No electoral system is perfect. Our federal system is fairly good, but it has two corrupting influences revealed in the past week or so: the marginal-seat effect and the Senate preference system.
Canberrans are perhaps the most disenfranchised group in a majority of disenfranchised people in this election. The result of the two House of Representatives seats in the ACT are a foregone conclusion. Electors in another 115 seats are in the same boat.
The election is only being fought in about 30 marginal seats. That is the way the electoral system works. But it is bad for public policy and unfair to the electors concerned.
Oh to be in the Darwin-based electorate of Solomon where just 88 votes would be enough for the Government member to lose. Those electors are the beneficiary of a $50 million promise by the Government to improve Darwin hospital (under the guise of providing an emergency hospital if there is another Bali attack).
Oh to be in the Townville-based electorate of Herbert which the Coalition holds on a mere 1.5 per cent margin. Those electors will get the economic spin off from several hundred million dollars to be spent on a new infantry battalion and the relocation of a parachute regiment promised by Labor. The seat will also get some roads and $3 million to upgrade a stadium under Labor. (Stadiums are popular. Labor has also promised $6 million for one in Rockhampton in the seat of Capricornia which has a margin of 5.5 per cent. The Coalition has promised Herbert a veterinary-science school ($12 million), a centre for environmental research ($40 million) and floodworks at Tully ($80 million).
In the marginal Liberal seat of Eden-Monaro (swing needed 1.7 per cent), Labor promises $25 million to upgrade Lanyon Drive and $5 million for Pambula Bridge. In Bass (2.1 per cent), Labor promises $7 million for the hospital and $15 for a highway.
The Liberals are equally generous to voters in marginal seats. In Wakefield (1.3 per cent) the Liberals promise an ordnance plant and an electronic warfare unit costing $30 million.
Parramatta (1.2 per cent) gets $7 million for Westmead Hospital and $25 million for the University of Western Sydney.
Dobell (0.4 per cent) gets $750,000 to unblock a creek. Lindsay (5.5 per cent) gets $10 million for Penrith Stadium. The list goes on, and on and on – boring in it detail but almost corrupting in its theme. Both major parties are bribing the electors of marginal seats to vote for them with electorate-specific promises that are mostly matters of state or local-government responsibility.
The Commonwealth, though, has constitutional power to give money to the states for whatever purpose the Commonwealth sees fit – including expensive electoral bribes denied other parts of the country and clearly not based fairly on general national need. Nor is it fiscally responsible. In good times like these we should be shoring up the surplus, not splurging it.
Sure, marginal-seat largesse has gone on in the past, but in this election it seems to have sunk to a new level.
It is Glad-Wrap bag corruption. Unlike the paper-bag variety you can see the contents, but it stinks nonetheless.
The legitimacy of the result is sometimes left open to question. Government concentration on marginal seats in both 1990 (under Labor) and 1996 (under the Coalition) enabled the Government to retain power even though it won fewer votes than the Opposition (after preferences).
In the Senate, the system allows for wholesale bargaining for seats. In the House of Representatives the deal is done with voters in marginal seats. In the Senate the parties bargain with each other, leaving the voter in the dark.
Some history shows us how we got into the present sorry state.
Before 1949, the Senate had a first-past-the-post system. Voters marked crosses against five candidates (the Senate was smaller then). The candidates with the most crosses won. Usually, a political party, say Labor, with, say, 51 per cent of the vote would get all five seats. Each of its candidates in, say, an electorate of 100,000 would have 51,000 crosses whereas the five Liberals would each have only 49,000 crosses each. In that example, the Liberals could get 49 per cent of the vote and no seats at all.
It was clearly a dud system. It was changed to a preferential system. In the case above, Labor’s 51,000 votes would be marked 1 to 5, instead of five crosses. So its first candidate would win, but the Liberals’ top candidate with 49,000 1’s would get the second seat. The surplus of those candidates would spill down in order.
These days it means the major parties always get two seats each in a half Senate election when six seats are up for grabs. The remaining two are determined according to how the preferences spill down from the major parties and up from minor parties and independents.
It showed the value of sensible reform with changing circumstances.
But by the early 1980s scores of candidates were standing, making it difficult for voters to number through from one to, say, 60.
Again the need for sensible reform. In 1984 a new system was introduced where voters could vote by marking a single 1 above the line for a party. The party lodged a preference ticket with the Australian Electoral Commission. Anyone who voted with a single 1 above the line was deemed to have voted according to the lodged preference ticket. More than 80 per cent vote that way, the rest continue to number all the preferences for themselves in the order they want.
It means the lodging of the preference ticket profoundly influences the outcome of the last (and often the second-last) Senate seat in each state.
Unholy, pragmatic alliances are done between the parties. Major parties are beholden to minor parties and make policy according to preference deals rather than the national good. Seats are determined according to preference deals rather than genuine voter desire.
The horse-trading of preferences this election has been the most egregious on record. The average voter has no idea who they are voting for or why. Gay Democrats are swapping preferences with Christian fundamentalists for pure electoral advantage rather than on policy merit.
Incidentally, the ACT has to the lowest rate of above the line voting in the Senate (around 60 to 65 per cent, against the national average of between 80 and 85 per cent). It means that despite all the preference deals between the Greens, Labor and others, the Liberals’ Gary Humphries will win the second ACT Senate seat despite all the carry-on about the Greens Kerrie Tucker being a strong challenger. She had no hope. The major parties rigged so they would get one territory seat each forever. Goodnight. This is why Canberrans are the most disenfranchised people in Australia. The result in the ACT is predetermined: McMullan, Ellis, Lundy and Humphries.
Events of the past couple of weeks show the need for constant attention to electoral system. Preference barter in the Senate and marginal-seat campaigning in the House of Representatives in this election show the need for some tweaking of the system.
Make people mark their own preferences in the Senate, I say.
In the House of Representatives we still need a local member to whinge to and a fully proportional representation would lead to a disproportionate voice for minor parties and independents because they would inevitably hold the balance of power and influence greater than their number of seats would warrant.
But there would be no harm in having a partly proportional system – say with 50 house or Representatives seats (requiring 2 per cent of the national vote for each seat) and 100 as single-member electorates. This is roughly the system that applies in Germany. The marginals would still hold great sway, but every vote in the nation would be of importance so the major parties would not be quite as profligate in the marginals.
Each party would put up a national list. Candidates could stand for both. If someone won an electoral seat the next person on the party list would get the seat. If a senior party member lost his or her electorate seat (because they happened to be saddled with a marginal seat) they could still win a national seat and their talents be kept in the Parliament.
Historically, Australia has usually led the world on electoral matters, ensuring the voice of the people is well expressed in electoral results. This election shows we need to look at the electoral system again – not for wholesale change, but for the people to keep one jump ahead over manipulative party machines.