Australias Electoral System

[Briedis]

I think Australias Electoral system is stuffed.

This is the seats won so far:

Party NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS ACT NT National
LP 16 13 14 7 7 0 0 0 57
NP 6 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 11
ALP 18 16 6 4 2 4 2 1 53
DEM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GRN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Doubt 8 6 3 4 3 1 0 1 26

This is the % of vote so far:

Party Votes % Swing (%)
LP 3,539,434 36.84 +3.36
NP 531,242 5.53 +0.32
ALP 3,694,288 38.45 -2.39
DEM 507,595 5.28 +0.24
GRN 412,029 4.29 +2.28


How can the Greens and Democrats receive over 10% of the vote and get NO seats, yet the National party can only receive 5% of the vote and get 11 seats?

Something is not right there.....

[Yassar Arafat]

Th reason is Australia is not one electorate but is made up of many electorates. If all the National Party support is in one area, then why shouldnt that area be rperesetend by the Naitonal Party memeber if that is what they want?

The Greens are a minority whereve you go.

We have a rpresetnative system. If you want one electorate the closest you get is the Senate which was introduced to represent the states rights so each state si one electorate. That is where the small parties (i.e those with wide support but not majority support in any one area) can get in.

The current system is the best. There is a re-distribution in place if needed for each electorate to ensure a Bjelke-Peterson gerrymander cant occur, and there is compulsory voting to ensure no one is discouraged from voting by any dark forces. it isnt compulsory voting really just compulsory attendance at the polling booth to scratch out your name from the list. You can still vote informal if tha is your wish and thus vote for no one.

[CJH]

With respect to the House of Representatives, I agree with Yasser's point. If the 10% of the vote received by the Greens is proportionate to each electorate then the most they would receive, on average, in each electorate is 10%.

Logically enough. if 10% voted for them, this means that 90% didn't. As a minority, there is no way they should get control.

Alas, this problem does occur in the Senate. As no one party controls this house outright, it usually means that the balance of power falls to one of the smaller parties, most likely the Democrats.

I have a huge problem with this in principle as there is no way that a minority should have a position of power over the elected government. I should point out that in practice, I feel the Democrats are fair in their negotiations and generally don't subvert the process.

This issue reached the level of absurdity between 1996 - 8 when through an increase in representation from the Coalition in the Senate, the Democrats were rendered impotent and the balance of power ultimately fell to a disgraced, renegade Labor senator and an independant from Tasmania.

The witch-hunt by Labor on Colston had the desired effect of driving him effectively out of politics, leaving the balance of power entirely in the hands of a solitary individual, Brian Harridine, who represented the smallest of constituencies.

The amount of power this one person wielded was entirely inverted to his actual standing. All I can be thankful for is that he was a moral man with strong principles(though I am sure his electorate was well looked after!).

Could you imagine the carnage if it was Pauline Hanson instead? May God help us!

As a solution to this, what I would like to see is that the Senate is made up entirely of independants - no party representation allowed. This would mean that no one group would ever hold the balance of power and the each vote taken would be one based on conscience.

[Briedis]

Originally posted by CJH
As a solution to this, what I would like to see is that the Senate is made up entirely of independants - no party representation allowed. This would mean that no one group would ever hold the balance of power and the each vote taken would be one based on conscience.

Agree with that 100%. In fact, it has always amazed me that the senate has parties at all. It is supposed to be a house of review, where new laws and amendments are debated and passed if agreed or passed back for alterations if necessary. If parties are involved this debate does not exist. It's like having a trial and putting the family members of the accused on the jury....doesn't work.

I understand your point on multi-electorate elections, Yasser, but I can not see how if a party that gets 5% of the vote and will have 11 representatives is a better system than other that get the same amount of vote and get no seats. Surely, this means that some peoples voices have greater weight than others, which does not seem fair....

[Shinboners]

The quirk lies in the fact that we have a preference system.

To win an electorate, the candidate must get 50% + 1 vote. If no candidate gets that, then the first preferences are counted, and so it goes until someone gets 50% +1 to win.

So while the Greens and Democrats may not get the seats in the House of Representatives according to their vote, these parties still have some influence on the policies of the ALP and Liberals (well, mainly the ALP) by making aggrements on policy in return for the first preference in their how to vote cards. It was this strategy that Graeme Richardson used to propel Hawke (swapping promises of legislation in return for Green preferences) to a 3rd election victory.

As for the Senate, I'm not sure how that operates, but I think the preferences work in a similar way when it comes to the last few spots. Apparently about 14% of the vote will get someone a senate seat. In the '98 Federal election, One Nation got a higher primary vote than the Democrats, but because the Liberals and ALP put the Democrats ahead of One Nation on their preferences, the Democrats took the lead when preferential votes were distributed, hence the Democrats getting seats and One Nation getting frozen out.

[Frodo]

I would prefer to be voting for a local person that would represent the needs of my localality rather than a party.
I do not like having to mark preferences because there are many I would prefer not to be in parliament at all. First past the post is IMO the best way.
Proportional representation really means you have no say about which person is voted into the senate. The party decides who is first on their ticket. I don't like the impersonal affect on voting this way. It also opens the door for a protest vote to actually result in some loony having the balance of power in the senate.

Having said that, just imagine what an ungovernable mess we would be in if the lower house had lots of democrats and greens there. Fragile alliances would be made then broken with budgets and policies not passed and a federal election happening every four or five months. Better what we have than that.

I would, though, prefer that the upper house had no power at all. That is consisted of the wise that debated policy and made useful contribution to the papers which were persuasive of change but could not force change.

I am all for any government fairly elected being able to govern without being impeded.

[Chilli Afterglow]

Originally posted by Frodo


<snip>
I would, though, prefer that the upper house had no power at all. That is consisted of the wise that debated policy and made useful contribution to the papers which were persuasive of change but could not force change.

I am all for any government fairly elected being able to govern without being impeded.

May as well not have an upper house at all then! I much prefer the senate having teeth (as it does), just not being held hostage to the loony with the balance of power.

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Chilli Afterglow


May as well not have an upper house at all then!

I agree!!

And just think about the savings to be made in the abolition of such an unneccessary house. Enough for a couple of new hospitals every year i would say!

And decisions made by our parliament would not need to have to wait months before becoming law.

Great Idea.

[Briedis]

And just imagine the types of laws that would be passed with out the senate.:eek:

An independant senate is what is needed. I would like to see a senate that would contain community leaders from a variety of fields of expertise. That way when laws are passed then we could have meaningful debate on the pros and cons of each law and suggested amendments that actually benefit the community instead of someones political agenda.

[Shinboners]

Compared to the checks and balances that have been built into the US parliamentary system, getting legislation through the Australian Senate is a piece of cake.

However, the question of the Senate's role only comes up when contentious legislation is presented....like the GST, Industrial relations, the sale of Telstra. About 95% of legislation goes through the Senate without any problems or with minor amendments. But for the "big issues", it's probably best to hasten slowly (as it were).

[London Dave]

If the reps was decided like the senate, by a quota system, shall we say, saturday would have ended like so:

LP 36.98%
NP 5.51%
ALP 38.40%
CLP 0.33 %
DEM 5.25%
GRN 4.25%
HAN 4.29 %
UNI 0.22%
CTA 0.56 %
OTH 4.20 %

Can't see anyone forming a govt unless you get a multi party coalition, which would mean...well you know what.
i think the Kiwi's have a unicameral system that works something like that (or doesn't work as the case may be!!!)

Tassie has a different state system, that is supposed to be the fairest (mathematically I'm led to believe)

Don't like coalitions of many parties...end up like Italy, 50 govts in 50 years etc.

Agree with Shinners posts though, senate works pretty well most of the time, so leave it, or as the Shinners suggests, hasten slowly.

Having a non directly elected body (UK House of lords) is good in theory, but in practice, it is a toothless tiger. Has rarely changed any legislation of siginificance in my experience here.

[Bloodstained Angel]

We need an upper house, a Senate, a House of Lords, a Legislative Council - call it what you will and it doesn't really matter how its elected but believe me guys - you really need some kind of review process for the Governments laws.

I remember the situation in New Zealand quite vividly - there is no upper house in New Zealnd so the party that has a simple majority in the Lower House gets to do pretty much as they like - with nobody there to negoiate with, nobody there to say "hey thats bad law" or "wait a minute, lets look at this Bill a bit more critically"

The only check and balance on government power is the Royal Assent of the Governor General - and he has never sent a BIll down in the entire history of government in NZ.

Whatever the government of the day says - thats what goes.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out if its not already an abuse of power - the potential is there for abuse of power on a massive scale.

In New Zealnd - a tyranical dictator could win a popular election - then seize power and set up a totalitarian dictatorship, without anybody being able to stop them.

In Australia this would be pratically impossible because an Upper House would not let such a thing happen.

cheers

[Frodo]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
In New Zealnd - a tyranical dictator could win a popular election - then seize power and set up a totalitarian dictatorship, without anybody being able to stop them.

In Australia this would be pratically impossible because an Upper House would not let such a thing happen.

cheers

Our constitution would prevent the seizing of power and setting up a totalitarian dictatorship without the need of an upper house.

However, I would concede that a party who goes to the people at an election with clear policies then delivers different ones needs checking, and an upper house can do that if the rules are set.

So if Liberals get into government on a 10% GST accross the board promise and industrial relations policies se up front I do not believe that the upper house should challenge that at all. However, if they campaigned on a 10% GST and tried to introduce a 20% GST then it would be reasonable for the upper house to block it unless the government could convince the house that circumstances had changed sufficiently to warrant that it would be better for the nation.

[1AD]

Originally posted by Frodo


Our constitution would prevent the seizing of power and setting up a totalitarian dictatorship without the need of an upper house.



Good, when i'm lined up to be shot i'll just hold the constitution up. I think most dictatorships had or still have constitutions.

[Bee]

Originally posted by London Dave



Tassie has a different state system, that is supposed to be the fairest (mathematically I'm led to believe)


Tassie has the Hare Clark system. A fairer way to distribute votes, but bloody hard to understand.

[Shinboners]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
In New Zealnd - a tyranical dictator could win a popular election - then seize power and set up a totalitarian dictatorship, without anybody being able to stop them.


So the New Zealand Governor General has no power to dismiss the government?

[Pessimistic]

There are much bigger issues than the voting system.

Take federal/state responsibilities etc.

Ironic how governments have 'sold off' a lot of their responsibility yet shed not one MP. Some say states are superfluous but prhaps the way would be to redefine their powers.

My broad thoughts.

State governments:

Have more of an executive focus - running govt enterprises (schools hospitals etc) but have their legislative powers pulled back to just 'mechanical' issues ie byelaw type things.

National government:

Less of a focus on services but defining the broad standards (for Education, Health. Making the laws and legal framework eg criminal offences and rights equal across all states. Less of a delivery role as this is referred back to the states.

The senate and upper houses.

With minimal legislative powers the state governments have littel need for an upper house. abolish these and perhaps allow the fedeal seantors for each state to form a 'council' with the governor for ceremonial and procedural issues - does anyone know what the state upper houses actually do ?

The head of state.

A serving state governor can nominate for governor general at the end of his/her fixed term. All the terms coincide. OK maybe not

Anyway the monarch gets the flick (sorry Liz) Here would be the last place on earth they would want to live anyway.

[Briedis]

Good ideas there Pessimistic. I like the idea of the "Senate Council", except I would like to see it containing non-partisan members.

I believe that the State Senates have the same function as the federal senate in that they are a house of debate for laws created in the lower house. I believe this is an important part of the process, but I think you are right in that it may not need to be so formal at State level.

[CJH]

I too think that Pess has some good ideas there.

I am bemused though by the irony contained within! From reading your political comments over the past few weeks, I feel you sit to the left of centre with your beliefs. The irony comes when reading your suggestions which reads exactly like "Economic Rationalisation", something that is a dirty phrase to socialist minded people!

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Briedis
Good ideas there Pessimistic. I like the idea of the "Senate Council", except I would like to see it containing non-partisan members.

I believe that the State Senates have the same function as the federal senate in that they are a house of debate for laws created in the lower house. I believe this is an important part of the process, but I think you are right in that it may not need to be so formal at State level.

I won't allow the state governments much room to legislate, especially on anything to do with human rights, major crime, Contract lay (including industrial relations) so not much need for a house of review. The senate council would be ceremonial only.

The problem implementing the system would be to persuade federal governnment to cede its operative power to the states, and persuading the states (and they would all need to agree) to cede all major legislative power to the feds.

[Briedis]

Originally posted by Pessimistic


I won't allow the state governments much room to legislate, especially on anything to do with human rights, major crime, Contract lay (including industrial relations) so not much need for a house of review. The senate council would be ceremonial only.

The problem implementing the system would be to persuade federal governnment to cede its operative power to the states, and persuading the states (and they would all need to agree) to cede all major legislative power to the feds.

I still think you need a review process...so I guess we differ in opinion on that.

On the point of operative power, isn't this already in place? The federal parliament decides on the larger issues (i.e. defence, foreign affairs etc.) whereas the states provide laws that are required at a regional level (education, hospitals etc.)?

If you want to say that the federal govt should control education and hospitals and other state-run things, do you believe that they will have the ability to administer these areas? I don't think that they would.

I fear that giving too much resposibility to the federal govt. would place too much of a burden on them and they would not be able to produce the goods....on the other hand we would, hopefully, have a unified direction on these issues, so it may not be a bad thing in theory....just not sure if it is workable.

[Bloodstained Angel]

How about abolishing the states alltogether ?

Split state responsibilities between the Federal Government and a re-organised Local Government system.

The Commonwealth can take over education, law enforcement and health (the so-called 'big ticket' items)

Local Government can look after everything else.

We are over governed in Australia, and it costs us a fortune in wasted resources, duplicity of bureacracies, and silly laws that vary from state to state for no apparent reason.

If we just dumped the states alltogether and one uniform set of laws for all of Australia, we would save an absolute fortune and would have a simpler more efficent form of government that is better suited to the everyday needs of ordinary people.

The idea could be a winner, the community may be persuaded to give it a try if it means less politicans, less elections, less public servants and better value for your tax dollar.

Hell, while we are at it why don't we invite New Zealnd to finally join the Commonwealth as well like they should have done in 1901.

cheers

[Briedis]

BSA,

I agree actually about the states. With a more powerful local government system we could get away without state governments...I think you will find state governments are a relic of the colonial times. It will be hard to make the polies give up their jobs though!

Does anyone know exactly why NZ were not included? I know they were originally included in the Aussie commonwealth plans, but I think there was some reason why they were left out and WA came in....

[Pessimistic]

I don't think you could practically abolish the states. The commonwealth exists because the states legislated for it. In an extreme case the states could remove the commonwaelth but not vice versa.

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Briedis


I still think you need a review process...so I guess we differ in opinion on that.

On the point of operative power, isn't this already in place? The federal parliament decides on the larger issues (i.e. defence, foreign affairs etc.) whereas the states provide laws that are required at a regional level (education, hospitals etc.)?

If you want to say that the federal govt should control education and hospitals and other state-run things, do you believe that they will have the ability to administer these areas? I don't think that they would.

I fear that giving too much resposibility to the federal govt. would place too much of a burden on them and they would not be able to produce the goods....on the other hand we would, hopefully, have a unified direction on these issues, so it may not be a bad thing in theory....just not sure if it is workable.

The Feds woiuld determine the standards for Education, Health Law etc but the states would implement. In the ediucation area it is like saying the examination board is independent of the schools. There would be an element of competition becaus eyou could see how victorian schools compared to NSW ones and perhaps the poorer state could adopt some of the practices of the better one.

State covernmments would be the largest employers in their state - but when negotiating with their staff they comply with legislation drafted federally. Why should an employer be able to legislate to it's own advantage.

Its a form of seperation of powers

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
How about abolishing the states alltogether ?




How about abolishing local government altogether and limiting Federal responsibility to defence and foreign affairs.

Divide current New South Wales into (1) New England (Capital Sydney) and (2) New South Wales which would include Wollongong (Capital Canberra).

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by CJH
I too think that Pess has some good ideas there.

I am bemused though by the irony contained within! From reading your political comments over the past few weeks, I feel you sit to the left of centre with your beliefs. The irony comes when reading your suggestions which reads exactly like "Economic Rationalisation", something that is a dirty phrase to socialist minded people!

When I was in UK last there was a huge debate because Blair's ALP was reforming the house of lords (their upper chamber) The conservatives were in opposition to this but lost out in the end.

The commons (lower house) has about 650 members. When the story came out they were to get rid of some 500 lords - guess how many were left - over 600 ! I guess thatcher didn't get round to 'rationalising' the lords. bbut there was a story where they spent billions privatising a pissy little board which raised amillion or so.

Economic rationalisation is like political correctness - you use it to get rid of the other sides supporters.

How about rationalising some of these private health funds instead of handing over taxpayers money with no requirement to be more efficient - Private health is an absolute Joke - go to a private hospital and see what a cushy life the staff have.

[Bloodstained Angel]

Ok - as I understand it

New Zealand was invited to participate in the Federation Conventions of the 1890's.

They sent delegations to these conventions.

When it came time for a final decision - they squibbed.

Reasons were :

1) The New Zealand Prime Minister, Richard Sneddon, was a bellicose, tub-thumping nationalist who considered Australia , with its convict origins, squatter landholders and large Roman Catholic population to be not 'good enough' for the Anglican, free settling and freehold land owning NZers.

2) In the 1890's, New Zealand was actually one of the richest countries in the world. The invention of refrigeration on cargo ships had transformed the New Zealand lamb industry into an economic powerhouse that was catapulting NZ into the realms of serious prosperity. By contrast Australia was in the depths of a terrible economic depression brought abot by a severe drought and a crippling shearers strike. The price of wool also collapsed in this time. So it was felt by New Zealand that to join Australia would amount to economic suicide.

3) New Zealand was unhappy with the proposed taxation arrngemnts of the new Australian Commonwealth, they wanted the States (including NZ) to keep some revenue raising power through income taxes.

4) New Zealand had a formal treaty in place that recognised Maori rights. No such arrangement existed in Australia, A pre-condition of joining the Commonwealth was to abandon all previous aggreements of this nature. Thats how Aborigines in South Australia used to have the vote, but lost it after Federation.

5) There were minor concerns regarding distance, time zones, customs and excise duties and whether or not Cook Islanders and Samoans would also be citizens of the Australian Commonwealth.

However, the door was left open for NZ to join the Commonwealth at any time in the future, as far as I am aware - that door is still open.

On Burley-Griffins original plan for Canberra, one of the main road radiating out from the circuits around Capitol Hill was to be 'Wellington Avenue' just like we have an Adelaide Ave, Brisbane Ave, etc.

we are all wiser in hindsight I guess, but this ex-pat Kiwi is definitely of the mind that NZ should have put its self-interest and petty parochialism to one side (like the other colonies) and instead considered the bigger picture.

pity

[Satay Mat]

Originally posted by TigerTank



How about abolishing local government altogether and limiting Federal responsibility to defence and foreign affairs.

Divide current New South Wales into (1) New England (Capital Sydney) and (2) New South Wales which would include Wollongong (Capital Canberra).

so that would be "New South New South Wales" then TT ?

Satay Mat

[Pessimistic]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Ok - as I understand it

New Zealand was invited to participate in the Federation Conventions of the 1890's.

They sent delegations to these conventions.

When it came time for a final decision - they squibbed.

Reasons were :

1) The New Zealand Prime Minister, Richard Sneddon, was a bellicose, tub-thumping nationalist who considered Australia , with its convict origins, squatter landholders and large Roman Catholic population to be not 'good enough' for the Anglican, free settling and freehold land owning NZers.

2) In the 1890's, New Zealand was actually one of the richest countries in the world. The invention of refrigeration on cargo ships had transformed the New Zealand lamb industry into an economic powerhouse that was catapulting NZ into the realms of serious prosperity. By contrast Australia was in the depths of a terrible economic depression brought abot by a severe drought and a crippling shearers strike. The price of wool also collapsed in this time. So it was felt by New Zealand that to join Australia would amount to economic suicide.

3) New Zealand was unhappy with the proposed taxation arrngemnts of the new Australian Commonwealth, they wanted the States (including NZ) to keep some revenue raising power through income taxes.

4) New Zealand had a formal treaty in place that recognised Maori rights. No such arrangement existed in Australia, A pre-condition of joining the Commonwealth was to abandon all previous aggreements of this nature. Thats how Aborigines in South Australia used to have the vote, but lost it after Federation.

5) There were minor concerns regarding distance, time zones, customs and excise duties and whether or not Cook Islanders and Samoans would also be citizens of the Australian Commonwealth.

However, the door was left open for NZ to join the Commonwealth at any time in the future, as far as I am aware - that door is still open.

On Burley-Griffins original plan for Canberra, one of the main road radiating out from the circuits around Capitol Hill was to be 'Wellington Avenue' just like we have an Adelaide Ave, Brisbane Ave, etc.

we are all wiser in hindsight I guess, but this ex-pat Kiwi is definitely of the mind that NZ should have put its self-interest and petty parochialism to one side (like the other colonies) and instead considered the bigger picture.

pity

I would imagine that NZ views ceremonially joining Australia about as well as we would view joining Indonesia. I'm sure trhe indonesians would oblige !

In actual fact the NZ and australian market can be viewed as one, as many impedoments have been removed (another thing that happened while labour were "stuffing up the economy'

[Briedis]

Originally posted by CJH
Logically enough. if 10% voted for them, this means that 90% didn't. As a minority, there is no way they should get control.


But that is exactly my point. 5% of Australians voted for the Nationals and they got 11 seats, yet 10% of Australians voted for Greens or Democrats and they got none.

To me that suggests that the 5% minority that voted National will have a greater voice than the 10% that voted Greens/Democrats. In fact a far greater voice.

Why should they have a bigger say in how the nation is run? Why should the 10% of Australians who voted Greens/Dems have no say?

[Kane McGoodwin]

Personally, I think the problem is we have too many layers of Government. Major nation-wide policy setting, key decisions, etc should be made by the commonwealth not state Governments to avoid duplicate or even conflicting legislation amongst the states (eg. DNA of prisoners).

I reckon you could combine local & state governments, by having your local government member as your electorate's representative at state level. There are far too many backbenchers in state parliament who do bugger all & no one really knows who they are (except when the paper reports on their overseas junkets). I mean our State Government isn't likely to sit again to next April! Not a bad life if you can get it. State / local government could then concentrate on local issues (rather than blaming each other).

Basically we need less, but more effective politicians. If we have less pollies, we can afford to pay them more & hopefully attract better quality people in the future.