The ACT electorate has not embraced either of the major parties with any great enthusiasm, according the results from the latest Canberra Times Datacol poll. The poll revealed also a high number of undecided votes given the closeness of the election.
Perhaps it is excusable given the dominance of other events: the war on terrorism, the federal election and the refugee crisis.
It indicates that the people of the ACT should turn their minds in the next few days to local issues and who they think are best placed to deal with them. There is little excuse for not getting informed. The much-maligned media in the ACT has carried an extraordinary amount of material about the election, even if it has played second or third fiddle to other events.
The ACT Electoral Commission has played a significant role in helping electors become informed about the election. In the next few days the commission will be doing a mail out to ACT households with a sample ballot paper and a guide to the election. In the circumstances this seems a worthwhile exercise in bolstering ACT democracy. Voters should take the time to look at this material. They should also read, listen and look at the media carrying electoral material. Otherwise, it is a bit rich to complain about the quality of representation after the event.
Some say that the voting system is complicated and therefore a turn-off. Australia has a history of more complex voting systems than many places, such as the United States and Britain. By and large, the Australian systems are fairer and result in a result more representative of voter intention. The federal Senate, for example, has had a proportional representation system similar to that in the ACT for more than half a century. Very few Australians could explain all its nuances. But, as with the ACT system, that is not a reason to say the Senate system is flawed or unsuitable.
The ACT system has its complications but it produces a result more reflective of voter opinion than, for example, the average British House of Commons election.
The Canberra Times Datacol poll reveals that at least five of the 17 seats – enough to determine government – are open contests. Moreover, of the other 12 (two each for the major parties in each electorate) many are open contests between candidates with the parties. It is important for voters, therefore, to look carefully at the candidates put up by the major party of their choice and to select between them. In the ACT, voters cannot vote for a party. They must vote for individual candidates. There is no party pre-selected order on the ballot paper. It means there is an onus on voters to inform themselves not only about which party they might prefer, but which individual within their preferred party they prefer.
In the ACT it is truer than anywhere that we get the politicians we deserve. Residents of the ACT have the least right to complain about “”party hacks” or the quality of representation.
The closeness of the vote revealed in the poll for the last seat or two in each electorate reveals the importance of voters expressing their preferences right to the end of the ballot paper – particularly those who vote for major parties. In the Hare-Clark system, it is possible for preferences beyond those expressed for major parties to count in determining which of the minor parties or independents will get elected. Usually, a major party will get some over quota vote which will spill to a minor party or independent candidate and can make the difference between one or other minor party or independent getting elected.
As independents and minor parties are likely to hold the balance of power and determine who is chief minister it is important for all voters to express preferences beyond the party of first choice.