|
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. * * * * * |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
