PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA
	Tel  +613 9589 1802	Tel  +61429176725	18 Anita Street	BEAUMARIS VIC 3193
	Fax +613 9589 1680	ggd@netspace.net.au	www.prsa .org.au	8th March 2006

WHY THE MULTIPLE FIRST-PAST-THE-POST SYSTEM THAT MANY GROUPS STILL USE IS DEFECTIVE
Example of the Votes Cast in the 1973 Election of the Council of the Australian Conservation Foundation Inc: 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) with the result that those voters that found there were fewer than five candidates that 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. Click here to see the fatal flaws of plurality, or first-past-the-post electoral systems. In Victoria, and in the Territories, 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 quota-preferential PR system now does, many votes were wasted, as is shown below. With PR in force since 1973, some 80% of ACF voters 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 until 1949, owing to an interim majority-preferential system being used.
TOTALS	VICTORIA		NEW SOUTH WALES		QUEENSLAND		SOUTH AUSTRALIA		WESTERN AUSTRALIA		TASMANIA		TERRITORIES
	Dorward DF	514	Dunphy MK	301	Webb L	213	Bonython CW	207	Chittleborough G	141	Lake PS	69	Rudman P	92
	Turner JS	508	Recher HF	273	Harrold A	197	Andrewartha HG	200	Serventy DL	120	Jones R	55	Edwards A	89
	Butcher AD	443	Talbot FH	270	Mather P	157	Inglis WG	195	Ride WDL	89	King CF	47	Schodde R	88
	Bayly IAE	425	Clark P	243	Stocker P	138	Caldicott RC	187	Rundle GL	85	Parr G	37	Hill JH	82
	Campbell IC	422	Dorman HC	242	Roe J	119	Coulter JR	158	Jenkins CFH	83	McRae M	36	Walsh WP	81
	Downes RG	416	Middleton	229	O'Grady	117	Ball	156	Bannister	71	Anderson	35	Harris	76
	Goode GWG	409	Turner	153	Hegerl E	115	Butler	124	Blackwell	71	Guiler	34	Christian	75
	Davis W	398	Slade	138	Sinclair J	108	Giles	104	Hutchison	66	Steane	33	Shaw	71
	Austin CN	369	Magowan	113	Dixon	93	Swaby	93	Erickson	54	Lane	33	Hare	67
	Desailley RO	345			Kesteven	88			Hamersley	49	Sims	31	Shorthouse	67
	Champion R	285							Butcher	47	Wyett	12	Vandermark	62
	Cullinane WJT	165							De Rebeira	31			Beaton	44
	Briggs WRS	164											Carstairs	43
	Larkins FP	153											Sinclair	35
													O'Brien	33
													Brown	24
													Lawford	10
													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, which applies under common law if no sounder system is prescribed, before the ACF Constitution was changed to specify the use of Quota-preferential Proportional Representation (PR). That PR system  is also called the Single Transferable Vote, and 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 some in Victoria. That change was the result of a motion to alter the Constitution being carried by a secret postal ballot of members, which required that at least 60% of members supported that change. Unfortunately 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