PR - A view from Down Under

From my good Australian Scrabble buddy Jan...helped me write my missive on the upcoming UK AV/FPTP referendum.


To the best of my knowledge, this (AV, or preferential voting as it is known in Australia) is the only system used officially here in Oz. It is used in elections at all three levels of government; and in many other things too, like union elections, and for many company boards. In fact, I’ve just run an election for our board at work using this system.

In a past life I worked as a ministerial minder in Canberra, I served as a Councillor on a local council, and I and was actively involved in politics for decades – including running a number of campaigns for other people standing for office. So I know a bit about stuff like this.

There are constant grumbles about the outcomes of preferential deals – especially in more recent times when the emergence of the Greens has led to a number of hung parliaments. At the moment, Labor/Green alliances have delivered hung parliaments in nationally in Canberra and here in Tasmania.

However, I’ve never heard any serious discussion about changing from preferential voting to a simple FPTP system. The only discussion around the traps of recent times is whether there should be a consistent system of preferential voting used across the board – and I don’t think that has any legs.

At present, different systems are used in different jurisdictions:

See here: http://www.australianpolitics.com/elections/features/preferential.shtml

Optional preferential is when you only have to indicate a first preference. In the jurisdictions where this is used, the electoral commissions have decreed that in this instance preferences will be allocated in line with the voting card issued by the first preference recipient. So, if I’m happy to vote in line with a preference card (or lazy, and couldn’t be bothered filling in all the squares) I only have to mark my first preference and someone else does all the work. Depending on where you are, first preferences can be shown by a number, a tick, a cross or anything that shows you’ve picked that candidate. For this reason, this is the easiest system to use for voters; but a bit harder for counting, as there is more opportunity for subjective interpretation of whether a vote is formal or informal.

Full preferential (sometimes referred to as exhausted preferential) means that your vote is deemed to be informal if you do not number every square. Very straight down the line and unequivocal. No grey areas. (Well, almost none – but let’s not go there.)

Partial preferential is midway between the two. You have to indicate a minimum number of preferences – which can vary according to the jurisdiction. In federal elections, this allows something called ‘above the line’ voting – or sometimes as group ticket voting.. At Senate elections (our national upper house), candidates are grouped in columns across the ballot paper ie all the Labor candidates in one column; all the Conservatives in another; all the Greens in another and so on; right down to the ungrouped single issue candidates. The order within the columns is fought out behind the scenes in party rooms. A thick horizontal line runs across the ballot paper, and voters have the option of voting above the line for a single group (ie filling on one number only); or voting below the line indicating preferences for all candidates on the ballot paper (ie you have to fill in every box). Roughly 95% of voters will vote above the line: for major parties, the rate is 98-99%; and for minor parties, 80-90%. I always vote below the line – I don’t like anyone telling me who my preferences should go to and I really don’t like some of the dodgy preference deals that the major parties do! Clearly however, in this as in many things, I am in a serious minority. *sigh*

I’m not even going to mention that in elections for the House of Representatives (the lower house) in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory, they use the Hare-Clark voting system. It is a preferential system, and it is used in smaller jurisdiction to deliver a number of candidates in each electorate. Beyond that I glaze over – even though I have lived and voted in both jurisdictions, and I am what could be classed as a politically aware voter – and life is too short for me to even think about trying to fathom it.

http://www.elections.act.gov.au/education/factHC.html


Here is a link to a fascinating article on preferential voting written by Antony Green, one of Australia’s leading psephologists. He prepared it in response to the discussions you guys are having about your referendum. Some of the comments at the end are interesting too. See especially comment in response to Chris Rootes @ 13 May 2010 0932am

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/05/preferential-voting-in-australia.html


I strongly support both compulsory voting and an optional preferential system. Turning out once every three or four years to vote is not a big ask for an informed democracy. Parties (and voters) can manipulate first past the post voting. It can be argued, with some justification, that a preferential voting system has a better chance of measuring voters’ real preferences than a system of FPTP voting. But I think a full preferential system is too complicated for the average voter and can actually disenfranchise a large proportion of the electorate.
 
Wow!