|
QUOTA Newsletter
of the Proportional Representation
Society of QN56 December 1989 www.prsa.org.au ·
PR
Would Have Averted Qld. National
Party’s Long Overdominance · SA Vote-deficient Grouping Again Wins a Majority of Seats · Liberals Committed to Hare-Clark for the Lower House · Review of Synod's “Points System” · Melbourne Diocese's Regulation of Elections Act 1980 (Points System) · Examples of use of the Points System, by Enid Lakeman · List of issues of Quota Notes PR Would Have Averted Qld. National Party's Long Overdominance
This
month's election has changed the
players in the Queensland
Parliament, but not the system that
elected them. Under that severely malapportioned
single-member electoral district
system, the ALP was remarkably lucky
to have obtained an absolute
majority of Assembly seats with such
a small absolute majority of the
total first preference vote. With
such a margin, a PR system would
have much more predictably given the
ALP an absolute majority of seats,
but more importantly it would, in
the preceding elections, have denied
the National Party the gross
over-representation that allowed
them to govern for so long either
alone or in coalition with a greatly
under-represented Liberal Party.
That distortion fuelled the
corruption, and also removed the
means of publicizing and remedying
it sooner. The
graphs and tables for the 1989 and
1986 elections are based on figures
supplied by our N.S.W.
Vice-President, Mr Ed Haber, who
visited The
PRSA's Queensland Branch will use
these figures in the submission,
mentioned in the last "Quota
Notes",
that it will
make to the Electoral and
Administrative Review Commission. SA Vote-deficient
Grouping Again Wins a Majority of
Seats
S.A.
Branch Secretary, Mr Deane Crabb,
reports that for up to 4 years from
last month's election a grouping of
the ALP and 2 Independent Labor MHAs
will hold 53% of South Australia's
Lower House seats, yet their two
main opponents, the Liberals and the
Democrats, together received 54% of
the first preference vote statewide. Remember
the media fuss created earlier this
year when Liberals
Committed to Hare-Clark for the
Lower House A
motion debated at the recent State
Conference of the Tasmanian Division
of the Liberal Party sought to make
it Party policy that Tasmania's
longstanding Hare-Clark
electoral system should be replaced
by a system of single-member
electoral districts. The opposition
to the motion was led by the person
that had lost the most significant
office in the 1989 election - the
former Premier, Mr Robin Gray. He
described Hare-Clark as "the world's
fairest electoral system". The
candidate that gained the highest
vote in Bass, Dr Frank Madill,
said, "Under Hare-Clark there is no
such thing as a safe seat, so
politicians must always work'' hard
to be re-elected." Mr Braid, a
minister before the election, said
that Hare-Clark was the best and
fairest system because it allowed
the choice of candidates and the
choice of members. Each
of these speakers showed great
integrity in not blaming the system
for their party's defeat. Each had
been a member of the former
government, and could have been
tempted, as some Conference
delegates were, to look for a
scapegoat. Instead they put
democracy, and The
former Deputy Premier, Mr Ray Groom,
a one-time Victorian footballer and
Fraser Government Environment
Minister, irreverently nicknamed " The
notion to abandon the party's
commitment to Hare-Clark was
defeated 32-53. Mr
Neil Robson MHA was the
instigator of the successful 1979
legislation that established the
practice of rotating the positions
of candidates' names on
ballot-papers in Such
a proposal moves towards emphasizing
the election of a government and
then ensuring that the government so
elected has a parliament to suit it.
Let us hope that some Liberals have
not become so accustomed to
Parliament being rigidly controlled
by the Government that they feel
uncomfortable when the written
constitutional realities emerge as
at present in It
is noteworthy that official figures
from 1959, when the number of seats
per electoral district was increased
from 6 to 7, show that, in the 5 out
of 9 elections from then in which
there was a statewide
absolute majority of first
preference votes for a single party,
that party always gained an absolute
majority of Assembly seats. The PRSA
will examine the Robson proposals
much more closely if they see the
light of day. Review
of Synod's "Points System " The
system used for elections by the
Synod of the Anglican Diocese of
Melbourne is being reviewed by a
committee due to report to the
forthcoming Synod. The system, a
modified "Points
System", is
prescribed by the Synod's Regulation
of Elections Act 1980 relevant
extracts of which are
shown on Page 4. It is used for both
single and multiple vacancies
including elections by the Synod
for: (a)
the Diocesan Council, in
conjunction with which the
Archbishop administers the Diocese, (b)
the Board of Nominators (9
lay members and 9 clerics) elected
under the Archbishop
Election Act 1988 to present a
shortlist of 3-6 candidates from
which the Synod fills any vacancy
(as exists at present)in the office
of Archbishop, and (c)
the
position of Archbishop. The
review was prompted by concerns
about the fairness of the Points
System. Three examples
by Enid Lakeman
indicating major weaknesses in the
system are shown on Page 4.
The "parties" she refers to are not
Political Parties but are voters and
candidates with similar views or
causes. It is well recognized that
such groupings occur in Synod
elections. The General Synod
of the Church of England in The
"Points System" is a set of rules
without an inherent rationale. Its
approach is negative as it serves to
rule out candidates strongly
disliked by a core of voters. It
then causes the residue to be
elected by default. By contrast PR
is positive and allows each quota of
votes to identify the wanted
candidate and to elect that
candidate. The residue
are unelected. The
PRSA has provided advice to Synod
members on why PR should be adopted
in the Melbourne Diocese. The
Returning Officer for the recent
Constitutional Referendum, the
National Secretary, Mr Andrew
Gunter, has reported that all 3
motions were carried, the valid
votes for Motions
A, B and C being 47-0, 45-1,
and 47-0 respectively. Motion
A has resulted in the establishment
of our newest Branch, the
Proportional Representation Society
of Australia (Australian Capital
Territory Branch). It is hoped that
the Branch's first Office-bearers
can be announced in the next "Quota
Notes". Motion
B has enabled the making of
regulations. The first of these is PRSA
Regulation No. 1, "Life
Members and Honorary Life
Members". It provides a system
for national registration of these
members and for their transfer
between branches. A copy of the full
text has been posted to each Branch
Secretary, and will be posted free
to any member on written request. A
postal ballot on the regulation
shall be held if within 90 days a
written request by any two members
for a ballot has been received by
the National Secretary. The
Returning Officer for the election
of National Office-Bearers
for 1990-91, the SA Branch
Secretary, Mr Deane Crabb, has
declared the following elected
unopposed: President:
Geoffrey Goode Vice-President:
David Higbed
Secretary:
John Alexander Treasurer:
Leonard Higgs The
newcomer is John Alexander, the NSW
Branch Secretary. The Society is
grateful to the outgoing National
Secretary, Andrew Gunter. He was the
subject, complete with large
handsome photograph, of the main
feature article in "The
Mercury" of 12th February 1986
when he represented the PRSA at the
State election tally room. He also
joined the President in meeting the
Territories Minister, Clyde Holding,
to put the PRSA case against
Machiavellian d'Hondt
for the ACT. Andrew was recently
elected President of the Victorian
Branch. © 1989 Proportional
Representation Society of National President: Geoffrey Goode 18 Anita Street BEAUMARIS 3193 National Secretary(1988-89):
Andrew Gunter 177 National Secretary (1990-91): John Alexander 5 Bray Street MOSMAN NEW SOUTH WALES 2088 Tel: (03) 9598 1802 (02) 960 2193 info@prsa.org.au Registered
To
consolidate and amend the Law for
the Regulation of Elections by
Synod. BE
IT ENACTED by the Archbishop, the
Clergy and the Laity of the Church
of England in Australia within the
Diocese of Melbourne in Victoria
duly met in Synod according to law
as follows: 1.
This Act may be cited as the
Regulation of Elections Act 1980. 2.
The Regulation of Elections Act
(Number 3 of 1888) as amended by any
Act and the Act Number 2 of 1907 as
amended by any Act are hereby
repealed provided that all persons
things and circumstances appointed
or created by or under those Acts or
existing or continuing under those
Acts immediately before the
commencement of this Act shall under
and subject to this Act continue to
have the same status operation and
effect as they respectively would
have had if those Acts had not been
repealed. 21.
The results of any Election shall be
ascertained according to the rules
in Schedule C. SCHEDULE
C Where
a voter has written a numeral
opposite the name of one at least of
the candidates named on a voting
paper the numeral opposite the name
of a candidate and a blank opposite
the name of a candidate shall
represent a number of votes against
that candidate ascertained by the
following rules: 1.
A blank opposite the name of a
candidate shall be deemed to be the
numeral higher by one than the
highest numeral written on the
voting paper by the voter. 2.
The number of votes to be counted
against a candidate shall be
determined by the formula a
+ n + 1 where a
is the number of candidates opposite
whose name or names the voter has
written a numeral lower than the
numeral written opposite the name of
that candidate, n is the number of
candidates opposite whose name or
names the voter has written a
numeral the same as that which is
written opposite the name of that
candidate. The
candidate against whom the lowest
number of votes is cast shall be the
candidate or the first candidate
elected as the case may require and
the candidate against whom the next
lowest number is cast shall be the
second candidate elected and so on
until the required number is
elected. EXAMPLE
I Best
candidate may be defeated. Two
to elect out of five candidates
The
elected candidates are B and C, with
a value of :
121 each, but A, who polled three
first preferences, could defeat
either on a straight fight by three
votes to two. EXAMPLE
II No
security for fair representation Four
to elect out of five candidates
E
has the support (first preferences)
of four voters out of the sixteen.. Under a
proportional system he is entitled
to be elected as one of the four
representatives. But party ABCD, by
voting according to plan, can ensure
E's defeat. In the example, the
total value of preferences for A, or
B, or C, or D is less than. the total
value of preferences for E. Example
III
The
representation obtained by a party
depends on the way its voters
distribute their preferences among
that party's candidates - a highly
disciplined party, which can arrange
that approximately equal numbers of
first preferences go to each of its
candidates while the other party's
candidates are marked in roughly the
same order, may get more seats than
a larger party whose voters follow
their own inclinations - especially
if this larger party has one
outstandingly popular candidate. There
are three to be elected and each of
two parties puts up three
candidates. The party with three
voters elects candidates A and C;
the party with four voters elects
only candidate D.
*
* * * * |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
