The faction-ridden Labor Party will have to seriously re-think its pre-selection methods and how-to-vote ticket following last Saturday’s election. The irony in the position of the left’s David Lamont illustrates the point. Before the election, Labor pre-selected a ticket and issued a how-to-vote card in an attempt to overcome the Robson rotation of candidates’ names on the ballot paper. Conversely, the Liberals did not recommend an order of names. The result was that the first-preference Liberal vote was spread among its candidates more evenly (especially in Brindabella and Ginninderra, where there was no Carnell factor).
The Labor first preference, on the other hand, was much more concentrated beside the name of the person on the top of Labor’s how-to-vote card _ except in Brindabella where the two sitting members attracted a high personal vote. The lack of spread in Labor means that some minor-party and independent candidates have more first preferences than Labor’s second and third candidates. It means that as the count progresses on Saturday Labor’s second and third candidates are more likely to be eliminated than minor and independent candidates _ because elimination is determined according to a candidate’s individual first preference vote, not the party vote as a whole. In Molonglo Lamont (on 1158) is behind the first-preference count of both the leading Green (3,942) and Moore Independent (4442) and is about equal with the Democrats (1103). He may get some trickle down of Follett’s over-quota, but not enough to over-take Moore.
The Labor faction-ridden ticket killed any chance of him converting Labor’s total 2.5 quotas into three seats. If the vote had been more evenly spread he would have had a slight chance with enough first preferences to stay in the race. Bear in mind that the order on the ticket was largely drawn up on factional trade-offs. The irony is in what might happen next. Just say the unsubstantiated rumour of the right’s Terry Connolly leaving politics is true. The normal factional procedure would be a deal within the party to ensure that the Right took the vacancy _ either through by-election or Senate style personal nomination. Or there would be a factinal ding-dong resulting in some esteemed party worker getting the nod _ as we have seen federally in the seat of Canberra. However, under Hare-Clark there would be a count-back of Connolly’s preferences _ under the unusual theory that the people’s choice at election time should be respected. In that circumstance, the left’s Lamont would get the seat. Gasp.
The factional dealing in the party would be replaced by voters’ wishes. This is a time-bomb for Labor. The candidates it stood last Saturday are waiting in factional order to replace any elected candidate who might die, or resign for health, personal or professional reasons. Labor must now come to the realisation that strong as the factional system may be, it does not determine the order in which people die, lose their health or get changes in personal circumstances _ though admittedly it can have some influence in offers of jobs from elsewhere.
The absurdity and unworkability of a ticket is now apparent. Now that Hare-Clark with Robson rotation is entrenched, Labor needs to abandon the ticket and let candidates run on merit (what’s that?). The first preference gets spread and the countback on a vacancy is determined on merit, too. I cannot see it happening just yet because this election did not provide a completely decisive example of a lost seat through the ticket system, though it certainly illustrates the principle to anyone who looks with any diligence at the figures. It is a shame that the Lamont-Moore tussle was not closer _ say with Labor’s over-quota at 0.62 and Moore’s quota on 0.61 and with Moore coming through with a handful of votes.
Incidentally, I say this not to give Michael Moore’s cardiac specialist any further work, but in the interests of the people of the ACT to have the Labor Party detribalised and defactionalised so that we can get candidates put before us equally for us to choose on merit. On the other hand, the value of spreading the vote is seen with the Liberal vote in Ginninderra. The second and third Liberal (Hird and Hill) have a roughly equal first preference of about 3200 each.This is because the Liberals did not have a how-to-vote card directing the order of preferences. They both have more first preferences than the leading Green (2068), Moore Independent (2307), Democrat (1610) and indeed any other independent or second- or later-placed Labor candidate.
The upshot is that both will stay in the count with a chance at getting a third seat for the Liberals, while the rest get eliminated. True, it is a small chance, but there would have been no chance if a how-to-vote card had resulted in the total 6400 first-preferences being split, say, 4400 to 2000. The lesson is there. It may take a few elections yet, but the Hare-Clark system has the potential to shift power from parties and factions to voters, and parties who do not heed that message will suffer until they do.