… 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.
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
GG – Edmund was full of it wasn’t he? If only he were alive today to see how religiously our very own antipodean descendents of old Westminster live out his vision… as a matter of fact I think I heard Joe Tripodi, or was it Belinda, saying something very similar to Ed’s tract just the other day. 🙂
[So you do support a Tasmania gerrymander? ]
I do not support Tasmania having 12 senators and 5 HoR seats, it is not a gerrymander, it is just not proportional. 🙂
Votes are decided by a majority so if a vote does not pass it is because a majority did not support the bill/motion/government on which that vote was held. If both the major parties support a bill/motion/government then it passes whether or not the minor party or parties support it.b
I really don’t see what the hell PR has to do with The Greens or any other specific political party. You can’t advocate it without being disregarded simply because you’re a Green?
Everyone in Germany is a Green? Everyone in Norway is a Green? Everyone who votes in NSW local government elections is a Green?
No 98
The great thing about our current system is that both parties have to moderate their views to get elected. PR tends to bring out more extremist elements of society. Sure, it is more representative, but it is inherently more uncertain and unstable.
I like stability. I might not like Labor, but this government is generally stable.
[I do not support Tasmania having 12 senators and 5 HoR seats, it is not a gerrymander, it is just not proportional]
Your arguments are contradictory.
You don’t want the eastern states to have more seats, even though the only reason they do is because more people live there, but you don’t want other areas to be given extra seats to make up for it.
[Since when does “ALP pandering to minority groups” = those groups/parties/opinions/values having their own representation?]
Oz, that’s a bit rough when you know that GP was quietly side-stepping workchoices which were demanded by the Business council, the legislation was drafted with huge input from the Business Council and ultimately welcomed by the Business Council. What more representation would minorities want?
[I like stability. I might not like Labor, but this government is generally stable.]
So now we’re back 50 posts.
I think a discussion about PR is pointless without first having a discussion about what you want from your elected assembly. GP and GG want “stability” and majority rule. I can’t speak for other proponents of PR but I want something that accepts a broader and more diverse range of views and opinions – as decided by the electorate, and thus is a representative assembly, elected to represent the views of the people, not just 80%.
And also something that limits the possibility of those being able to govern with not even a majority of the vote.
Oz,
If you can dismiss/ignore any Green-baiting that’s been going on (which, at the very least, is often amusing), there are some quite logical points that advocates of electoral system reform have not yet come to grips with.
If, as I believe you contend or at least concede, the current system favours the major parties, then the only way to change it is through generating sufficient public support to make them pay attention.
Arguing with people here may be part of that strategy, but it doesn’t seem the most likely means to generate the support that you’d like to see.
So, (and I guess this is a question for all PR supporters here) how are you going to generate the public ‘clamouring’ that will make the major parties act against their own interests?
Oz
I am happy with the current situation – senate excluded – surely any proportional system must include population? Your previous post does not make sense to me.
#108
Highlighting why contemporary examples of what the ALP is doing is not a substitute for an argument against structural change. The Rudd government may well be “pandering” to the views of lots of different people (Dunno if it is, but let’s say that’s the case). The Howard government certainly didn’t and it’s no certainty that any future government will either.
#112
Of course the Howard government pandered to minority groups. I can name Alan Jones and Kerry Packer as representatives of minority interests without giving the matter much thought at all.
Here is a Joke for the Australian Left.
What is the difference between the Liberals and the Nationals?
The Liberals believe in one dollar one vote and the National believe in one acre one vote.
[surely any proportional system must include population? Your previous post does not make sense to me.]
I don’t think we’re both on the same page as what “proportional to population” means. 1 member for every 50,000, for example, is proportional, no?
[sufficient public support to make them pay attention.]
Possibly, or getting a party/parties with that position already in a sufficient position of power so they can argue for it in a much more appropriate arena.
[And also something that limits the possibility of those being able to govern with not even a majority of the vote.]
So just how does PR change this? The fact is with preferential voting major parties do govern with the majority of the vote – TPP. The only thing PR does is take the TPP and place it in parliament. So you will still get a major party governing with the support of a minor.
We could also highlight the Greens role in toppling the Goss Government in Queensland over the Koala Road which only achieved a pathway for One Nation to feed of the discontent. How is that helping to make the parliament more progressive?
#115
OK, well if that’s your strategy, and the only party with that position at the moment is the Greens, then it’s a little bit rich to claim that it’s unfair that your arguments for PR are derided as a stalking horse for the Greens.
If you want to distance the two campaigns from one another, you’ll have to diversify your strategy a little, I think.
GP,
I agree, that stable Government is what the community wants given that most people will support 90% of of what the Government does regardless of its colour. This is evidenced by the high proportion of legislation that is passed with the support of all Members and Parties.
Obviously, we all argue when this is not the case.
The important thing is that you accept that Labor is the Government and entitled to implement (with moderation) its policies. PR simply allows minority groups to wield power in disproportion to their real support and encourages disruption and dissension as these groups attempt to differentiate themselves.
If we want PR one of the first issues to address is why a Tasmanian member of the HoR has about 10,000 people living in the electorate while an ACT member has about 170,000?
#119
GG, maybe I’m missing something but could you tell me how a system designed to be proportional could result in disproportionate representation?
Oz, just how does the election of Steve Fielding fit in with this progressive newfangled theory?
[So you will still get a major party governing with the support of a minor.]
The difference being that minor party/parties are actually in parliament and get to voice their issues continually as opposed to once every 3 years and hope that what the promises that the major parties made in regards to preference deals are actually upheld (which they often aren’t).
[How is that helping to make the parliament more progressive?]
I said this earlier, but the goal isn’t to make parliament more “progressive” or more “conservative”. I very readily concede that whilst PR makes it more likely for The Greens to get more seats it also increases the chances of FF or the CDP. If I wanted to rig the system to it make more progressive I’d make sure that the closer you live to a capital cities CBD the more your vote is worth.
[OK, well if that’s your strategy,]
I’m not suggesting it is my “strategy”, it’s simply an idea. I do not have a strategy. I didn’t kick off the PR discussion and I’m not intending to ram it down anyone’s throat. A debate is ensuing and I’m making my views heard. The fact that they correlate with a particular party is irrelevant. GG’s views correlate with the Liberal Party but I’m not suggesting he’s a Liberal stooge.
oops left of a 0 100,000 v 170,000
Newfangled… it’s been around in Australia longer than preferential single member electorates.
I still think a better strategy for the Greens is to take on a few Tories in marginal seats and actually beat them. Suddenly all these ideas will be redundant.
#123
Apologies. Let me rephrase.
If the election of greater numbers of Greens representatives is the only strategy that proponents of PR have (aside from having people with varying levels of commitment to the cause argue with ardent opponents on blogsites), then it is hardly surprising that support for the Greens and support for PR are considered complementary. Similarly unsurprising is the hubris of opponents, who could rightly consider themselves safe from the threat of PR ever becoming a reality.
Gary B
[The only thing PR does is take the TPP and place it in parliament.]
No, PR takes the proportionate support for each party or group and places it in parliament.
The parliament then would form a coalition government from its ranks (as now) of members who are proportionate in number to the proportion of support their party got in the election. Then the executive is elected from that government. I personally would suggest some changes to how that would work, but that’s a separate issue.
Steve, if the goal was simply to increase representation of The Greens, then maybe.
But that’s not my starting position for advocating PR. It stems from how I want our parliament to function, to more accurately reflect the views of the community instead of insisting that Labor and Liberal actually do take care of it all themselves, don’t worry.
One of the few things Labor and Liberal hacks will vehemently agree on. I find that telling.
[then it is hardly surprising that support for the Greens and support for PR are considered complementary.]
No doubt, but I doubt everyone who supports PR votes Green and every Green supports PR.
Go ahead and make a link between The Greens and PR, but that’s quite different to shooting down PR simply by saying “You’re a Greenie, who cares”.
JV
But that would require that Tasmania, ACT and NT have a the “correct” number of members?
ruawake, I think it’s pretty much agreed the answer is yes.
I don’t envisage any potential PR system retaining the existing disproportionality between states.
#130
I agree, but put it to you again that another strategy is required in order to create the necessary distance between the Greens and PR.
It may be trite to reflect that it is incumbent on advocates for change to convince a substantial proportion of society that change is necessary, but so far nothing in this debate gives evidence of any strategy for generating that support other than relying on the election of the Greens.
If this is really a big issue, and it seems to me a few people (not just you, Oz) here think it is, then why aren’t you doing something about it? Other than supporting the Greens?
[One of the few things Labor and Liberal hacks will vehemently agree on]
Oz, I used to vote Green and give my preference to Labor up until the Greens preference deal elected the conservative Borbidge Government and a rump of One Nation MP’s into the Queensland parliament and I think this is one of the reasons that the Greens have not managed to garner the support necessary for them to win seats in their own right.
While the Greens are good at pointing out where the major parties act not necessarily in their own supporters’ interests. The log in their own eye is easier to excuse as a system that unfairly victimises the Greens. The answer then becomes to make a case for PR to be extended.
GP is right, our preferential system forces the 2 major parties to not go to extreme polar opposites ideologically or they wont get elected across a broad cross section of society.
If you think PR is so good look at Germany.
The Left Party = ex-Communists
Greens = more radical than our own
These 2 political organisations hold more than 100 seats in the German Bundestag.
Now look what happened in their election in 2005 neither major party could govern in their own right and had to form a coalition with each other it would be like the Liberals and ALP forming a Coalition government…see how well that would work before you start thinking PR is the best thing since sliced bread!
[ruawake, I think it’s pretty much agreed the answer is yes.]
So to introduce PR, and for it to be fair, it would mean a change to the constitution?
#135
Just quietly, Glen, I think that would suit many voters to a T. Haven’t you ever seen those letters to the editor in any given newspaper ‘Why can’t they just pick the brightest and best from both parties and make One Government Under Love?’
Rua if you want PR for the lower house go to Europe and see where it has produced stable government!
The only system that produces stable government is the Westminster system/preferential or FPTP voting.
Bule that would go against the principles of the Westminster system.
#139
Nonsense. The scenario you painted was one in which the two major parties could only form a majority by banding together. In such circumstances, the combined minority parties would take the cross-benches, with the largest or a combination of them forming the opposition.
[If this is really a big issue, and it seems to me a few people (not just you, Oz) here think it is, then why aren’t you doing something about it?]
I think it’s pretty important but I don’t think it’s a high priority issue now, compared to other things. I have my hands pretty full with things I view as more immediate so I’m leaving the PR flag-waving to others.
But if the topic arises, as it has today, I’ll gladly engage in discussion.
Steve, I’m not going to defend any preference deals that elect conservative governments. But the fact that the only power The Greens, a party that gets up to 10% of the vote (more in recent examples, except QLD), has in influencing the lower house is through preference deals should be viewed as a reason why we need PR.
Preference deals are complicated, bitter things. You cite QLD, other examples might be Fielding in Victoria or any plethora of examples where you see left wing voters elected right wing candidates or vice versa. The people on the raw end of the preference deal, usually the minor party or independent, have no guarantee in what goes on in parliament. They only get to adjudicate on election promises and whatever they can negotiate. And there’s no guarantee these will stay once government’s been formed. And it’s really difficult when you have to make a choice between a corrupt right wing party or another corrupt right wing part (the Libs and Labor in NSW for example).
If you turn those preferences (which is all they boil down too) into actual seats in parliament it lets the representatives you voted for have a say on every issue in parliament, even forming government, rather than whatever gets promised prior to the election to secure preferences.
Bule, they pick the brightest and best and make them doctors in Queensland but these same people can’t even run a hospital system even though they are given unlimited power and huge wages to do so. I can’t see that system being a success.
[So to introduce PR, and for it to be fair, it would mean a change to the constitution?]
My version of PR, probably.
But I don’t think it should be viewed as all or nothing. Whilst the ultimate goal (in my opinion) should be a completely equitable system that gets rid of historical malapportionment, there are other things that don’t require constitutional change that could be done.
Glen, your points are crap and have already been dealt with.
[Rua if you want PR for the lower house go to Europe and see where it has produced stable government!]
Stupidest thing anyone’s ever said. You tell us where it’s produced unstable government and then demonstrate that it’s because of PR. The only country you’ll mention is probably Belgium and that has a lot more to do with racial tensions than their system of elected MP’s.
Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland are all unstable are they? Fool.
I think it’s clearly the case that if advocates for PR had a website as cool as their BC counterparts the argument would already be won.
[Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland are all unstable are they? Fool.]
Italy Definately was under Prodi 🙂
If you have a system of parliamentary government, then the more the system deviates from a hypothetical pure model in which there are only two options to choose between for forming the government, the less control the voters have over who will form the government. Australia is pretty close to the hypothetical pure model of two choices. In Australia, those two choices are Labor and the Coalition, and most of the time it’s the way people vote that decide which of those two will form the government. Some other countries are also pretty close to the hypothetical pure model of two choices, the UK being one example. Italy now (as opposed to for the last sixty years) is also pretty close to this–there are more than two parties, but most of the significant ones have grouped themselves into just two major alliances, and it’s mostly the voters’ choice between these two alliances which determines who will form the government.
On the other hand, countries like the Netherlands and Belgium are a long way from the hypothetical pure model of just two choices. Not only are there multiple parties in their Parliaments, but there are multiple possibilities for forming a government. Sometimes it takes months of negotiations after a general election before they decide what the new government will be, and this reflects the fact that the voters’ choices play only a limited indirect role in deciding that. Sometimes the voters can effectively reject some options, but that still leaves a range of others, and the choice between them is not under the voters’ control.
The differences here don’t arise directly and simply from the electoral system. Malta, for example, as I mentioned, has a form of PR, but still has just two parties in its Parliament and operates on the pure model of two choices to form the government. Papua New Guinea, on the other hand, has a pure majority electoral system, but is a long way from the model of just two choices to form the government.
But electoral systems must have some effect.
If you are arguing to move away from the ‘just two choices’ model, then you are arguing in favour of reducing the voters’ control over who forms the government. Maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe it’s better if the voters have less control over who forms the government. But if you move away from the ‘just two choices’ model (and given still the background assumption of a parliamentary system), then the reduction of voter control necessarily follows. Look at all the different countries that have parliamentary government, and the pattern is unmistakable.
Iceland, Oz?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/world/europe/27iceland.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=iceland&st=cse
Also Iceland and Holland all suffer from PR and it forces major parties in Coalitions that they wouldnt prefer.
Germany’s government isnt as stable as you think, do you really think the Conservative CDU/CSU get along nice and well with the SPD????
Why is having only two choices of representative government ‘hypothetically pure’? Doesn’t that presuppose that on any given question there are only two possible answers, yes or no? Doesn’t it also presuppose that the drafting of the question itself is somehow hypothetically pure in some sense, and, indeed, that there two clear alternative questions?