- Thread starter
- #101
What's wrong with Hare-Clark? Seems to me that it reflects the electorate's wishes better than most systems.
Hare-Clark is great in theory but it relies very heavily on voters knowing the individual candidates.This, + the Robson rotation seem alright. Gives the voters some recourse when the parties put up some hack at the top of their ticket
That’s fine in Tasmania, where you have one MLA for every 16,000 voters - candidates can get out in the community and meet a fair chunk of the electorate with old fashioned retail politics. It’s much more difficult in NSW, where the number is more like 57,000 - let alone federal divisions of 100k+.
In big electorates it’s hard for anyone except perhaps the sitting member to generate a significant personal vote, which means you would likely see a Hare-Clark system operating in practice a lot more like the Senate does - party voting, sitting members being re-elected by default, little individual MP accountability.
For that reason I think as a system it will continue to be restricted to small elections like TAS, ACT and local councils, where I agree it works pretty well (albeit with much of the population not really understanding how)
Last edited: