Tasmanian Government is playing an artful numbers game.
Given that our own little polity is to have an almost identical voting system to Tasmania, the game is instructive.
The present Tasmanian Lower House was elected by the Hare-Clark system. There are seven Members of Parliament for each of five electorates. The five State electorates are identical to the five Federal electorates _ drawn independently and fairly by the Australian Electoral Commission.
Under the present system of seven MPs in each seat, it requires 12.5 per cent of the vote plus one for a candidate to be assured of winning a seat _ that is one eighth of the vote plus one vote. In practice, it can mean less than this, especially in the scramble for the last seat when the vote is split among the lower-end candidates and preferences are being allocated.
In the past two elections, the Greens have obtained that quota in each of the five seats. They held the balance of power for several years supporting a Labor Government until they fell out. So Labor does not like them. Nor do the Liberals, for both ideological and pragmatic reasons. With the Greens picking up a seat in every electorate it is that much harder for the Liberals to gain Government, though they managed it last election.
For the Liberals to gain government they need 18 seats: that is three seats in two electorates and four in seats in three electorates. Gaining three seats in a seven-member electorate is fairly easy for a major party. It requires three quotas of 12.5 per cent or 37.5 per cent of the vote. Gaining four seats, however, requires four quotas or 50 per cent (a bit less if you allow for informals and a preference scramble for the last seat).
Fifty percent is a hard target in these days of disillusionment with major parties.
So the Liberals are to change the system. Instead of having seven Members per seat, it will be reduced to six. The Lower house will have 30 Members, not 35.
This will make the quota 14.3 per cent. That is not greatly higher than 12.5. However, it will hit right at the margin of the Green vote. Of more import, though, is its effect on the major-parties’ vote. To get half the seats a major party will need only three quotas of 14.3 per cent in each electorate. That comes to 42.9 per cent. That is a very achievable target _ certainly more acheivable than having to get 50 per cent in three of the electorates.
If the two majors get 43 per cent each and the Greens 14 per cent, for example, the majors would get three seats each and the Greens none. Under the old seven-members electorates, the Greens would have got one and the majors three each in each electorate.
Voting patterns are more erratic than the hypotheticals, especially in the scramble for the last seat which usually goes to preferences. However, it is a safe bet that under the new system the Greens will require about a three or four percentage point improvement in their vote to maintain their present representation in Parliament. The likelihood is that they are likely to take one but will be lucky to get two seats in the next election.
The Greens’ loss is likely to be the Liberals’ gain. Moreover, under the new system the Speaker is to get two votes: one is an ordinary deliberative vote and another in the case of a tie. Tied votes, of course, are a real possibility in an even-numbered 30-seat chamber, especially with a proportional system like Hare Clark.
The same major-party skulduggery took place federally when the size of the Senate was increased from 10 per state to 12 per state. It meant that in half-Senate elections six Senators were elected from each state. In theory it meant that a major party with an achievable 42.9 per cent of the vote could get half the seats, shutting out the minor parties.
In practice, however, the plan has backfired. Voters have been so disgusted with the major parties that the minors and independents have still managed to get seats. None the less the skulduggerous intent was there.
In the ACT we can expect to get a completely fair system, provided the 1992 referendum results are enacted to their letter. However events in Tasmania show there is no guarantee that a fair system cannot be tampered with.
There is a good case for entrenching the recent referendum result so that it cannot be undone except by referendum. What the people have put together, let no politician cast asunder.