|
QUOTA Newsletter of the
Proportional Representation Society of Australia QN2013C September 2013 www.prsa.org.au
2013
federal poll
results show reform is
needed Australia
changed its government
after 22 seats changed hands following a national
swing above 3.6% to the Coalition on 7 September
2013, taking it to a two-party-preferred majority
of votes in all states and territories except the
Australian Capital Territory. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES: Nominations were up 40%
to 1,188, there being on average 7.9 candidates
per seat with a median of 8. Nearly three-quarters
were male, roughly the proportion of elected
candidates that are male (74%). Victoria, Tasmania
and the territories led the major influx of
additional candidates, followed by Queensland, and
only South Australia had fewer than in 2010, by
two. Victoria
had 14 of the 26 seats
with 10 or more candidates and an average of 9.3
with median 9, matched most closely by Western
Australia with the same median, but a mean of 8.5.
Both the mean and median were lowest at six in
South Australia. Voters’ choice in provincial
(mean of 8.6 candidates) and rural (8.1) divisions
was greatest, and about equal in inner (7.6) and
outer (7.7) metropolitan divisions. With
voters required to mark preferences for all
candidates except one allowable blank square, all
eight seats with informality levels
above 10% were in NSW, which had 7.6% of ballots
informal, compared with the
national average of 5.9%. Use of optional
preferential voting at state level, and the high
percentage of voters whose first language was not
English, were again major factors in this
substantial discrepancy. The Northern Territory
was next worse with 6.3% of ballots informal. The
other mainland states had around 5% rejected, and
Tasmania and the ACT about 4%. As in other recent
federal elections, Labor’s ordinary votes
tended to be 3 or 4 percentage points higher than
its pre-poll or postal support levels. Of the four seats with margins below the benefit likely from the donkey vote (0.25%), three (Barton, Indi, and perhaps Fairfax) were won by the candidate that drew the higher position on the ballot paper. Nationally Labor suffered about 5% swings in its marginal electorates, compared with 3% in fairly safe seats and around 1.5% in safe ones. It went backwards by nearly 3% in marginal Liberal or National electorates, and around 6% in others the former opposition held.
Overall
the greatest
swings against Labor were in inner
metropolitan (over 5%) and provincial (over 4%)
areas. Just over 40% of electorates had margins of
6% or less, with the rest usually classified as
fairly safe or safe. Of the close outcomes,
12 including just three ALP-held ones would change
with a swing of 1% or less, 9 (five ALP) with
swings from 1 to 2%, 10 (five ALP) in the range
2-3%, 13 (eight ALP) with movements of 3-4%, 10
(four ALP) with 4-5% and 7 (four ALP) with 5-6%.
In eleven seats, the last two candidates were not
just from the ALP and Coalition, while 53 seats
were decided on first preferences alone. Ten
seats changed hands in NSW on a swing of around 3%
to the Coalition (the independents Tony Windsor
and Rob Oakeshott did not recontest), four in
Victoria following a swing above 5% (including
Sophie Mirabella’s defeat by independent Cathy
McGowan in Indi), three
each in Tasmania (on
an 11.3% swing) and Queensland (after a swing of
around 1%, perhaps including capture of vacated Fairfax by Clive Palmer
heading his new party), and one each in South
Australia (which had a 5.5% swing) and Western
Australia (a swing above 1% saw just O’Connor
narrowly reverting to the Liberals after the
National incumbent, Tony Crook, did not
recontest). As
shown below, the percentage of first preferences
or two-party-preferred support bore little
relationship to seats won, which were generally
distorted well beyond cube rule
expectations, as so many seats were safe. Rural
areas and metropolitan pockets had even greater
local concentrations, given the winner-take-all
system. House of Representatives First
Preference Votes and Seats
There
were reductions in support
for Labor (around 5%), the Greens (over 4%) and
the Coalition (about 1%), with the primary
beneficiaries being the Liberal Democrats (3.9%,
more than double their previous support level) and
the new Palmer United Party, which secured places
in Tasmania, Queensland and perhaps Western
Australia on a 4.9 % nationwide vote. The
combined Labor and Coalition Senate vote has
declined from around four-fifths in both 2004 and
2007 to under three-quarters in 2010 and just over
two-thirds in 2013. With the quota at just over
one-seventh, it is not surprising that other
candidates won two places in two states, and won a
record three in South Australia where the combined
Labor and Liberal first preference vote was only 50.11%, the
lowest since proportional representation was
introduced in 1948. Independent
Senator Nick Xenophon took nearly 25% of the vote,
just under the Liberal vote and ahead of Labor. As
few preferences flowed to his column and therefore
his running mate, the Greens and Family First
secured election after starting with respectively
7.1% and 3.8% of first preferences. The
Proportional Representation Society of Australia
is delighted that Senator Xenophon has foreshadowed
legislation to abolish party boxes
and to institute a form of optional preferential
voting instead. The
table below illustrates how nationally there was
quite close correspondence between first
preferences and senatorial places won by the
Coalition, Labor and the Greens and that, with the
exception of the Palmer United Party, other
parties or candidates obtained less representation
than their level of support indicated.
Much
attention was focused on ‘deals’ made or
agreements not adhered to when Group Voting Tickets
were not lodged for four related parties in
Victoria. In any ‘deal’ between two parties, each
hopes to benefit from a transfer, usually at the
exclusion of the other. There is normally no way
to know in advance which will be excluded first,
as micro-parties are increasingly holding their
votes within a tight grouping not necessarily
consistent with policy directions, in the hope
that at least one will claw a way to a quota. Vocal
complaints were made
- some only following disclosures after the
election - about persons or small groups forming
multiple parties, agreed financial and other
support arrangements, failure to lodge Group
Voting Tickets as promised, misleading advertising
about GVTs and their possible or likely impact,
and pressure to participate in tight networks of
preference ordering, orchestrated particularly by
Glenn Druery. Examination
of the ABC calculator
treating all votes as above-the-line
alerted the nation early to the possibility of
senators being elected even though their group
started with much fewer than 1% of first
preferences. The full compilation of WA votes and
the extent of Tasmanian below-the-line
marking illustrated the broad indicative nature of
such modelling approaches, as a narrow exclusion
at a critical juncture halted the projected
progress of some candidates that did extremely
well from a low base. For instance, there was a
reversal of about 1,000 votes in the relative
positions of the successful Palmer United Party
candidate and the Australian Sex Party candidate
that the calculator showed for Tasmania’s last
place. In
NSW, it immediately became evident that the
leftmost column position of the Liberal Democratic
Party saw it gain many votes of its 9.5% intended
for the Liberal National grouping near the middle
of 44 group columns. The party also benefited
greatly from a more favourable position on the
ballot paper than the Coalition’s in Tasmania,
South Australia and Western Australia, obtaining
between 2.3% and 3.5% of first preferences,
whereas it achieved just 0.7% in Queensland
where the Liberal National Party column came much
earlier. In Victoria, it failed to register a
Group Voting Ticket, so its position second from
the left was of no practical benefit. Patterns
of voting above-
and below-the-line
suggest that the Labor and Coalition vote was
slightly inflated by unsuccessful attempts by
those supporting other parties to vote formally below-the-line,
as the attrition rate has been found to be very
high in studies after previous elections. In
mainland states, 97-99% of those voters voted above-the-line,
but for Greens supporters that range was 82-92%,
and for smaller parties or groupings it was
92-97%, though there were several parties
consistently below even 80%. The
table below sets out some of these major
differences in each state and territory for
parties or groups where Group Voting Tickets were
lodged. In Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania,
non-lodgement of Group Voting Tickets meant that
some supporters could only use the below-the-line
option. Use of above-the-line
party boxes, by State and Territory (%)
Four
vacancies were filled at the start of the scrutiny
in four states and three in each of SA and WA. In
New South Wales,
a Liberal
Democrat, David Leyonhjelm, was the
fifth elected, on Australian Sex Party
preferences, while a Liberal, Arthur Sinodinos,
was the last, picking up large transfers from the
Palmer United Party and major components from the
Australian Sporting Party, which increased its
total from 55,000 to 285,000 (0.4 quotas) at
exclusion. In
Victoria,
timely boosts saw the progress total of Rick Muir
of the Australian Motoring
Enthusiast Party rise from 17,000
first preferences to above a quota (483,076), with
moves of 160,000 from the Palmer United Party (on
whose Group Voting Ticket he was a very early
preference) and 140,000 upon the partial exclusion
of the Australian Sex Party. Janet Rice, a Green,
was fifth elected, on Labor preferences. Her
surplus put the Sex Party just above Palmer United
for the first time. After the initial surpluses
were dealt with, the progress total of the third
Coalition incumbent, Helen Kroger, rose by only
50,000. In
Queensland,
the third LNP candidate started just 40,000 votes
short of a quota (374,209), the Palmer United Party, headed
by former rugby league star Glenn Lazarus, began
with 285,000 votes and the Greens with 155,000. Mr
Lazarus picked up over 35,000 votes when the
Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party was
excluded and then over 100,000 votes from Katter’s
Australian Party to be elected. The exclusion of
the first Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party
candidate saw one-third of his 180,000 votes place
the Coalition well past its third quota. Western Australia
received much attention when the possibility arose
of the Australian Sports Party climbing from 2,000
votes to achieve the fifth quota (187,349).
Fourteen votes separated the Australian Christians
and the Shooters and Fishers at a critical
juncture in the scrutiny on which the last two
places would turn. Palmer United’s Zhenya Wang was
just 2,539 votes ahead of the last Liberal
Democrat before picking up 55,000 votes from his
exclusion and then 65,000 from the Shooters and
Fishers to be elected. The distribution of his
surplus under the flawed unweighted transfer
procedure placed Labor’s Senator
Louise Pratt 1,400 votes above a quota while
Senator Scott Ludlam, of the Greens, was 2,000
below. Were the High Court to severely strike out
provisions surrounding lodgement of multiple voting
tickets, a different order of
exclusion would arise. A recount of
above-the-line
and informal votes in Western Australia has been
ordered. In
South Australia,
the second Liberal, Senator Simon Birmingham, was
just 12,000 short of a quota (148,348) when
exclusions began. Family First’s Bob Day remained
4,000 ahead of the last Liberal Democrat when one
of them had to be excluded, and almost doubled his
progress total at that point. The exclusion of the
Labor powerbroker, Senator Don Farrell, propelled
a Green, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, above a
quota, after an earlier 26,000 boost from Palmer
United. Her surplus went mainly to Bob Day and his
largely went to elect the second Liberal. In
Tasmania
(quota 48,137), Palmer United’s Jacqui Lambie
started 7,000 in front of the third Liberal and
9,000 behind the first Green after four surpluses
were dealt with. The Australian Sex Party was just
244 behind Labor’s Senator Lin Thorp when one had
to be excluded. Green Senator Peter Whish-Wilson
was re-elected on her exclusion and his surplus
put Palmer United 1,276 ahead of the Liberal
Democrat, whose progress total had nearly
quadrupled to approach 30,000 votes, and able to
secure election. The Liberals only advanced by
11,000 votes as exclusions occurred. In
the ACT, the
ALP’s Senator Kate Lundy was 2,000 votes above a
quota while the combined Liberal vote was 700
below. The high level of below-the-line
votes saw Zed Seselja easily above a quota with
the lead Bullet Train and Green candidates still
unexcluded. In
the Northern Territory,
the combined Labor vote was just 400 short of a
quota (34,494) while the Country Liberals were
well above. Genuine
reform will involve clearly identifying the
problem and tackling it in the simplest manner
possible. Most voters have no idea of the
numbering in Group Voting Tickets
that they feel dragooned into endorsing because of
the imposition surrounding below-the-line
formality. Party boxes would not have been
introduced had Dr H V Evatt paid more attention to
suggestions from Liberal MPs about formality
requirements when proportional representation was
being introduced for the Senate in
1948, instead of stubbornly
persisting with full compulsory marking. Letting
a party or group register two or three Group
Voting Tickets without giving voters an
opportunity to indicate which they endorse is on
sufficiently doubtful constitutional ground
for Section 272(5)
of the Commonwealth
Electoral Act 1918 to have a savings
provision trying to at least preserve the
numbering common to all tickets in such
circumstances. There
is simply no need for party boxes if voters can
readily cast a formal ballot based on the way they
assess the candidates and policies. The experience
in Eire and
Malta
over many decades, and in the ACT since
1995, with a single first preference sufficing has
been perfectly satisfactory, just as it has been
when a number of preferences not exceeding the
number of vacancies have been required in
Tasmania, NSW and Victoria, and for various
municipal polls. Proposals
to impose an exclusionary threshold
usually betray either misunderstanding of how the
single transferable vote works, or seem aimed at
propping up the failed system of party boxes,
without recognizing the potential for unstable or
distorted results to arise whenever arbitrary
interventions are made. The
process of election and exclusion is soundly
defined except for transfers of surpluses. If
arbitrary thresholds apply, whether parties or
candidates fall just short or a little above may
hold the key to more than one place. Depending on
the rules imposed, large numbers of votes could be
wasted or directed to a candidate who would not
otherwise have benefited. In
2013, parties starting with percentages around
11.7, 10.8, 9.9, 9.5, 7.1, 6.6, 5.0, 3.8 and 0.5
all had senators elected because a candidate
attracted sufficient further votes to exceed a
quota. By what principle should any of them be
ruled ineligible at the outset? Would a different
threshold apply at a double dissolution poll? Smaller
parties and independents collectively obtain less
representation than their aggregate support levels
indicate. Were larger parties to endorse better
candidates and articulate more attractive
policies, their additional votes would translate
into more senators. In
Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory,
where Robson Rotation
within group columns applies, candidates without
half a quota of strong support rarely succeed. In
Eire and
Malta,
where casting a formal vote is straightforward and
no attempt is made to get party supporters to
follow a particular numbering, candidates with few
first preferences get excluded early in the
scrutiny. It is only where party boxes exist and
draconian formality requirements make below-the-line
voting almost an imposition that candidates with
few first preferences can hope to cobble together
a quota on above-the-line
transfers about whose possibility very few voters
are aware.
Nearly
16% of votes wasted in German election
While two
parties obtained more than
5% of the party list vote in respectively six
and seven of the sixteen
states in the German elections
held on 22 September 2013,
they just failed to do so
nationally, and therefore
did not qualify for the
apportionment of seats to
the Bundestag. The bickering Free
Democrats
(4.8%), who were in
coalition with Dr Angela
Merkel’s Christian
Democratic Union, but unable to deliver
tax-cutting promises, lost
two-thirds of their
previous record support
(14.6%), and their
unbroken Bundestag
presence since 1949. The
new eurosceptic
Alternative for Germany
(4.7%) had its lowest
support in some of the
larger western states, and
also just fell short of
the arbitrary 5% national
exclusionary threshold.
That meant a much higher
bonus for each of the four
parties or groups with
aggregate 84.3% support
that succeeded. With
some 41.5% of the determining party
list vote, the CDU (including its
separate Bavarian CSU partner)
obtained 311 of the 630 seats. The
Social Democrats won 30.5% of the
seats for their 25.7% support, while
the Greens finished with 10% for 8.4%
support and The Left, with support
concentrated in eastern regions (where
they vie for or achieve second place),
gained 10.7% arising from 8.6% of the
vote. Turnout was 71.5%. The
Chancellor, Dr Merkel, immediately set
about the negotiations that will be
necessary to form a new coalition
government. Had
the threshold been set instead at 4%, both
the Free Democrats and Alternative for
Germany would have emerged with more than
thirty party list seats surrendered by
those with an actual augmented incoming
Bundestag presence, and wasted votes,
beginning with the Pirate Party at 2.2%,
would have been limited to 6.2%. German
voters have both a constituency and party
list ballot of which respectively 1.6% and
1.3% were invalid. Parties winning more
constituency seats than their statewide
proportional entitlement using ordinary d’Hondt
divisors keep the extra “overhang” seats.
At the second attempt, following Federal
Constitutional Court rulings that such
overhang seats could not be nullified by
the workings of the separate national
process of party list allocation,
acceptable legislation was passed to
ensure that the benefit of statewide
overhang seats always remained. The latest
outcome is a salutary reminder of
the very unstable role that an
arbitrary exclusionary
threshold
tends to play in any scheme of seat
allocation.
Call for Nominations
for Elections of the four PRSA
Office-bearers for 2014-15
© 2013 Proportional
Representation Society of Australia National President: Bogey Musidlak 14 Strzelecki Cr. NARRABUNDAH 2604 Editor, Quota Notes: Geoffrey Goode 18 Anita St. BEAUMARIS 3193 Tel: (02) 6295 8137, (03) 9589 1802 Mobile 04291 76725 quota@prsa.org.au |
