Over here in the United Kingdom, the creaking FPTP (First-Past-The-Post) system of voting still operates; voters in general elections are forced to nominate only their most-preferred candidate, a solitary smudge in a box. It’s easy to see how such a system can result in fairly undemocratic results in tussles between more than two serious candidates: as the number of serious candidates in a ballot increases, FPTP forces a serious division of the vote, ultimately delivering victory to candidates with potentially only a minority proportion of overall electoral support. It is a system that decisively favours larger, more-established parties at the expense of smaller ones, and it is not surprising in this context that the Liberal Democrats made electoral reform one of the cornerstones of their campaign in the May 2010 UK general election.
The begrudging promise of a referendum on the alternative vote or “AV” system of preferential voting reportedly sealed the Coalition deal for David Cameron’s Conservatives with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats in the election aftermath. The referendum, which is to be held on Thursday 5th May 2011 as a kind of royal wedding after-party for psephologists, will cast the two Coalition partners decisively against each other in what looks set to be an intriguing political tussle. From an Australian perspective it is particularly intriguing, because as the anointed international standard-bearers for preferential voting, Westminster-style, it looks like we will be stuck in the crossfire for the duration of the debate!
The first serious volleys were fired late last week, when Nick Clegg and David Cameron set out their opening arguments for voting for and against AV, respectively. David Cameron made special mention of the Australian example several times in his speech launching the “No” campaign. His approach? Never let a good argument get in the way of a good slur:
When it comes to our democracy, Britain shouldn’t have to settle for anyone’s second choice.
And this argument that no one really wants it, it’s as true abroad as it is at home.
Only three countries use AV for national elections: Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea.
In Australia, six in ten voters want to return to the system we have – first past the post.
This is both sleight of hand and an egregious slight; playing on the relative size and remoteness of all three countries mentioned, and slimily “hiding” Australia in passing between Fiji and PNG. What really are you saying about Fiji and Papua New Guinea, Prime Minister, by being so careful to mention them first, and last? They are the countries you want people to remember and associate with AV, aren’t they? I’d also be interested in hearing the basis for the “six in ten” figure mentioned. Does anybody seriously believe that there is any realistic popular support whatsoever for a regression back to FPTP in Australia?
The British Prime Minister also takes the time to explain why preferential voting is the reason for the relatively high number of safe seats in Australia (?) and furthermore, why it is to blame for “obliterating minor parties” down under. Evidently nobody told him about the rise and rise of the Greens, or the notable success of independents and minor parties in recent years, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
He goes on to trash Australia’s electoral system, calling out the fact that it took seventeen days for a government to be formed at the last federal poll, and noting that on voting day ”voters are lectured at polling stations by party apparatchiks with ‘How to Vote’ cards.”. I’m not necessarily a fan of “how-to-vote” shenanigans outside polling booths, but it is a nonsense to describe the process as “lecturing”; in practice, it is little more than froth and colour. It is also disingenuous of Cameron to spin the speed of confirming the last federal election result as indicative of what happens in preferential voting systems generally. September 2010 was hardly exemplary of recent federal election results in Australia – practically all of which were decided with brutal speed and on the night (indeed, called by Antony Green a few hours after the close of polls, quite frequently).
I’d like to think that the Prime Minister isn’t going to take this rubbishing of Australia’s electoral system lying down. She might start by making gentle mention of that most thoroughly democratic of British institutions, the House of Lords.
Actually, David Cameron: Fiji is a military dictatorship, and PNG has recently instituted Limited Preferential Voting* because their old system of FPTP was such a complete DISASTER in a clan based society – people winning with 9% of the vote in a field of 25 candidates wh ltieally owed NOTHING to anyone but their own wantok.
Its HILARIOUS that Cameron should cite these exampke *in favour of FPTP – they cant run quickly enough from it in the desperate hope that LPV might actualy ecnourage candaiates to think about someone other than their own language group in PNG.
*voters must list top three prefs 13 – beyond that is optional.
This was important so I broke with longstanding practice and proofed it:
Actually, David Cameron: Fiji is a military dictatorship, and PNG has recently instituted Limited Preferential Voting* because their old system of FPTP was such a complete DISASTER in a clan based society – e.g. people winning with 9% of the vote in a field of 25 candidates who literally owed NOTHING to anyone but their own wantok.
Its HILARIOUS that Cameron should cite these examples *in favour of* FPTP – PNG cant run quickly enough from it in the desperate hope that LPV might actualy encourage candidates to think about someone other than their own language group in PNG.
*voters must list top three prefs 1,2, 3: beyond that is optional.
And he’s in Egypt trying to tell them how to be democratic.
F#$%w&t.
‘I’d also be interested in hearing the basis for the “six in ten” figure mentioned. Does anybody seriously believe that there is any realistic popular support whatsoever for a regression back to FPTP in Australia?’
Actually the Institute of Public Affairs commissioned a NewsPoll late last year which found that 57% of Australians wanted a FPTP system. There is also majority support for compulsory voting:
http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1287630859_document_151010_-_electoral_reform_mach_2.pdf
Being a free market thinktank – they still manage to argue that majority support for compulsory voting actually supports voluntary voting.
Why is compulsory voting such a great thing? I’m not trying to troll here but am genuinely interested.
We don’t have it in NZ, and I can’t see why it does any good here, except to increase the number of donkey votes.
It’s a healthy British distraction from their “democratic” polity’s two real problems: voting is held on a weekday, and attendance is non-compulsory.
Really David Cameron?
David Cameron’s efforts to promote democracy in the Middle East by becoming the first foreign leader to visit Cairo were overshadowed as it emerged that he will spend the next three days touring undemocratic Gulf states with eight of Britain’s leading defence manufacturers.
Perhaps this comment ain’t really for this this thread, but if Mr Cameron is trying to lecture us on democracy while at the same time using a whistle stop trip to Egypt to cover for his M.I.C. inspired visit Middle Eastern autocracies and oligarchies then perhaps he has absolutely no cred at all and should be ignored.
Or spat on.
This reminds me of the republic referendum in Australia. Select a preferred model and then watch the “no” campaign pick it to pieces.
Not sure why Clegg let himself be wedged like this. Are the Libs really wedded to AV, or did they just want to make the commitment very specific so that Cameron could not wriggle out of it?
The other great innovation in Australia is compulsory voting. While we have some efforts to discourage people from voting in Australia, compulsory voting moderates election results. This is one reason why we should make it as easy as possible for people to register, to up date their registration and for people to vote. I truely believe we should be moving to internet voting as this could reduce the number of informal votes, reduce the hassles of people having to turn up on the day, make it easier for the elderly and disabled and would make the counting a lot quicker.
Jules because Australia has complusory voting the Australian Electoral Commission must
- provide sufficient booths in the right places so that voters can vote in under 30 minutes,
and the AEC monitors booth queues on election day.
The AEC also has to provide voters with the opportunity to record postal and early votes if they are unable to vote in their electorate on polling day.
There is also a philosophical reason but I forget it.
Contrast this with the US where
- vote on a Tuesday
- queues to vote are 3 to 4 hours
- casual workers are employed on polling day so they can’t vote
- voting machines don’t work in black areas of Florida
Essentially it helps to uphold the dominance of the median voter over extremes for either end of the spectrum. Political debates in Australia are more heavily weighted towards the mundane and banal because this is the stuff most voters care about.
In voluntary systems, only the truly motivated will turn out. The problem is that the truly motivated usually have one burning issue that they care about, and it’s usually not shared by the rest of voters. Parties begin to focus on motivating their own supporters with minority concerns and on demoralising the other party’s voters to prevent them from going to the polling booths at all.
Median voters may not want to vote. They may not care (in which case they will more or less cancel each other out, apart from the donkey vote). But on the whole they will act as a moderating influence on the crazies of all stripes, and for that reason I personally consider compulsory voting to be a necessary safeguard in a society where the state has become so powerful.
Yeah Billie I know.
Your point?
Cameron is not arguing for more systems like ours, he’s arguing against them. Preferential voting might not be “perfect” (yet) but show me a system that actually works “better” than the way we do federal Elections in Australia. What Camerons referring to doesn’t (imo).
Given he just dropped by Egypt on a tour of the ME with the British Military Industrial Complex, and met with the Military there (not protesters afaik) I think his comments on “democracy” and how other people should do it ought to be swept into the dustbin where they belong.
I’d say that the voting machines in Florida worked perfectly actually, but I’m cynical about voting machines. (“Jeb said he’d deliver Florida and boy did he ever.”)
As for HTV cards, these are easy to get rid of. Adopt the reform proposed by the Democrats years ago: print multiple versions of the ballot, each with a different order, hand them out at random. The purpose would be to even out the donkey vote; the majors don’t like it because it would render HTVs irrelevant.
The other downside is that it would probably increase the rate of counting errors.
Another positive property of compulsory voting is that it makes it harder to tamper with the result. Double voting is more likely to be detected, and the larger number of booths mean that more officials need to be subverted in order to succeed at changing the result.
Jacques #10, one could say that voluntary voting empowers loud minorities who claim to be the silent majority, whereas compulsory voting empowers the real silent majority.
Either way, Paul, the point is that the median voter agrees with neither of us.
Jules sorry I mixed you up with Jess
I thought Cameron was better than that.
I think voting at State and Federal level should be voluntary – it is for local elections here in WA. However, Prefential voting means the preferences of the voters are elected. Unless you get 50%+1 first preference vote then the least disliked candidate gets in.
to continue – and therefore Preferential is by far the best system.
I’d like to see HTV cards banned from a 200m radius from the booths.
Jacques Chester said:
Speaking as someone who scrutineers, it would massively increase the level of difficulty in counting and certainly slow it down. You could print circular ballots so that no name would be on “top” but preserve the order. A side benefit then would be that you could have them sorted alphabetically (though this would mean that there would be a slight advantage to having a name close in the sort to the two most preferred candidates.
Optional preferential would also negate a lot of the donkey vote problem. I haven’t cast a formal vote at Federal level since 1977 but will this time at state level because now I can decline to preference the major parties without invalidating my vote.
Personally, I regard making voting optional as comporting better with respect for individuals. If people really don’t care seriously they should be relaxed about others who do deciding on their behalf.
Single member PR with a list system would be an improvement, but then I’d prefer sortition and DD over that.
The truth is you don’t have to vote.
You have to turn up and get your name checked off the electoral roll. (I didn’t even go on the roll for 10 years, when I finally decided I wanted to vote, so technically you don’t even have to do that till you sign on.)
I don’t really think its too much to ask to get people to turn up once every so often, for at most an hour, with other members of their local community. Especially somewhere like my locality, where people catch up. Where everyone handing out HTV cards knows each other (and on one occasion there were 3 people handing out different HTVs from the same fire brigade) Usually everyone knows each other well enough that they all get along great despite their politics.
No worries billie, thanks for the excuse to rasnt.
rant…
The problem is that it inevitably devolves in FPTP. Which is worse than putting up with donkey voting.
Razor @ 19 – they have that in the ACT. Makes voting much more pleasant. Even if they declared say a 20m wide path into the voting area so people could get in and out without being harassed it would be a big improvement,
Tim @4 – I haven’t really looked into it, but I would be interested to know how the IPA poll question comparing FPTP to preferential voting was framed. It would be understandable from an “ease of use” perspective if people when confronted with the idea would prefer just to tick a box than number and order their preferences, but they may not have heard about or considered the implications of losing the ability to categorise their choice. It sounds like a bit of a fishy result to me.
I agree with Jacques and Jules on compulsory voting; on balance I think getting a higher proportion of people to vote – even if they don’t really want to – produces more democratic outcomes than having a lower turnout of more politically-minded voters.
I actually like the HTV card thing, the atmosphere around polling booths is very particular to election day and generally very positive, and it reminds everyone going in that a) their vote is valued by someone and b) they have choices.
Also I think there is nothing wrong with voting according to your party line. If you trust your party to even a small extent, but can’t/haven’t/won’t be able to keep up with the ins-and-outs of an election campaign, your party’s advice is fine.
Furthermore, building rockets may be easy but working out the best preferential deal to get a win for your party/side of politics on election day in our system is rocket science. So having a party machine-room calculate that for people like me who didn’t study civics to year 12 is just fine and dandy.
Guy @26 I’ve hunted around for the original question but haven’t been able to find it.
Actually I think Newspoll are a reputable outfit notwithstanding the uses to which their owners put their results. So I doubt there was much wrong with the questions themselves.
I think the result is more a comment on the woeful levels of voter awareness in Australia. A lot of people in my experience think that voting ’1′ is ‘first past the post’. To take but one example: during the 1998 election a lot of One Nation supporters were genuinely perplexed that Pauline Hanson could be leading the primary vote and still lose her seat.
So I don’t think this poll can be taken to prove the virtues of preferential voting one way or the other. I’m just going to take the IPA’s lead and conclude that majority support for a position I oppose still proves me right because of the vibe of the overall result. I mainly posted it to show you the probable source of David Cameron’s line.
On HTV cards: when I’ve handed them out, I reckon the voters (especially towards the end of the day, when the flow has dwindled) must feel like a lone chip, pursued by flocks of bizarrely-clad seagulls. (Some of the campaign T-shirts are pretty naff, especially when worn like a super-hero’s underpants.)
Back on track, I eckon the Australian electoral system is one of the best (and least corrupt) in the world. I’m sure that’s why we often get asked to help out in places like Cambodia.
Jacques Chester said:
Do you have any stats to support this conclusion? (FTR, I don’t grant that a choice by individuals to make it FPTP would be bad. That is their choice after all. That is quite different from being forced to choose only one candidate)
I remember whilst at school in the UK a teacher explaining the FPTP system versus a preferential systeml and lamenting that the major parties would always prefer the FPTP as it advantaged them at the expense of minor parties.Hence he considered a change most unlikey.
It now seems that the Labour party and Lib. Dems. in the UK are supporting AV (preferential) in the upcoming referendum so is it only the Conservatives who would be disadvantaged with what has to be a more democratic system ?
It’s based on the observation of how many votes are prematurely exhausted in Queensland elections when the ALP ran “Just Vote 1″ campaigns. I don’t have the figures to hand.