[EM] recommendations Australia's STV/party list not so bad

[Anthony Duff]

 --- James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote: 
> Anthony Duff  > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:18 AM

> > I think James exaggerates.
> 
> Now who is exaggerating?  We all know about the "table cloth ballot
> paper" in the NSW election of
> March 1999.  But in the Federal Senate elections the numbers are
> much smaller. Each of the six
> larger States elects 6 Senators at a normal (single) dissolution. 
> At the elections in November 2001
> the numbers of candidates in these six States were (in descending
> order): 65, 52, 46, 39, 29 and 26.

I apparently forgot about that election, and was remembering the 1996
election which did have a very large number of candidates, though
less than the NSW election of March 1999.  (I sorted/counted ballots
in 1996 and 1999, but not 2001)

> Hardly "hundreds".  These elections appear to be contested by
> larger numbers of "non-party"
> candidates than might be common elsewhere, but some of the parties
> do add significantly to the
> problem by nominating 5 or 6 candidates when they have little hope
> of winning more than one seat.
> Indeed, in two states, the parties that put up the largest number
> of candidates (6 in one, 5 in the
> other) won no seats at all.

Yes, that’s right.  And these parties often had creative names, and
they distributed their preferences in creative ways that the voters
would not suspect.  It was a ripe opportunity for major parties to
set up stooge parties with catchy names, and to funnel preferences
back to themselves.  I think we agree that this was bad.
Subsequently, it was made more difficult to register as a party (I
think the number of signatures required was increased).  NSW made the
changes to its ballot method.

> > If the voter doesn't like the list of 
> > candidates of his favourite party, then he can vote below the 
> > line.
> 
> This statement is true, but given compulsory voting and the
> requirement in Federal elections for the
> voter to mark a unique preference against every candidate (or have
> the ballot paper declared
> invalid), it is no surprise that most voters don't avail themselves
> of this generous opportunity.

Agreed, in part.  But, it is my impression that most voters are quite
happy to adopt the line of their favourite party, election after
election, even for their whole life.  Other voters think hard before
choosing which party to fully support.  The remainder vote below the
line.  

> >  Most people vote above the line.  I think this 
> > reflects the fact that the parties put up reasonable lists of 
> > candidates.
> 
> I think the explanation is much simpler: the combination of
> compulsory voting and the requirement to
> mark a unique preference for every candidate.

That doesn’t explain why most people still vote above the line in NSW
state elections.  I think each reason, yours and mine together, and
probably others, all contribute together.  However, I think
compulsory voting has less to do with it.  Voters who don’t want to
vote need not mark their ballot at all, and plenty (the majority of
"informal" votes) don’t.

> The NSW version of "party voting" may or may not be better than
> that used in the Federal elections,
> but neither has any place in STV-PR.  If you want properly
> representative democracy you will reject
> anything that increases and entrenches the power of the party
> machines.  
>

> Introducing any form of party voting into STV-PR shifts the balance
> of power away from the voters
> and reduces the accountability of the elected members to their
> constituents.

Your position is rather uncompromising.
Do you really think that the NSW system, with its more transparent
system of proxy ranking, where the party only ranks its own members,
is really that bad?  I am satisfied that that this system is OK
because stooge parties can no longer direct preferences of unwary
voters, and because the names of the parties’ candidates are clear
and upfront, in a column below the party name.  Do you have any
evidence of such an open, optional party voting method causing
electoral harm?  I just don’t see why it should.  If I don’t like one
particular candidate, then I’ll have to spend longer filling in the
ballot, but the extra effort seems very small.  I think just a little
dislike is enough to motivate a voter to spend a few minutes below
the line so that they can rank the disliked candidate last.

Anthony


Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com