|
QUOTA Newsletter
of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia QN2005B June 2005 www.prsa.org.au British Columbia Referendum: Over 57% Vote for ‘BC-STV’ - One 60% Hurdle Met The
voters of The Liberal Government of the province had initiated the process that led to the referendum in response to widespread criticism of and disaffection with the existing electoral system. The New Democratic Party had remained in majority government at the 1996 election after obtaining 39.5% support compared with 41.8% for the Liberals, but was virtually wiped out at the 2001 election, the Liberal Party winning 77 of the 79 electoral districts, after gaining 57.6% of the vote. The
wording of the referendum proposal, and the type of PR system it proposed,
which was termed BC-STV ( Some Australians - among them our longest-serving Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies - have remarked on the difficulty of altering Australia’s Constitution, where a proposed alteration must be approved by both a simple majority (just over 50%) of voters overall, and a simple majority of voters in a simple majority of States to succeed. That double majority is child’s play compared with the difficulty of gaining a 60% double majority! The table that follows summarizes the percentage of votes at the 2005 referendum in favour of the single-member system being replaced by the BC-STV system, and the percentages of votes for the three largest parties at the concurrent 2005 elections and the previous 2001 elections.
A
most impressive feature of the referendum result was the extent to which the
other demanding proviso for the referendum to become binding was exceeded. A majority
was required in at least 47 of The table overleaf details the referendum and the 2005 election results in each electoral district. It shows that, of the 16 districts where the YES vote exceeded 60% and is shown in bold type, the Liberal Government won 7. The remaining 9 were won by the New Democratic Party. Support levels between 57% and 60% were achieved in a further 23 districts. The two electoral districts where the NO vote won a slim majority appear with a bold border. In 61 of the 79 electoral districts (77%) the representative elected obtained less support (see the asterisks in the table below) than the YES referendum option in that district. The Liberal Government had made clear the legal reality that if re-elected it would not be prevented from introducing BC-STV if the result of the referendum fell slightly short of one or other of the two special majority percentages of 60% that it had imposed.
As the overall YES vote was so close to the 60% special majority, its supporters called on the Premier, Mr Gordon Campbell - the first Assembly leader to win consecutive terms in two decades - to proceed with electoral reform. Australian
electoral commentator, Malcolm Mackerras, visiting The Speech from the Throne when the new Parliament is opened in September 2005 will outline the Government’s legislative program. On election night, the Premier saw the strong positive early vote as showing "a real hunger to move and to look at ways of improving our system of electing our legislature.” Thanking Contributors to the PRSA’s Donation to the BC-STV Campaign The Proportional Representation Society of Australia appealed in QN2004D for contributions to let the PRSA assemble a worthwhile donation to the “Yes Campaign Committee” leading the campaign for a strong YES vote in Canada’s referendum in British Columbia on whether Hare-Clark type proportional representation would replace the existing single-member electorate system. It is pleasing to report to members that the PRSA was able to make a donation of $A1,420 ($C1,344.60 on conversion before transfer) to the Yes Campaign Committee. That donation was gratefully received, not only for the practical financial assistance it represented, but also for the feeling of international recognition and support that it denoted. The PRSA’s Victoria-Tasmania Branch contributed $500, the NSW Branch gave $150, and the balance was made up of contributions by the ACT Branch, the National Society, and individual members of PRSA Branches, including the Hon. Neil Robson, a former Tasmanian Minister administering that State’s Electoral Act. Call for Nominations for Elections of PRSA Office-bearers for 2006-07 The Returning Officer is Mr Jim Randall, Secretary of the PRSA's NSW Branch. Under the PRSA Constitution the Returning Officer rotates among the Branch Secretaries. The order, by precedent, is Victoria-Tasmania, NSW, SA, WA, Queensland and the ACT. Nominations, for President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer, need be signed by the candidate only, as consent to nomination, and must be with Mr Randall at GPO Box 3058 SYDNEY 2001 by 14th November 2005. Victorian Redivision for Upper House PR The Electoral Boundaries Commission of Victoria has begun its process of inviting written submissions from the public on proposed names for and boundaries of the eight electoral regions for the November 2006 elections for the Legislative Council (See QN2004D). The PRSA’s Victoria-Tasmania Branch made a written submission in April 2005, which was displayed on the Victorian Electoral Commission Web site. The PRSAV-T submission recommended using broad geographical names for the eight regions, which were each formed by grouping 11 contiguous Assembly districts as compactly as possible. The Branch noted advantages of a more radial model, but concluded that a compact model would be more practical, and be much better received. The Branch’s suggested names for the regions it proposed were Eastern Victoria, Western Victoria, Port Phillip East, Port Phillip West, Northern Central, Eastern Central, Southern Central and Eastern Ranges. The enrolment in each of those eight suggested regions differed from the mean enrolment by less that 2 per cent. One proposed region, Western Victoria, included no Assembly districts from either the Melbourne metropolitan area or Geelong. The eleven Assembly districts that constituted the PRSAV-T’s suggested Eastern Victoria region included 9 that were not part of Melbourne or Geelong. The sheer size of the population of Melbourne and Geelong relative to the rest of Victoria ensured that the 6 other suggested regions consisted entirely of Assembly districts from Melbourne and Geelong. UK House of Commons Polls: May 2005 Britain’s Labour Government retained a comfortable House of Commons majority (55.1% including the Independent Speaker) after its share of the UK vote fell from 40.7% in 2001 (see QN2001C), to 35.2% in 2005. Coupled with the relatively low turnout of 61.3%, this was the lowest level of expressed support for a government since the 1832 Reform Act, and prompted The Independent newspaper to begin a “Campaign for Democracy” spearheaded by a petition for proportional representation. The table below (UK Electoral Commission data) shows the Opposition Conservative Party won 32.3% of the national vote, but won a slightly lower percentage of the seats. Other parties and candidates together, with their historically high percentage of the votes, slightly outdid the Conservatives, but won just 14.2% of the seats. Over 50% of all votes were for defeated candidates, and those votes were thus totally wasted. In England, the Conservatives received slightly more votes than Labour, but won only 194 seats compared with Labour’s 286. The Liberal Democrats’ rise to 47 again left them with well under half the proportion suggested by their level of support. As in 2001, Labor dominated Scottish and Welsh seats, its support of around 40% in each case translating into some 70% of the seats: the Conservatives again won only one Scottish seat, but they broke through to take 3 in Wales.
The Blair Government’s election manifesto echoed its electoral reform words of 2001, “A referendum remains the right way to agree any change for Westminster.” The Department for Constitutional Affairs was quietly told to review and report on electoral changes for the Scottish, Welsh and London Assemblies and the European Parliament to a Cabinet Sub-Committee. Questions in the new Parliament yielded little about intended public input or open processes in the review promised in 2001. The Prime Minister insisted the review would not be a pointless exercise, but gave no assurance “that it will result in a referendum on proportional representation”. Sceptics may well see all this as embroidery on Labour’s reneging on the promise of a referendum on a fairer electoral system it made before it won office in 1997. Submissions to Municipal Reviews The PRSA’s Victoria-Tasmania Branch has made written Preliminary Submissions to the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) for all but one of the 38 Representation Reviews of municipal electoral systems that it has conducted since March 2004. The PRSAV-T made a written Response Submission to the VEC’s Preliminary Report for twenty of those. The patchwork electoral arrangements now underway in Victorian local government were explained in QN2004B. The Local Government Minister has so far accepted all the VEC’s Final Recommendations, which has resulted in 20 of the municipal electoral systems now having one or more multi-member electoral districts with an odd number of councillors per district, and having within each of those municipalities an equal number of councillors per district. At the other extreme, there are only six municipalities where a purely single-member electorate arrangement was recommended and approved. The remaining municipalities have a variety of arrangements that include some wards with PR, and some not, and sometimes the wards were unfortunately established with an even number of councillors per ward. Northern
Territory Polls: Electoral System Severely Distorts Voters’ Representation After the close outcome of 2001 (see QN2001C) and a redistribution whose boundary changes were minor, the elections in June 2005 for the 25 seats in the Northern Territory’s Legislative Assembly returned to the pattern of leaving an artificially attenuated Opposition. On this occasion, support for the Martin Labor Government increased by over 11 percentage points to 51.9% while that for the Country Liberal Party, led again by Denis Burke after a period with Terry Mills at the helm, fell from 45.4% to 35.7%. In the greater Darwin and Palmerston area that the CLP had dominated until their first-ever electoral loss, only Mr Mills retained his seat. Mr Burke was unseated despite having obtained over 60% of first preferences in 2001. The CLP won only three other seats, one in Katherine and two in the Alice Springs region. Two Independents were the only other non-Labor candidates elected. Quota-preferential counting in five five-member electorates would have given Labor a comfortable majority as set out in the table below. CLP support in two of these electorates was so low that its second seat would have been in jeopardy. Eight electorates had just ALP and CLP candidates, while nine others had just a third, often from the Greens.
All governments, and those they govern, benefit from the scrutiny and development of alternative proposals that an Opposition party provides, and they are weakened when the Opposition strength is not adequate for that task. This effect is particularly conspicuous in a very small body politic with a full spectrum of responsibilities such as the Northern Territory. The inadequacy of winner-take-all arrangements was demonstrated starkly on 18th June 2005. ©
2005 Proportional Representation Society of Australia National President: Bogey Musidlak 14 Strzelecki Cr. NARRABUNDAH 2604 National Secretary: Dr Stephen Morey 4 Sims Street SANDRINGHAM 3191 Tel: (02) 6295 8137, (03) 9598 1122 ggd@netspace.net.au Printed by Prestige Copying & Printing, 97 Pirie Street ADELAIDE SA 5000 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTES