Many ACT voters are unlikely to get a full say in how the territory is to be governed in the next three years _ especially strong Labor and strong Liberal voters. They will follow the instruction in large type on the ballot paper which says: “”Number five boxes from 1 to 5 in the order of your choice”. In smaller type it says “”Then you may show as many further preferences as you wish . . . ”. Experience shows that the vast majority of voters take the line of least resistance. In Senate elections, for example, about 80 per cent tick the party box and go home. In the ACT, a majority of voters are, unfortunately, likely to number the minimum five boxes. This is likely to be especially true of major-party voters. (For Molonglo read seven where I have written five.) Many voters mistakenly feel that preferences are only important if you vote for a minor party. We hear much of preferences from the Democrats and Greens in Federal elections, for example. How they flow is critical to whether Labor or Liberal win the election. Under the Hare-Clark system, however, the reverse is true. Preferences from the major parties to the minor parties are of greater importance than the other way.
On Saturday, those preferences will determine the three critical seats on the cross-benches. At present the polls show that that contest for the last seat in each electorate is between the Michael Moore Independents, the Greens, the Democrats and Independent Paul Osborne. None is rating a full quota in any electorate at present, so it is is likely is that preferences from Labor and the Liberals will determine which of these minors and independents gets the last seat in each electorate. In the Assembly, the cross bench is vital for the shape of legislation, the make-up of committees, the answerability of Ministers and the bureaucracy and so on. In those circumstances, the calibre and attitudes of the people is of great importance.
In the last Assembly, for example, Dennis Stevenson, did not serve on committees, often did not attend Question Time and frequently engaged himself in the national and activities of various ideologically inspired groups. His agenda was not Canberra. His concerns were never pitched at a Canberra level. And Canberra was the worse for it. Fortunately, theother two cross-benchers, Michael Moore and Helen Szuty took a very diligent and active role. Canberrans voting for the major parties on Saturday therefore need to go the extra distance and make an informed judgment and choice about who they want on the cross benches _ almost as if there is a separate election for them, because that is what it amounts to. The ballot papers of people who vote 1 to five Labor or Liberal with no further preferences marked will be exhausted after four seats have been determined (probably at two each for the major parties).
The ballot papers will be set aside and will have no part in deciding the critical last seat. However, ballot papers of people who vote for a major and express a further preference will be used to determine which candidate gets the last seat. I’ll leave aside for the moment that Hare Clark permits people to jump across the party columns at any stage, so you can vote 1 Follett (Lab), 2 Carnell (Lib), 3 Moore (Moore Ind), 4 Connolly (Lab), 5 Tucker (Green), 6 Lamont (Lab), 7 Humphries (Lib), 8 Cornwell (Lib) and so on. A very high proportion intend to vote this way. It is a sensible approach. You look at the people, rather than the label _ the book rather than the cover. You can praise or punish within parties as well as between them.
However, today’s argument is addressed at the straight major-party voter: take the time to look at the significant minors (Moore Independents, Greens, Democrats, Osborne) and make a judgment about them and express that judgment with preferences on the ballot paper. There is no need to go all the way to the end because there are a rag-tag of Independents who the polling indicates have no hope. The important thing is for voters to express at least eight or nine preferences in the small seats and at least 10 or 11 in Molonglo. It is very likely that the two major parties will get between 30 and 40 per cent of the vote each. This is enough for two quotas each in the small seats of Ginnderra and Brindabella and three quotas in Molonglo. It is not enough for three quotas in the small electorates or four in Molonglo.
It is almost inevitable that the last seat in each will go to a minor or independent and that which minor or independent it is in each case will be largely determined by preferences from the major parties. (There is a modest chance that two minors will get up in Molonglo.) I’ll briefly describe how that preference flow works because it demonstrates that every preference marked will count _ do not imagine that if your first preference is the leading major party candidate in the electorate (for example Follett or Carnell in Molonglo) that somehow your vote will be locked in that pile and further preferences will not matter. In Ginninderra, for example, there are five seats and, say, 60,000 voters.
The quota is one sixth of the vote plus one. This is 10,0001 votes. When a candidate gets more than a quota (say 20,000 votes) the balance of vote over the quota is distributed according to preferences. This does not mean that 10,001 ballot papers are put in one pile and 9,999 selected at random are used for preferences. Rather, the preferences on all of the ballot papers are distributed, but they are distributed at a discount, called the transfer value. The discount takes account for the fact that many votes have been used in getting the first quota. The discount transfer value is calculated as follows: the number of votes minus the quota divided by the number of votes. In this case 20,000 minus 10,001 divided by 10,001 (or about a half). If a candidate is excluded (rather than elected with a quota) that candidate’s preferences are distributed at face value.
It may be that after exclusions and quotas, some votes are distributed at quite low values, none the less the last seat in each electorate is likely to be decided by a handful of votes. The important point is that every preference counts even if you have voted for the leading candidates of the major parties first up. The moral of the story is exercise that option. It is no good six months into the term of the Assembly asking, how were we saddled with this lot? This happened after the first Assembly election in 1989. Then there was a partial excuse. The thing was new. No-one has a track record to be approved or disapproved.
People shunned the system and voted for people who said they shunned the system _ even though once elected nearly all took the trappings of office or used their position for another agenda. This time there is a fair amount of material to make a reasonably informed judgment; only apathy prevents it. Under Hare Clark, more than any other system, it is true to say the people get the legislature they deserve.