Several glitches appeared in the Hare-Clark voting system at the weekend. They need addressing, but it is more a question of fine tuning. Some will use the glitches to argue for wholesale change, but this would not be in the interests of the people of the ACT.
Some form of proportional representation is vital in a place like the ACT which is fairly homogeneous politically. Any single-member system would result in huge majorities for the winning party with very weak Oppositions. For example, at the weekend’s election the Liberals beat Labor in all booths except six out of 38 in Molonglo, one of 22 in Brindabella and 3 of 22 in Ginninderra. Now a precise translation of that vote into a single-member situation is not possible. Preferences and vote attitude might change in a different system. None the less, it indicates that Labor might have won just two or three seats out of the 17. Similarly in the 1992 election, the Liberals might have been reduced to three or four seats. Democracy needs a solid Opposition. A single-member system is unlikely to give that. Australia-wide a single-member system is appropriate because there will always be significant areas of solid Labor or Liberal vote to provide enough members to provide an Opposition that can cover the key areas. But in the ACT that is not the case.
A further advantage of the Hare-Clark system is that it gives minor parties and independents a chance. Typically, Hare Clark can be expected to deliver a cross bench of four or five of the 17 seats. On past form, the cross bench is likely to behave responsibly on the question of allowing a government to be created and allowing it a budget to govern.
But it is also likely to scrutinise government legislation, suggesting or demanding amendments if the Opposition agrees. It is also likley to scrutinise executive action, that is the action of ministers. These are important functions. They are similar to those of the Senate, but the ACT cannot afford the luxury of an Upper House. The function of review must somehow be done in the single house that we have. The Hare Clark system of giving a significant but not dominating voice to minor parties and independents does precisely that. Moreover, bearing in mind that the members of the cross bench rarely see eye to eye, it need not be a paralysing force. The past three years has shown that a minority government has got all but a couple of pieces of its major legislation through. Other legislation was amended, almost invariably for the better.
So it is important to maintain the fundamentals of the system: to have several five- or seven-member electorates.
The glitch, however, has occurred not with respect to which party gets a seat, but which particular candidate of a party gets a seat.
In Molonglo, seven Labor candidates are vying for the two seats their total vote would entitle the party to. In Brindabella five Liberal candidates are vying for the two seats their total vote would entitle them to, similarly with Labor.
It seems that the success of the candidates will be as much determined by their order on the ballot paper as to voter preference. Under Robson rotation each candidate, of course, gets an equal number of ballot papers with his or her name at the top of the party ballot. The trouble comes further down. Many voters choose their party and just vote in order down the ballot paper in the party column — not so much a donkey vote, but a party linear vote. When the candidate with the least votes is elminated, a large number of their preferences goes to whomever happens to be next of the paper when that person is at the top the party column.
This can skew the result depending on the order of elimination so a candidate with more first-preference votes gets beaten by a candidate with fewer first preference votes.
Something should be done to eliminate this effect, even if it means printing more combinations of ballot papers. However, any change would have to be passed by a special majority of the Assembly because the Hare Clark system is entrenched by referendum. Basically, both major parties would have to agree with any change. The change would not make any difference from the perspective of the voter on polling day.
This election saw the banning of how-to-vote cards within 100m of a polling booth. It resulted in a mixed reaction. Some people felt ill-informed. Others were glad to be free of the hectoring. Others thought candidates and parties merely spread themselves wider. The rule seems a little paternalistic and tends to offend an instinct for freedom of speech. None the less, it might be premature to abandon the ban without giving it another try.
Suggestions Hare-Clark reduces women’s representation have been made on the basis of experience over the past four elections. However, in theory Hare Clark should give women a better chance if that is what voters want because voters can vote for all the women across the parties first. This is not possible in a single-member system or where the party dictates the order of preferences.
As to complaints about the time it takes to do the count, fairer preferential and proportional systems will take longer than simple tick-a-box systems. In any event every ACT seat will be known within 14 days, perhaps 12 days. It took 26 days before the last House of Representative seat at the last federal election was decided and 40 days for the last Senate seat.