Proportional Representation Society of Australia
		Tel +613 9589 1802			Tel +61429176725				info@prsa.org.au		www.prsa.org.au
											2020-05-21
Why Multiple First-Past-the-Post Systems that many groups use are defective
Example of the Votes Cast in the 1973 Election of the Australian Conservation Foundation Inc. Council: The 5 candidates with the most votes, in each of the 7 electoral districts below, shown in bold type and more heavily shaded, were elected. As each Australian Conservation Foundation voter had 5 votes, each vote being given effect by the voter marking a cross against a candidate's name, rather than the Single Transferable Vote that now applies, the same group of voters could elect all 5 candidates, if that group was the biggest single group of voters - even if the group was well short of being a majority of all the voters. Also, for a ballot to be valid, it was required that no fewer than 5 crosses could be marked (which is not a requirement under common law, but is an arbitrary, unjustifiable restriction that is often applied in order to favour the election of organized groups of candidates over individual independent candidates). That meant that those voters that found there were fewer than five candidates they wanted to see elected had to give an equal vote to a candidate or candidate that they did not favour (thus cancelling out the vote they gave to their preferred candidate or candidates), simply to meet the requirement to mark all 5 crosses. That aspect would not apply where plumping is allowed. Click here to see the fatal flaws of plurality, or first-past-the-post electoral systems. In each of Victoria and the Territories, where there were most candidates, leading to more vote-splitting, a minority of votes elected all 5 candidates. THE MAJORITY OF VOTES ELECTED NOBODY. Without the mechanism to show preferences for transfer and have them implemented, as the Single Transferable Vote PR system (PR-STV) now does, many votes were wasted, as shown below. With PR since 1974, some 80% of voters at elections for the Council of the Australian Conservation Foundation typically find that their vote has contributed to electing a councillor ahead of other candidates they preferred less. The Australian Senate used ACF's pre-1974 electoral system up till 1917, but it had no PR-STV until 1949, owing to an interim majority-preferential system being used. Here, a minority of voters did not manage to control the whole ACF Council, but many organizations use that flawed system to elect their entire governing committee from a single electoral district, where a result below like that for Victoria, or the Territories, can occur.
TOTALS	VICTORIA		NEW SOUTH WALES		QUEENSLAND			SOUTH AUSTRALIA		WESTERN AUSTRALIA		TASMANIA			TERRITORIES
Elected	Dorward DF	514	Dunphy MK	301	Webb L	213		Bonython CW	207	Chittleborough G	141	Lake PS		69	Rudman P	92
Elected	Turner JS	508	Recher HF	273	Harrold A	197		Andrewartha HG	200	Serventy DL	120	Jones R		55	Edwards A	89
Elected	Butcher AD	443	Talbot FH	270	Mather P	157		Inglis WG	195	Ride WDL	89	King CF		47	Schodde R	88
Elected	Bayly IAE	425	Clark P	243	Stocker P	138		Caldicott RC	187	Rundle GL	85	Parr G		37	Hill JH	82
Elected	Campbell IC	422	Dorman HC	242	Roe J	119		Coulter JR	158	Jenkins CFH	83	McRae M		36	Walsh WP	81
Not elected	Downes RG	416	Middleton	229	O’Grady	117		Ball	156	Bannister	71	Anderson		35	Harris	76
Not elected	Goode GWG	409	Turner	153	Hegerl E	115		Butler	124	Blackwell	71	Guiler		34	Christian	75
Not elected	Davis W	398	Slade	138	Sinclair J	108		Giles	104	Hutchison	66	Steane		33	Shaw	71
Not elected	Austin CN	369	Magowan	113	Dixon	93		Swaby	93	Erickson	54	Lane		33	Hare	67
Not elected	Desailley RO	345			Kesteven	88				Hamersley	49	Sims		31	Shorthouse	67
Not elected	Champion R	285								Butcher	47	Wyett		12	Vandermark	62
Not elected	Cullinane WJT	165								De Rebeira	31				Beaton	44
Not elected	Briggs WRS	164													Carstairs	43
Not elected	Larkins FP	153													Sinclair	35
Not elected															O'Brien	33
Not elected															Brown	24
Not elected															Lawford	10
Not elected															Davey	2
	VICTORIA		NEW SOUTH WALES		QUEENSLAND			SOUTH AUSTRALIA	WESTERN AUSTRALIA		TASMANIA		TERRITORIES
INFORMAL  BALLOT- PAPERS	1		0		0			1	0		1		1
Votes  electing a candidate	2312		1329		824			947	518		244		432
Votes not electing any candidate (WASTED)	2704		633		521			477	389		178		609
Total formal votes	5016		1962		1345			1424	907		422		1041
Total ballot-papers	1005		393		269			286	182		85		209
% vote  electing a candidate	46.1%		68.1%		61.1%			67.1%	57.1%		58.1%		41.1%
% vote not electing any candidate (WASTED)	54.1%		32.1%		39.1%			33.1%	43.1%		42.1%		59.1%
TOTAL VOTE FOR ELECTED CANDIDATES		TOTAL VOTE THAT ELECTED NOBODY (Wasted)			TOTAL VOTES		TOTAL NO. OF BALLOT-PAPERS		% OF TOTAL VOTE THAT ELECTED CANDIDATES		% OF TOTAL VOTE THAT ELECTED NOBODY (Wasted)
6,606		5,511			12,117		2,424		55.1%		45.1%
REMEDY: This was the last ACF Council election using the first-past-the-post multiple vote, a form of which applies under common law if no sounder system is prescribed, before the ACF Constitution was changed to specify the use of Single Transferable Vote proportional representation (PR-STV or quota-preferential PR). That PR-STV system is used when elections are held for the Tasmanian and ACT Lower Houses, the Senate, all mainland Upper Houses, and municipal elections in NSW, SA, Tasmania, and most municipalities in Victoria. That change was the result of a motion to alter the ACF Constitution being carried by a secret postal ballot of its members, which required that at least 60% of members supported that change. The ACF abandoned secret postal ballots for changes to its Constitution in 2006, so now PR for ACF Council polls can be abolished by a motion carried by a 75% majority at a General Meeting, with proxy voting available. To see the results of the ACF elections in 2003, using the quota-preferential form of PR, click here. Click here to go to A Brief History of the PRSA and its Purpose