… with some God-fearing Good Friday news nuggets to tide you over until the pubs re-open.
• Senate polls have consistently proved themselves to be pointless endeavours, but let the record note that Roy Morgan has produced one from their last three months of surveys. This might be of at least some use if Morgan gave South Australian respondents a chance to indicate support for Nick Xenophon, but they presumably don’t because he is not up for re-election next time (unless there’s a double dissolution of course). Nonetheless, South Australia shows an “others” result of 19.5 per cent compared with 8 per cent nationally.
• The Tasmanian Liberals have preselected three candidates for the Hobart electorate of Denison for next year’s state election, after earlier delaying the process due to concerns about a “lack of high-profile talent”. The nominees are 70-year-old incumbent Michael Hodgman; lawyer Elise Archer, who polled a solid 3.2 per cent at the 2006 election; and Matt Stevenson, state president of the Young Liberals. No sign of contentious Hobart alderman Marti Zucco, but two positions remain to be filled.
• Yesterday’s Crikey Daily Mail had a piece by Malcolm Mackerras noting the looming by-election in New Zealand for Helen Clark’s seat of Mount Albert, and the absurdity of such a thing in a supposedly proportional representation system. If it loses, Labour will be deprived of one of the seats entitled to it by its national vote share at last November’s election. New Zealand’s mixed-member proportional system is modelled on Germany’s, but departs from it in that vacated constituency seats in Germany are filled by unelected candidates from the party’s national lists – which New Zealand was obviously loath to do as it would randomly match members to electorates with which they had no connection.
• Mackerras also notes that the May 12 election in the Canadian province of British Columbia will be held in conjunction with a second referendum seeking to replace its first-past-the-post single-member constituency system with “BC-STV” (British Columbia-Single Transferable Vote). I take this to be identical in every respect to Hare-Clark as it operates in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory (complete with Robson rotation and optional preferential voting), except the number of members per region will range from two to seven. A referendum was also held at the previous election in 2005, but it received 57.7 per cent support while requiring 60 per cent to be binding. Get funky with the official website of British Columbians for BC-STV.
UPDATE (11/4/09): The West Australian carries a second Westpoll survey of 400 respondents on the May 16 daylight saving referendum, showing 47 per cent supporting and 51 per cent opposed compared with 42 per cent and 57 per cent at the poll last month. The West’s report says this means “community support for daylight saving has climbed steadily over the last month”, but I don’t need to tell you all what a load of bollocks that is. Taken together, the surveys suggest the proposal is most likely headed for defeat by the same narrow-ish margins as in 1975, 1984 and 1992.
In 1906 Tasmania introduced a 5×6 system but this was considered to make a majority not likely enough so they introduced an extra member for each electorate (5×7). Then In 1998 they cut it back to 5×5 because the big parties decided they wanted the Greens power reduced.
Sorry I was wrong, the Greens backed the Lib minority Govt. then got shafted.
WB & Zoomster
[If memory serves, the PR that Lang scrapped had three members per district. Would such a system produce non-majority government any more than at present?]
I think the concept should be one of abandoning local district representation in favour of representation in parliament proportionate to each registered parties’ overall support – perhaps with some state or regional overlay. Hence the conundrum with the vacancy in NZ, which by the way seems unfair, and the German model of a replacement form the same party seems preferable.
Such a party proportionate system would acknowledge the reality of politics you mention from the early days of Federation, Zoomster -the emergence of parties regardless of intention.
It would be fun to speculate on what the parties would be, both from the current parties and new ones.
JV,
Your argument seems to revolve around the unsubstantiated assertion that because you don’t like it, then it is bad and must be changed.
The fact is the system ain’t broke and serves the community well they way it is structured. You may not like that, but as John Stewart put it so eloquently, “being in the minority is supposed to taste like a sh*it taco”.
I don’t see any mass movement to change the way things operate. Rather I see and hear a noisome bunch of whingeing Greens handringers who won’t do the work to win the confidence of the majority.
Both liberal and Labor wanted to reduce it. i know for sure bob cheek (liberal) crossed the floor to support the labor plan. Former liberal premier Robin Grey was important in his decision.
“Robin Gray” bad habbit of mine
explains abit of it btw
http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/?q=node/512
[The fact is the system ain’t broke and serves the community well]
What a quaint view. This opinion is as unsubstantiated as the one you deride as it’s based entirely on your opinion. Something doesn’t have to be completely broken for one to acknowledge flaws and suggest ways of dealing with them.
[Rather I see and hear a noisome bunch of whingeing Greens handringers]
I don’t really see why in your attempt to argue against PR you think it’s relevant to just attack The Greens. The Greens are one party that advocate PR but not all the people who support PR are Greens. And it’s quite clear that whilst they will most likely benefit so will others, on the other end of the political spectrum. It’s not about designing a system that’s better for you at the expense of other people but one that reflects the nature of politics in Australia and is truly representative.
[who won’t do the work to win the confidence of the majority.]
On the contrary, one of the problems is that currently the government functions as though it has support of the majority when it very rarely does.
The system Lang scrapped was 3-member rural electorates and 5-member urban electorates. It would mean more non-Liberal/non-Labor winners such as independents and Greens.
Multi-member electorates provide a good balance between local representation and absolute proportionality.
Interestingly, while the plan was pretty much about destroying The Greens, who had 11% of the seats, they know have 16% of the seats.
*now
If we are to have a PR system does that mean Tasmania loses its 12 Senators and 5 HoR members? Does it mean the Senate is proportional to population?
Note the ? in my posts. 😛
An interesting side note. Tasmania is the only state i am aware of currentley with more left faction members than the right faction. i am not saying this is just because of the system but it does not hurt.
Every state really should adopt some form of the Robson Rotation to stop those nasty donkey votes having much impact.
I stand corrected, Tom.
Exactly GG – the current system ‘ain’t broke’ for those attached to it, but rational analysis rather than an emotional reaction reveals a system that, while it did once work moderately well, is now a quagmire of 2 sub-standard parties with the same basic agenda. The diminishing primary vote for the major parties in recent times is a reflection of that. And that is happening in a world without any real choice outside the two tyrannosaurus.
If you believe that the large minority who vote first for another party should remain in the cold eating mexican excrement then you are truly an example of the attitude of the big 2 of – winner takes all.
People are entitled to disagree with my view and express satisfaction with things as they are but such conservatism is qualified by the fact it comes from big party vested interests and supporters.
[Every state really should adopt some form of the Robson Rotation to stop those nasty donkey votes having much impact.]
Do you think most voters are aware of who is what faction and would that actually influence that many votes?
Oz,
It is actually the job of the proponents of radical change to substantiate their arguments. Show me the clamouring of support for change. You and Miffy down the Mung bean collective doesn’t really cut it.
I would argue that the current system “reflects the nature of politics in Australia and is truly representative”. The prefereneial system ensures that any winning candidate has the majority support over all other candidates.
Again, the inherent flaw in the Greens argument is they want power without having majority support. Do the hard work and earn your power.
Scrapping equal representation of states in the Senate would require a referendum to pass in all states. Most PR proposals would leave the Senate unchanged (except proposals that would abolish above the line and introduce Robson Rotation) and only apply to the House of Representatives.
JS Mill wrote on PR in 1861, and said what PR stands for, versus the tyranny of a system resulting in a simple majority, magnificently:
[Two very different ideas are usually confounded under the name democracy. The pure idea of democracy, according to its definition, is the government of the whole people by the whole people, equally represented. Democracy as commonly conceived and hitherto practiced, is the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the people, exclusively represented. The former is synonymous with the equality of all citizens; the latter, strangely confounded with it, is a government of privilege, in favor of the numerical majority, who alone possess practically any voice in the State. This is the inevitable consequence of the manner in which the votes are now taken, the complete disenfranchisement of minorities.
That the minority must yield to the majority, the smaller number to the greater, is a familiar idea; and accordingly men think there is no necessity for using their minds any further, and it does not occur to them that there is any medium between allowing the smaller number to be equally powerful with the greater, and blotting out the smaller number altogether.
In a representative body actually deliberating, the minority must of course be overruled; and in an equal democracy (since the opinions of the constituents when they insist on them, determine those of the representative body) the majority of the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over the minority and their representatives. But does it follow the minority should have no representatives at all? Because the majority ought to prevail over the minority, must the majority have all the votes, the minority none? Is it necessary that the minority should not even be heard? Nothing but habit and old association can reconcile any reasonable being to the needless injustice. In a really equal democracy, every or any section would be represented, not disproportionately but proportionately.]
JV,
85% of people vote for the major parties. It is appropriate that Government’s largely reflect the views of this centalist and moderate majority.
As for Party partisanship, I have a pretty Kettle for you to meet Mr Pot.
[It is actually the job of the proponents of radical change to substantiate their arguments.]
I think this is pretty much what myself and others have been doing so far…
[Show me the clamouring of support for change.]
I don’t really think there is a “clamouring of support”. I think the idea is to create that support for the idea and thus get the change you want.
[Again, the inherent flaw in the Greens argument is they want power without having majority support.]
The idea behind our current system is that whoever gets 51% of the vote (in our 51% 2PP, could mean 40% primary) has “the power”. The idea behind PR is that democracy should not be about elected dictatorships and giving those who don’t (or just) achieve a majority of the votes complete authority is not representative or even really democratic.
I think a lot of where you stand depends on your own belief in what democracy is and what the purpose of voting is. If you think elections and parliament exist for the purpose of creating a “stable” government then you aren’t likely to be a supporter of PR. If you think parliament (or whatever elected assembly you have) should be about allowing a broader and more accurate representation of the communities views to be heard then you’re more likely to support PR.
A question I have for advocates of PR is whether or not they believe that the application of such a system in the House would render the Senate obsolete?
I don’t quite see the point of a Senate if you have a PR lower house. Unless you actually want it to become a “states’ house”, which would be extremely difficult.
50.1% (votes) x 50.1% (seats) = 25.1001% (votes)
Difficult to ensure I mean.
So it appears my #70 is just a less eloquent version of Mills.
I’m with Greensborough Growler on this.
No 72
The senate, under the constitution, is a states house. But in practice, it is just an extension of party partisanship.
Oz @ 75
That’s right Oz – take your place on the great philosophers’ podium as we make a toast to you. Well done indeed. 🙂
GG – What’s with the kitchenware reference?
Are you including the National Party in that 85 %?
Then National Party gets less votes than the Greens (outside the Rugby League states) but more seats.
No 70
The Australian Parliamentary system does not result in elected dictatorships. The Rudd Government has had to temper many of its policy decisions according to the demands of the Senate. I think our system is a reasonable balance. I do not want a situation where unholy marriages of political parties and months of negotiation are required in order to determine who will be our government.
Oz,
Governments make decisions and rule for all, not just the 50+% who voted for them.
[The senate, under the constitution, is a states house. But in practice, it is just an extension of party partisanship.]
This is my point.
I view a multi member lower house being quite similar to our current senate in terms of how it’s elected and it’s make up. From that, I don’t see the point of having two of them.
[I don’t quite see the point of a Senate if you have a PR lower house. Unless you actually want it to become a “states’ house”, which would be extremely difficult.]
While I agree that we should get rid of the Senate, would a PR lower house be elected on equal sized electorates?
JV,
Your a Greens supporter. It’s a bit rich accusing others of party partisanship.
“Pot calling Kettle black”.
[temper many of its policy decisions according to the demands of the Senate. ]
Which is PR… Thanks for agreeing.
GP & GG
Basically it comes down to whether or not you support the representation of any identifiable group and minority in the parliament proportionate to their vote. What’s wrong with that? On what basis do you disagree with JS Mills’ treatise philosophically?
So, if a PR House would look pretty much like the Senate (in terms of distribution of seats), why wouldn’t we just abolish the House and have a unicameral system?
[Governments make decisions and rule for all, not just the 50+% who voted for them.]
No doubt, but they don’t have the mandate of all. That is the issue.
And I understand that no government under whatever system is going to have the support of 100% of the people. But I think there are ways to make sure that parliament, the elected part of our system of governance, more broadly reflects the current values of the community.
Leaving aside what you think the purpose of parliament should be, does anyone actually think that single member electorates represent a more broader cross section of the communities views than PR? I think this point is difficult to dispute.
So the actually argument is what people want from their elected assembly. Mills puts the tension far better than I could.
[would a PR lower house be elected on equal sized electorates?]
Do you mean in terms of elected representatives/population? I’d say yes.
This would obviously get rid of what you could describe as gerrymanders like Tasmania, which currently actually favours my own political persuasion. Even though that’s the case I still accept it’s a gerrymander and I wouldn’t go to the effort of creating a more representative system and leave something like that in there. It would defeat the point of my whole argument.
The logical extention of the PR zealots is that NSW, Qld and Vic. will determine who forms Govt.
Or does proportional not relate to population?
I’m pretty sure those states already decide who forms government now…
GG @ 84 I see now, however, wrong. Never been a member of any of the parties, never supported the Greens party in any way via my labour, my time, or my money.
I think what you mean is that you have noticed that I support environmental protection and climate change action.
That hardly disqualifies me from pointing out that members and supporters of the 2 big parties are the most likely to seek to maintian the staus quo and argue against PR. By the same token I could also say that that members of minority groups and smaller parties are most likely to support PR.
And none of that diminishes the force of the arguments for PR.
Tasmania is a beneficiary of malapportionment (one area getting more seats per capita than another) not gerrymandering (boundaries rigged in favour of a party or parties).
Tasmania has both the equal senators and the the minimum 5 HoR seats per state to its benefit.
“but they don’t have the mandate of all”
Yes they do! Edmund Burke said it best in his Speech to the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll which was noted for its defence of the principles of representative democracy against the notion that elected officials should be delegates:
…it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
No 86
The ALP panders to minority groups all the time. The flaw in your analysis is that you think these groups are completely unrepresented.
Yes, GG, unfortunately the applicability of Burke in Australia is somewhat problematic because party political representatives here *are* delegates. If they cease acting as such, they are swiftly disendorsed and only with immense strength of will and electoral support retain their position in parliament.
Furthermore, I don’t think society should be held to ransom by minority groups, which is what PR entails. The Senate is enough of a taste of PR for me.
No 95
Indeed, the Liberal/National parties also ‘pander’ to minority groups. I’m not sure you’d call it ‘representative’, though, would you, in the sense of a formal process of democratic legislative representation?
[The logical extention of the PR zealots is that NSW, Qld and Vic. will determine who forms Govt.]
So you do support a Tasmania gerrymander?
NSW has more people than WA. It makes sense they have more elected represenatives.
jv,
To pretend that you are some sort of unbiased umpire in this discussion is rubbish.
Please cite all the studies performed that support your assertions about the attitudes of Greens, major party supporters and other minority voters.
I can argue just as persuasively that the vast majority of Greens and other minority supporters prefer the Preferential system because it absolves them of having to make tough decisions and they can sit back and whinge about the major parties while preserving a fig leaf of moral superiority.