoria). Allessandra Mussolini,grand-daughter of "Il Duce" Benito Mussolini, gained 27 per cent of the vote in her bid to win election as Mayor of Naples in the first ballot, and increased this to 47 per cent in the run-off poll against a Centrist opponent.

Preferential Voting (Alternative Vote) Under the alternative vote electors choose a different oralternative candidate if their preferred choice polls less than enough votes to be elected. The elector uses numbers rather than a tick or a cross in marking his or her ballot paper. There is therefore no need for a run-off poll. The alternative vote is in fact a less-expensive form of the second ballot voting system. This method is generally called preferential voting in Australia, but this term is frequently misleading. In fact numbers or preferences are also required to be shownunder proportional representation voting systems also in use in Australia.

It is generally a feature of Australian electoral law that for a vote to be valid (or formal) a consecutive preference (1,2,3, etc.) must be shown for all candidates. This requirement frequently results in a highinformal vote, the votes of those electors who do not

mark their ballot papers as required by electoral law forthem to be valid.

PAGE 7

The system requires a candidate to obtain an absolute majority of first preferences, or one half plus one of the total valid votes, be declared elected without any need for a distribution of preferences. If no candidate receives an absolute majority of first preferences the lowest candidate is then excluded and his or her preferences are distributed. This procedure is carried out among all of the candidates with the lowest number ofvotes until one candidate has an absolute majority.

Disadvantages of the Preferential System

One of the disadvantages of this system is the fact that with a large number of candidates the informal or invalidvote tends to increase, as many voters are incapable of marking their ballot papers with a large number of consecutive preferences.

One of the objections made to the preferential system is that it benefits parties who are well-disciplined. The ALP was disadvantaged by the preferential system when theDemocratic Labor Party was able to direct its preferencesto the conservative parties. Similarly the preferential system today appears to favour the ALP. Various fringe parties such as the Greens and the Rainbow Alliance direct preferences to the ALP.In addition the ALP appears to benefit with preferences flowing from the Australian Democrats._____________________________________________________________

Case Study

Alternative Vote (Preferential Voting) with One CandidateTo Be Elected

An example of the alternative vote (preferential voting) in actual use in the seat of Batman for the Australian House of Representatives in 1966. The sitting member, SamBenson, had been expelled from the Australian Labor Partyafter he refused an instruction by the ALP's national executive to resign from the Defend Australia Committee, a right-wing organisation which supported increased emphasis on Australian defence. Benson, who contested theseat as an Independent, was elected on the fourth count.

Valid votes 38663

Count 1 2 3 4

Benson (Independent) 8697 8788 12170 22342 E

Andersen (ALP) 14859 15766 15874 16321

Skeggs (Liberal) 10398 10469 10619 ----

Darroch (DLP) 3592 3640 ---- ----

Desailly (Liberal Reform) 1117 ---- ---- ----

_____________________________________________________________

PAGE 8

Self-Help Questions 1-4

1. Which candidate would have won in the election abovehad

plurality (simple majority) applied in the election?You should assume that all voters would have shown afirst preference for the same candidate had the different voting system been used.

2. Where did the successful candidate Sam Benson poll in

order of primary votes? How was he able to win fromthis

position?

3. Which candidate was eliminated first? To which candidate

were the majority of his preferences directed?

4. The Liberal candidate polled the second-most primaryyet

he was eliminated in the third count. Why? (Clue. You

should examine the preference direction of the DLP

candidate when he was eliminated in the second count).

When you have completed these questions turn to the end of the unit for your answer_____________________________________________________________

The alternative vote (or preferential) system is best suited for single-member electoral systems. When it is used in multi-member electoral systems (such as for the Senate from 1919 until the elections of 1946 and in Victorian local government) the more precise term majority preferential is generally adopted. This is done to avoid confusion with proportional voting systems commonly used in Australia which, as has previously been suggested, also require the voter to show an order of preference.

Majority-Preferential System

A majority preferential system where more than one candidate is to be elected requires each successful candidate to obtain an absolute majority of votes. A count is conducted for the first vacancy in exactly the same way as if one candidate only is to be elected. In order to elect the second and later vacant positions first preferences shown for elected candidates are ignored, and the highest preference for a continuing (non-elected) candidate is treated as a first preference.

PAGE 9

This voting system is very time-consuming. If three candidates are to be elected, for example, three separatecounts are necessary in the conduct of the election. It is in fact much quicker to use the single-transferable vote method of proportional representation (also known asquota-preferential) than a majority preferential system.

Disadvantages of the Majority-Preferential System

A major difficulty with the majority-preferential system in multi-member electorates (and indeed the plurality system, as has previously been suggested) is that all candidates elected will most of the time belong to the same political party. In the Australian Senate, in 1943, using a majority-preferential system with 3 Senators elected from each state, ALP candidates won all seats in every state. In 1946 the ALP won all seats in every stateexcept Queensland, so that the composition of the Senate between July 1947 and December 1949 was 33 ALP, 2 Liberaland 1 Country Party (the 3 Opposition Senators all being from Queensland). At the Senate elections held in 1917 the ALP won no seats, and in 1919 the ALP won 1 seat. When senators, elected in 1919, took their places in the Senate on 1 July 1920 the party composition in the chamber was Nationalist 35, ALP 1.

Proportional Representation

Members of parliament are elected in such a way that the composition of parliament will approximately reflect the voters which elected it. If fifty per cent of voters, forexample, vote for the Australian Democrats, then that party should receive fifty per cent of the parliamentary seats. Under single-member electorate systems, or multi-member majority systems, a party's proportion of the total membership of parliament will rarely approximate its actual proportion of the popular vote in the electorate.

This voting system requires the use of multi-member electorates. It is possible to use a proportional voting system with a few as two candidates to be elected, but itis generally preferable to have a larger number of vacancies.

Present electoral arrangements in most Australian parliaments operate to the disadvantage of any party or group which cannot arrange a concentration of its supporters in any single-member electorate. The major parties, who benefit from the single-member electorate system, are generally unwilling to support proportional representation. They see the possibility exists that minor parties (such as the Australian Democrats) might gain the balance of power in the lower house of parliament and thereby deprive them from obtaining office.

PAGE 10

The two main methods of proportional representation are the single-transferable vote (STV) and the party-list systems. The former (or a variation of the former) is normally used in elections conducted for Australian parliaments under proportional representation.

The Single-Transferable Vote.

This STV voting system provides for the election of candidates who receive a quota of votes, which is determined by a formula according to the number of vacancies, or candidates to be elected. Where a candidatehas more votes than the quota his or her votes over the quota, the surplus, is distributed among the remaining candidates. Where no candidate has a quota candidates with the least votes are excluded or eliminated and theirpreferences are distributed among the remaining candidates. This process continues until the required number of candidates have been elected. STV in its purestform is probably the fairest voting system available.

The Australian Senate, the upper houses in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, and the lower house in Tasmania all use a variant of STV. The Tasmanianlower house has used the method for all of this century. It is referred to in Tasmania as the Hare-Clark system, and is probably the best model for any parliament considering an STV voting system.

This system requires the voter to show an order of preference when marking a ballot paper. The voter has a free choice when marking preferences between the various candidates. A first preference can be for the candidate of one party, and a second preference could be for the candidate of another party. In fact most voters do not exercise this option, and normally follow a party ticket,at least in parliamentary elections outside Tasmania.

Candidates are elected when they receive a quota of votes, and the quota used, called the Droop quota, is determined according to the formula:

Valid votes + 1 Vacancies + 1

If, for example, three candidates are to be elected, and there are 100,000 valid votes, the Droop quota (to be

referred to in future simply as the quota) is 25,001. Thecalculations are:

100,000 + 1 = 25,001 3+1 = 4

PAGE 11

In other words the number of valid votes (100,000) is divided by one more than the number of candidates to be elected or vacancies (there are three vacancies, and one more than the number of vacancies is four). To the figureobtained by this calculation, ignoring any decimal remainder (25,000 exactly, with no decimal remainder) thenumber 1 is added to obtain the quota of 25,001.

Any candidate obtaining first preferences equal to or above the quota is declared elected.

An candidate receiving more than the quota on first preferences has a surplus of votes (the vote above the quota) which can now be distributed among the remaining continuing candidates (those candidates remaining in the count, at this stage all candidates other than those elected after receiving a number of votes equal to or greater than the quota on first preferences). Each vote received by an elected candidate on first preferences is now redistributed to the next continuing candidate in order of preference shown by the voter, but at a reduced value determined by calculating a transfer value(sometimes referred to as a transfer fraction). The formula for calculating the transfer value is:

Surplus vote above the quota = transfer value Primary votes

For example if the quota is 25,001, and a candidate elected on first preferences received 48,000 votes, the candidate has a surplus (vote above the quota) of 22,999

votes (i.e 48,000 - 25,001 = 22,999). The transfer value of each vote is now determined by dividing the surplus (22,999) by the primary votes (48,000). The figure obtained (0.4791458) is the transfer value. Normally calculations are not made beyond a certain number of decimal places. There is no rounding up, any decimal remainder is ignored. If the transfer value is calculatedto three decimal places it becomes 0.479

Do not be too worried if you find all this a little complicated.

This process is continued, with all surpluses of elected candidates distributed, until no continuing candidate hasa quota. Candidates are now excluded or eliminated from the count, and their next continuing preferences are now distributed either at full value (in the case of first preferences received by an excluded candidate) or at a reduced value in the case of votes received from the distribution of a surplus (at the exact value those voteswere received). The process of exclusion takes place until only one candidate more than the number of vacancies remains in the count. It is possible that the last candidate elected does not receive a quota, for where preferences are not required for all candidates some votes will be exhausted during the count. This will occur where no preference is shown for a continuing candidate.

PAGE 12

Party-list system

The majority of countries in Continental Europe use some form of party-list system when they use a proportional voting system. Each political party will submit a list ofcandidates, and the voter is required to vote for a particular list. In a party-list system the voter cannot show a choice for candidates from different lists. Votersmay sometimes choose between candidates within a list.

The voter in many countries is even unable to choose between candidates within the one list, but must accept all candidates in the order submitted by their party's organisation. In Italy in 1987, for example, pornographicmodel Ilona Staller (Cicciolina), first choice on the Radical Party's list submitted by that party's organisation, was elected to the Chamber of Deputies. She may not have been the first choice of Radical Party voters.

Each party receives parliamentary representation in proportion to the number of votes it polls in an election. Sometimes a threshold is required before a political party can obtain any representation. In Germany, for example, the threshold is five per-cent. A political party must obtain five per-cent of the vote nationally before any candidate's from its list can be elected. The threshold figure is arbitrary, and in the former West Germany was a device intended to exclude neo-Nazi or neo-fascist parties from obtaining parliamentary representation. The threshold is in fact only relevant where a whole country or part of a country forms one electorate. In New South Wales, for example, where 21 members are elected from the whole state to its Legislative Council, without a threshold (and no one has suggested adopting one) about 4.5 per cent of the vote will still be necessary for a party or candidate to win parliamentary representation.

There are various ways by which the number of members to be elected from each list can be determined. These are described fully in the standard authority on voting systems, Enid Lakeman's book How Democracies Vote (1974).The two major methods are:

Largest Remainder Under this method the number of valid votes is divided bythe number of members to be elected. If in a parliament

of 100 members the votes polled by each party contesting the election are:

ALP 925,000; Liberal 801,000; National 305,000; AustDem 150,000; Citizens Electoral Lobby (CEL) 20,000;

Green 55,000; Call to Australia (CTA) 60,000

PAGE 13

The number of votes required to elect one member is 23,160. Dividing the number of votes polled for each party by 23,160 results in (with the whole number being the guaranteed number of seats):

ALP 39.939Liberal 34.585National 13.169AustDem 6.476CEL 0.863Green 2.374CTA 2.590

So far 96 seats have been allocated. The remaining four vacancies are filled by allocating these extra seats to the four parties having the highest remainders. These are the ALP (.939), CEL (.863), CTA (.590) andLiberal Party (.585).

The largest remainder list system favours small parties. In the above example two parties with a minimal vote fromthe electorate (CEL and CTA) secure an two seats from this allocation.

The d'Hondt Rule

This method is named after its French inventor, an academic at the University of Ghent. The object is to

secure that, when all seats have been allotted, the average number of votes required to win a seat will be asnearly as possible the same for each party. The system requires a divisor for the votes polled by each party. A common divisor is obtained, which is used to determine the number of seats to be allotted to each party. This system has been used in Australia in elections for the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, but widespread dissatisfaction was aroused from its use. A referendum held in 1992 found 65 per cent of ACT voters preferred to use the single-transferable-vote system. Students who require detailed information of the d'Hondt method are referred to Lakeman (1974: 95-99).

An example using the d'Hondt system, with a divisor of one, two, three and so on. Six vacancies are to be filled. The first figure (with a divisor of one or unity)is the number of primary votes.

ALP Lib. AustDem CTA

Divisor 1 102,000 120,000 35,000 18,000Divisor 2 51,000 60,000 --- ---Divisor 3 34,000 40,000 --- ---

PAGE 14

The six highest numbers are now placed in numerical order:

120,000102,000

60,000 51,000 40,000 35,000

The lowest of the six highest numbers (six being the number of vacancies) becomes the divisor. The number of

primary votes obtained by each party is then divided by this number (35,000) and the result, ignoring any remainder, becomes the number of seats allocated to that party. In the above example the result is ALP 2.9 (2 seats), Lib. 3.4 (3 seats) and AustDem 1.0 (1 seat). CTA,with less votes than the divisor, is awarded no seats.

The d'Hondt rule is said to favour larger parties to the detriment of smaller parties, whereas the largest remainder method is said to favour smaller parties.

True and Variant Party List Systems

A true party-list system, where voters had no choice between candidates but were required to vote for a list of party candidates only, was used in Australia in elections for the South Australian Legislative Council in1975 and 1979. In 1982 this was changed to the single-transferable vote system.

A variant party-list system is used in elections for the Australian Senate. In fact the Senate in Australia is still elected by a single-transferable-vote system. The voter can elect to determine his or her own allocation ofpreferences, or vote according to a list submitted by theparty of his or her choice. By marking a number on the top of the ballot paper (the list section) the voter is deemed to have marked his or her ballot paper in a mannerpreviously determined by a political party. It seems thatAustralians like to be able to have the opportunity to vote for an individual candidate, even if in fact the majority of Australian voters still vote according to therecommended preferences of a political party.

The Proportional Representation Society of Australia opposes this practice, and believes it is the responsibility of each voter to determine his or her own order of preference regardless of a particular political party's pre-determined wishes. This view is shared by certain groups with particular values. The Christian Call

to Australia and the anti-abortion Right to Life groups suggest a numbering of preferences from totally differentparties. A Liberal candidate with anti-abortion views may, for example, be the recommended choice of the Right to Life group for the Senate, while

PAGE 15

a Democrat or ALP candidate with similar anti-abortion views may receive that group's recommended second preference.

The main criticism of proportional voting systems is thatthey lead to a multiplication of political parties represented in parliament, and that this results in unstable government. The main advantage claimed for proportional representation is that it is more democraticand that it leads to representation in parliament according to the proportion of the total vote polled by the various political parties.

Mixed Systems

A mixed voting system is currently used in Germany, was recently used in the 1993 election of the Russian Duma, and was adopted by majority vote at a referendum in 1993 in New Zealand to be used in that country's next parliamentary election due in 1996. The new mixed-system in New Zealand is to be known as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

A mixed system uses plurality (simple majority) voting insingle-member electorates for about half the seats in a legislature, and elects the other half by a party list method of proportional representation. The seats won by proportional representation correct any exaggeration in terms of a disproportion of seats won in the single member seats. They also provide for representation of parties which lack majority appeal in any one electorate,

yet attract a considerable nationwide vote. In Germany the Free Democrats, with a vote normally between 5 and 8 per cent, win representation in the Bundestag only from the list or proportional representation seats.

Minor parties, who would normally advocate proportional representation because it might secure them parliamentaryrepresentation, sometimes advocate a mixed system, but in Australia the mixed system has rarely had great appealand has never even been seriously considered. On objection to the mixed system made in Australia is the fact that the party list element results in too great a power to party organisations over individual parliamentarians.

PAGE 16

QUOTA NOTES ON ELECTORAL CHANGE IN NEW ZEALAND

MMP will leave half of the seats in New Zealand's unicameral parliament filled by the present procedure (first past the post or plurality voting in single-memberelectorates), based on the first of two ballot-papers given to each voter. The remaining half of the seats would not be filled directly by the voters, but would be filled from closed party lists with the numbers selected from each list being in proportion to the numbers of votes for parties (not individual candidates) marked by voters on their second separate and distinct ballot-paper. The parties, and not the voters, would decide the order of the names on the list, which would be fixed and unalterable by the voters.

The PRSA unequivocally supports the quota-preferential (STV) form of proportional representation, which is best exemplified in Tasmania's Hare-Clark system and which involves direct election, with all MP's being elected by the same counting system. It is quite impossible for the PRSA to support a procedure whereby half the seats are

filled from single-member electoral districts. It is alsounacceptable that the other half of the seats are being filled by people that voters have no direct electoral control over. Mr Malcolm Mackerras, in major articles in The Australian on 31 December 1992, and 15 September 1993, has labelled MMP a "ratbag" scheme.

He has been campaigning in New Zealand against MMP, and warns of the unfair and unpredictable penalty that will apply to the party that gains most of the directly elected seats, which they cannot be blamed for winning given their high vote relative to others. They will be penalised by having far less than their proportionate share of the indirectly elected seats. One will not compensate for the other as vacancies for directly elected seats are filled by a new poll, which the party may lose, whereas vacancies in the indirectly elected seats are automatically filled by the next available party machine candidate on the "closed list." The directly elected MP's have to please both party machine and the electorate, but the others can be singled out forexclusive acceptance or rejection by the party machine only.

Mr Mackerras also rightly scorned the unavailability of preferences which, with the 5% threshold, leads to all votes for a party getting less than 5% going into the "rubbish bin." Splinter parties proliferate under rigid list systems, so six parties each gaining some 4% of the vote could see 24% of the vote entirely wasted.

From Quota Notes, Newsletter of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (PRSA), No. 71, September 1993.

NoteThe words below in italics were part of the draft but were omitted from the published version:

On ABC radio he described it as not being an electoral system at all, but rather a mechanism for deciding how many of their appointees each party machine would be allowed to make to what would be the party machine half of the parliament._____________________________________________________________

PAGE 17

CASE STUDY

THE AUSTRALIAN SENATE UNDER PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

No party has had control of the Australian Senate since 30 June 1981. The Fraser Liberal Party / National Party coalition government held a majority in the Senate from the double-dissolution election of 1975 until the Senators elected in October 1980 took their places in theSenate the following July. The Australian Democrats, a party founded by former Liberal Don Chipp, held the balance of power in the Senate from that date until July 1993. The Senate is now precariously balanced. The present membership of the Senate, with expiry dates (on 30 June of the relevant year) is:

State Expiry ALP Lib./National AustDem G(WA) Ind.

NSW 1996 3 2 1 - - 1999 3 3 - - -

VIC 1996 2 3 1 - -

1999 3 3 - - -

QLD 1996 2 3 1 - -

1999 2 3 1 - -

WA 1996 2 3 - 1 -1999 2 3 - 1

-

SA 1996 2 3 1 - -

1999 2 3 1 - -

TAS 1996 2 3 1 - -1999 3 2 - - 1

ACT 1 1 - - -

NT 1 1 - - -

__ __ _ _ _

30 36 7 2 1

The total membership of the Senate is 76. Six Senators are elected from each state every three years for a six-year term.The two Senators from each of the Territories are electedonly for one term of the House of Representatives. The President of the Senate has a deliberative vote only but does not have a casting vote. This means that the President votes on all questions before the Senate. Wherethe votes are equal on any division the question is decided in the negative. This means that a majority of Senators voting (not half of members voting plus the voteof the Speaker as in the House of Representatives) must be in favour of any measure for it to be carried.

PAGE 18

Self-Help Questions 5-12

5. How many Senators need to be in favour of any measure

being voted on in the Senate for it to be carried? You

may assume that all Senators are present and voting.

6. With six Senators to be elected what percentage of valid

votes cast in any state constitutes a quota? You need

calculate your answer to one decimal place only.

7. In which states were Australian Democrat Senators elected in March 1993? (Hint. Senators elected in 1993 retire on 30 June 1999).

8. Senator Harradine is an Independent Senator. From which

State was he elected and in what year does his present

term expire? (Hint. There is only one Independent Senator

and this is shown in the above table).

9. If the Liberal/National parties were successful in winning 3 Senate seats from New South Wales at theelection scheduled for 1996 how would this affect the balance of power in the Senate? Assume that this additional seat in New South Wales was won at the expense of the ALP and that the Liberals won 3 seats in all other states as well as one seat fromeach of the Territories.

10. How might the adoption of single-member electorates for

the election of Senators (with either a plurality orpreferential (alternative-vote) voting system)

change

the party composition of the Senate?

11. What would be the likely effect if the Senate reverted to

a majority-preferential voting system, which it usedpreviously between 1919 and 1949?

12. In 1977 J.J.McRoach contested an election for the Senate from Victoria representing the Australian Marijuana Party. McRoach polled badly, yet his preferences played some part in the eventual outcomeof the election. What does the candidacy of McRoach tell us about both the electoral and voting system?

PAGE 19

Voting Systems in Victorian Local Government

The Local Government Act in Victoria provides for the useof the preferential (alternative vote) system in single candidate wards, and the majority-preferential system in multi-member wards. In other states a variety of voting systems are in use, with New South Wales using proportional representation to a greater extent than other states.

Proportional representation would probably be to the benefit of Victorian local government. It has been used only once, in Richmond, after that Council returned to democratic control following a period of rule of by an administrator. It saw the election of Victoria's first Vietnamese Councillor, as well as a Council with a majority of its members not belonging to any political party. Proportional representation would make possible the election of Councillors from a wider variety of backgrounds. It would increase the calibre of Councillorsby forcing candidates to campaign and to declare themselves on policy issues. Just over half of Victorian Councillors holding office prior to the recent Kennett Government reform of local government boundaries were

elected unopposed. Democratic competition would be very healthy. Proportional representation would also lessen the power of local "bosses," political or otherwise.

A major objection to proportional representation is that it might bring party politics in to Council elections. Infact political parties generally decline to contest localgovernment elections. The ALP, which traditionally endorsed local government candidates, in recent years hasbeen reluctant to do so except in its traditional heartland areas where ALP Councils have traditionally hadmonopoly control. ALP Councils in these areas have never had a good name. Proportional representation would in fact lessen ALP strength.

National Party opposition to proportional representationin rural councils is generally on the grounds that many left-wing schoolteachers would win election to these Councils. In fact many schoolteachers in rural towns currently do win election. They do so on local issues rather than ideology, and are rarely members of politicalparties. Party politics in other States is mainly present in the urban areas of New South Wales and Queensland. In Queensland the major political parties contest local government elections, at least in the larger towns, and oppose proportional representation on the grounds that it will increase opportunities for non-party independent candidates. In Victoria, politically endorsed candidates are generally rejected by council voters other than in inner Melbourne.

NoteThe words below in italics were part of the draft but were omitted from the published version:

A number of ALP parliamentarians in Victoria oppose proportional representation in Council elections because they believe it would threaten their own power base within their electorates. This power base is heavily

dependent upon support from local Councillors elected with ALP endorsement or support. Party politics in local government is highly undesirable. Proportional representation is likely to reduce rather than increase the influence of party politics at the local government level.

Rural opposition to proportional representation is unfortunate, and is again based on the mistaken belief that party politics in rural Councils will increaseas a result.

Ironically many smaller Councils in rural New South Wales favour proportional representation for the reverse reason. They feel it reduces schoolteacher influence on their Councils!

Party politics in local government is in general related to the size of a local government area, and the strength of party politics within that area. The ALPis the only major party to endorse candidates in Victorian local government, and in fact nowadays does so only in a very few Councils. Party politics in other States is mainly present in the larger towns of New South Wales and Queensland. Even the conservative parties sometimes endorse local government candidates in those states.

In Queensland the major political parties in general oppose proportional representation in local government on the ground that it will increase opportunities for non-party Independent candidates. Victoria has a tradition that party politics is generally absent from local government. Politically endorsed candidates are generally rejected by Council voters other than in inner-Melbourne, and are likely to continue to be so rejected. Local government voters will in fact be more likely to reject politically aligned candidates in favour of genuine non-party independents should proportionalrepresentation be adopted in local government elections.

By Cr Paul Dahan, J.P., City of South Melbourne

PAGE 20

CASE STUDY

Majority-Preferenatial Voting in a Victorian Local Government Election – Preston Council, South East Ward Election, 7 August 1993

Preston Council consists of four three-member wards (as electorates are referred to in urban-Victorian local government). All Councillors in Preston retire triennially. This means there is an election every three years for the entire Council. In the majority of Victorian Councils annual elections are held, with Councillors elected for a three year term but with one Councillor from each ward being elected every year. Triennial elections will become the rule when the KennettGovernment’s restructuring of local government is completed.

South-East Ward of Preston Council is normally considereda safe ward for Australian Labor Party endorsed candidates. The ward includes much of the Preston East Housing Commission estate, where individual polling booths record an ALP vote of up to 80 per cent.

In April 1993 the ALP decided not to endorse candidates for Preston Council at the 1993 poll. Individual ALP members were now free to contest the election as individuals. The majority of ALP candidates contested the election as a "Community Labor" (CL) team, but without official party support. In one ward two rival how-to-vote cards were issued by ALP members, one a CL ticket, and the other describing itself "North East Labor." Independent (Ind.) candidates, none of whom claimed to be members of any political party, contested all wards as a team. In South-East ward, the subject of our case study, three CL candidates opposed three Independent candidates.

The election resulted:

Valid votes 9587

Informal votes 975

Total votes 10562

First VacancyHall, John(CL) 5353Mauceri, Guy(Ind.) 2499Kelly, Chris(CL) 930Menara, John(Ind.) 342Preketes, Arthur(CL) 242Burns,Roger(Ind.) 221 ____

9587

PAGE 21

Cr John Hall, who emigrated to Australia from England in the early 1950's, is a long-serving Preston Councillor and a former Mayor. He was elected with an absolute majority of 559 votes. Candidate Chris Kelly drew first position on the ballot paper, and while her total primaryvote suggests a high personal vote in her own right (she was number two on the CL how-to-vote card and her rational primary voters obviously did not follow the CL ticket) at least some of her 930 votes are "donkey votes," the votes of (normally irrational) electors who number their ballot papers from top to bottom without regard to the merits of the various candidates.

Second VacancyKelly, Chris(CL) 5895Mauceri, Guy(Ind.) 2603Menara, John(Ind.) 423Burns, Roger(Ind.) 360Preketes, Arthur(CL) 306

____9587

In the count for the second vacancy all ballot papers which previously were counted with a first preference forCr John Hall are treated as showing a first preference

for the next continuing candidate. Mrs Chris Kelly, the daughter of Cr John Hall, was elected with an absolute majority of 1101 votes.

Third VacancyPreketes, Arthur(CL) 5711Mauceri, Guy(Ind.) 2706Menara, John(Ind.) 615Burns, Roger(Ind.) 555

____9587

In the count for the third vacancy the next continuing preference is counted in the case of those ballot papers with first preferences shown for either Hall or Kelly. MrArthur Preketes, South African-born of Greek descent, waselected with an absolute majority of 917 votes.

PAGE 22

Self-Help Questions 13-16

13. Calculate the absolute majority required for election in

South-East ward.

14. What would the quota be if the single transferable vote

method of proportional representation were used in this

election of three Councillors in South-East ward?

15. Would the result be changed if the single-transferable

vote method of proportional representation were usedin

South-East ward? Which candidates would be elected?You should assume that all voters would show

preferencesidentically under the different voting system. In practice voters may often vote differently if

they are aware a different voting system is being used.

16. Assume that three per-cent of voters cast a "donkey"vote. Assume also that all of these "donkey" votes are irrational votes, without regard to the merits of the candidate. If this is the case what is the maximum number of voters who may have cast a rational first preference vote for candidate Kelly?

When you have completed these questions, turn to the end of the unit for the answer.

PAGE 23

THE GERRYMANDER

A gerrymander is a deliberate arrangement of electoral boundaries to secure a desired result. The term is named after Elbridge Gerry, Governor of the American state of Massachusetts, who in 1811 was responsible for drawing a particular set of boundaries that favoured his party. Oneelectoral district had a shape like a salamander, hence the name gerrymander.

The gerrymander is most usual under single member electoral systems, but is not unknown (although rarer) under multi-member systems. Proportional representation is sometimes argued as a cure for the practice. Gerrymandering can take the form of differential electoral enrolments, areas known to favour a particular party being rewarded with a greater number of electorates. Particular areas known to support one particular party are sometimes included (or excluded) from a particular electorate so as to improve a particular party's chances. This latter method is

particularly common in the United States, but is not unknown in Australia.

Examples of Gerrymanders in Australian Politics

The most blatant gerrymander in Australia was in fact created by a Labor government in Queensland under PremierNed Hanlon. This took the form of a zonal distribution ofseats under the Electoral Districts Act of 1949. Metropolitan Brisbane, with 24 seats and an average electoral enrolment of 10,795, was greatly disadvantaged compared with the western part of the state. The ten seats in the western zone had an average enrolment of only 4,613. Nine of the ten western zone seats were always won by the ALP. Labor would almost certainly have been defeated under fair boundaries in 1950, but was saved by the gerrymander. But for the ALP split in 1957 Labor in Queensland might never have lost office.

Other examples of the blatant gerrymander include South Australia under Sir Thomas Playford, and Queensland underSir Joh Bjelke Petersen. The former, however, did eventually lose office, and the latter probably would have won all elections his government contested even if the boundaries had been fairly drawn.

PAGE 24

Distinction between Gerrymander and Malapportionment

A distinction needs to be made between a gerrymander and malapportionment. A gerrymander is always deliberate and seeks to advantage a particular party. The term malapportionment applies to any electoral distribution that is unfair, whether intentional or otherwise. A malapportionment frequently occurs through neglect. In Victoria the ward boundaries of many Councils have been unchanged for much of this century, despite great changesin population.

Malapportionment is really a matter of degree. What may seem a bad electoral distribution or apportionment may infact be neutral in its effect. Even electoral boundaries so drawn that they are approximately equal in terms of electoral enrolment can still be regarded as malapportioned.

The is frequently no correspondence between the result ofan election and the proportion of votes polled by a partyin any single member electoral system. This occurs because some votes are regarded as wasted. If a party wins a large number of its safest seats by very large majorities (seventy per cent and up) these excess votes are wasted in the sense that the same party needs to win much more than fifty per cent of the total vote in order to win a majority of seats in the election. On a two-party preferred basis the Liberal/National Coalition gained a majority of votes at the 1990 House of Representatives election, yet did not win a majority of seats. Some may argue that the electoral distribution of seats was either gerrymandered (which they were not) or malapportioned, which is a matter for argument. In fact the Coalition parties lost the election because of their wasted votes. The ALP at that election won many seats by very narrow majorities, and very few seats by very big majorities. The Coalition probably needed more than a mere majority of the total vote to win that election. In 1954 the ALP was in a similar position. The ALP in that year won a majority of the popular vote, yet a minority of House of Representatives seats.

PAGE 25

Answers to Self-Help Questions

1. Andersen (ALP).

2. In third position. He won because he received over ninety per-cent of preferences from the DLP and Liberal candidates.

3. Desailly (Liberal Reform). The majority of his preferences were directed to the ALP candidate.

4. Ninety-three per-cent of preferences from the DLP candidate at the time of his elimination were directed to Sam Benson above the Liberal candidate. Bruce Skeggs, the Liberal candidate, was then eliminated from the count, and 95.7 per cent of his preferences were directed to Benson, who consequently became the successful candidate with a margin of 6021 votes over the ALP candidate on the fourth and final count.

5. Thirty-nine. The President of the Senate has a deliberative but not a casting vote.

6. 14.28 per-cent (ignoring fractional remainder and not rounding up).

7. Queensland and South Australia.

8. Tasmania, 1999.

PAGE 26

9. The Liberals will hold 37 seats in the Senate if they win a seat from the ALP in New South Wales at the election scheduled for 1996, but win no additional seats. If the Liberals win three Senate seats from every state at that election, in additionto one Senator from each of the Territories, they will have 38 seats, exactly half the total number ofSenators. If Senator Harradine votes with them they will have control of the chamber, but as an Independent he is unlikely to do this on all issues.

10. It is unlikely that the Democrats, Greens or Independents would win any seats. One or other of the major parties (the Coalition Liberal/National Parties or the ALP) is likely to have control of theSenate most of the time.

11. Minor parties would be eliminated.

12. Some people presumably voted for McRoach as a protest vote against the major parties. By directingtheir preferences to a candidate likely to be elected their primary vote for McRoach was not wasted.

13. 4794.

14. 2397

15. Yes. One Independent candidate would be successful. The Independent candidate who polled more votes than any other Independent candidate in the ward received 102 votes above the quota on firstpreferences. Candidates Hall and Kelly (Community Labor) would be elected under either voting system, but under STV proportional representation candidate Mauceri (Independent) would be successful at the expense of candidate Preketes (Community Labor).

16. 642.

NUMBERED PAGES END

ASSIGNMENT 5

To be completed and sent to your tutor for comment and assessment.

The Bigwood Shire Council has 900 voters. Four groups of candidates (including Independents who could not be classified as belonging in any other category) are contesting the election for a new Council. Under current electoral arrangements Bigwood Council has three ridings (as wards or electorates are called in rural shires), each of which elect three Councillors. Proposals have been made that the Council:(i) be unsubdivided, with all nine Councillors elected "at large" by all Council voters.(ii) that the Council be elected from nine one member

ridings by preferential voting.(iii) that the Council use proportional representation in all

elections other than single-Councillor elections as proposed under (ii) above.The following estimates have been made about the likely vote at Council elections. The estimates assume that 900valid (formal) votes will be cast in all ridings at the election, with 300 votes in each three-Councillor riding.Theestimate based on single-Councillor ridings assumes that 100 valid votes will be cast in each such riding.

Current Boundaries for 3-Councillor Ridings.

North Riding South Riding West Riding

Traders 116 153 62

Farmers 45 60 136Environmental 37 57 99Independent 102 30 3 ___ ___

___300 300 300

Proposed Boundaries for 9 Single-Councillor Ridings The proposed Ridings are titled A B C D E F G H J in this

estimate.

A B C D E F G H J

Traders 20 15 81 51 51 51 51 6 5Farmers 20 25 - 20 20 20 20 51 65Environmental 9 9 19 19 19 19 29 40 30Independent 51 51 - 10 10 10 - 3 -

At-large vote estimates

The estimated vote in an "at-large" or unsubdivided Shireis:

Traders 331Farmers 241Environmental 193Independent 135

___900

Assume in all your answers that the estimates presented are accurate. You may find a calculator useful in answering some parts of this question.

Question 1

Calculate the quota for election to Bigwood Council usingthe Droop formula

(a) For an election of 3 Councillors from one riding.

(b) At an "at large" election for the whole Council(9 Councillors).

Question 2

Calculate the percentage of the total valid votes polled (900 votes) by each of the four groups contesting the election. You need calculate only to one decimal place.

Question 3

What would be the representation be for each of the four groups under the following?

(a) The present three Councillor ridings under the majority-preferential voting system. Assume that allvoters follow exactly the recommended how-to-

votecard of their group, that in North riding Environmental preferences are distributed to Traders, and that Traders preferences in West riding are distributed to Farmers.

(b) The present three-Councillor ridings under the single-transferable vote (STV) method of proportional representation. Assume in North riding that Environmental preferences go to Farmers, that Independent preferences in South Riding go to Farmers, and that Traders preferences in West riding go to Farmers.

(c) The Council elected "at large" (9 Councillors) underSTV proportional representation. Assume that the groupwith the highest fraction of a quota receives additional preferences during the process of exclusion to achieve another quota.

Question 4

What are the implications for control of the Council under each of the voting

and electoral system proposals at present used or proposed?

Question 5

Which electoral arrangement and voting system would you favour for the Council? Give reasons for your answer.

__________________________________________________________

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PUBLISHED VERSION

1. In an election under the simple majority voting system the following votes are recorded:Downer 96, Hewson 89, Bishop 98, Fischer 70.The winner would be:

A Fischer

B Hewson

C Bishop

D Downer

2. This country uses a simple majority (plurality) voting system:

A Belgium

B Switzerland

C Australia

D Canada

3. In an election for parliament 29500 valid votes are cast in a particular electorate. An absolute majorityis:

A 29500

B 14751

C 59000

D 7834

4. Calculate the Droop quota in a six-member electoratewhere 606,000 valid votes are cast:

A 101,001

B 86,572

C 303,001

D 50,501

5. In an election of six Senators for the Australian Senate from Victoria the Liberal candidate, with 1,022,600 primary votes, is elected to the first vacancy. The quota for election is 357,143 votes. Her surplus votes are:

A 665,457

B 665,000

C 1,688,057

D 308,314

6. This argument is sometimes used in favour of the single-transferable vote proportional representationvoting system:

A it encourages larger parties

B it is likely that a very large proportion of voters will cast a first preference for an elected candidate

C in internal elections under this voting method in the ALP Greek-ethnic rather than Australiancandidates are always favoured

D it leads to a multiplication of parties in parliament

7. The use of majority voting systems in the AustralianSenate prior to 1949 sometimes had this result:

A minor parties generally having the balance of power

B Irish-Catholics generally winning control of the Senate

C a very lopsided representation of one or other of the major parties, in some years winning allSenate seats they contested

D a fair representation of parties, generally proportional to they votes they polled at each election

8. A gerrymander involves:

A a failure to redistribute electoral boundaries after several elections

B the fact that electoral boundaries greatly favour one party over another at an election

C the deliberate drawing of electoral boundaries so that they favour a particular group contesting an election

D the unequal size of many electorates, in particular a deliberate weighting in favour of rural electorates

9. This Premier is generally credited with the most blatant gerrymander of seats in an Australian lower house election:

A Sir Thomas Playford

B Neville Wran

C Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen

D Ned Hanlon

10. The term gerrymander is named after a former Vice President of the United States. Before becoming VicePresident he was Governor of this state:

A Vermont

B Massachusetts

C Arkansas

D Virginia

Answers

1 C 2 D 3 B 4 B 5 A 6 B 7 C 8 C 9 D 10 B