Despite my dismay at both of the major political parties, I went to Copenhagen on Friday to cast my vote in the 2010 Australian Federal Election. I still believe there is a difference between them, and indicated my anger by preferencing the less objectionable of the minor parties first.
I thought Jay Rosen provided a good analysis of the media’s role both in the election and more generally on ABC’s Lateline.
I have also been thinking how the political system could be improved to be more representative of the entire population. Like many, I have been frustrated with the issues that have become the focus of this election, and hate seeing politicians so blatantly targeting marginal seats in both policies and funding. I came up with two possibilities:
- Remove compulsory voting; or
- Move to proportional representation in the lower house.
Removing compulsory voting would mean that candidates need to give voters across the nation a reason to come and vote. But I like the idea of compulsory voting – it encourages people to engage in politics and voice their opinion, so I will discount this option here.
Proportional voting would mean all voters directly elect the leader. This is in contrast to the current system of electing a local representative, and the party or coalition with the greatest number of representatives leads the nation.
It seems most people think we already have proportional representation. In all of the media I have seen people talk about voting for Julia or Tony. But if I were a resident of Wentworth I would be torn – I think Malcolm Turnbull is a valuable member of both the parliament and the Liberal party, but I am not prepared to see Tony Abbott as PM. If we used the same voting system as for the senate I could preference Malcolm much higher than his party leader.
One of the big fears is with proportional representation will lead to a hung parliament. I do not see this as a problem. It is rare that Australians give one party control of both houses of parliament, and when we do a change of government is imminent. So in effect we almost always have a hung parliament and seem to survive. Ultimately parliament should represent the people – and if a proportional representation system allows peoples opinions to be more accurately reflected this must be a good thing for democracy.
The potential bigger problem is that this would remove local representation from parliament – to whom do you petition your cause? Again I do not see this as a major problem. There should still be representatives interested in your vote and your cause.
The great problem with proportional representation is that it would erode the power of both of the major parties. Thus it will not happen.
We already have proportional voting, its called the Senate. Do you want family first and the shooters party to be a major presence in the lower and upper house? I think in many ways, introducing proportional voting would make the lower house less representative as marginal groups would be able to hijack the agenda more readily as the larger parties try and build a coalition. Currently the two majors parties (for better or worse) are forced to compete around policies that appeal to the median voter.
You should read ‘Myth of the Rational Voter’ by Bryan Caplan if you haven’t already too.
I have that book on my list of things to read, but at the moment I think it will take a while.
In Sweden a party needs to get at least 4% of the votes to get into the parliament, then from what I understand the seats are distributed amongst those parties proportionally. Applying the 2007 senate results to the 150 seat House of Representatives would have given 68 seats to Labor, 67 seats to the Liberals/Nationals, and 15 seats to the Greens. No other party came close to the 4% margin required for entry.
Australia uses this 4% rule for funding – that is to get the 2.31 AUD per primary vote, you need to poll at least 4% of the electorate.
But I agree both of the major parties are fairly moderate, and that many (if not most) of the parties on the senate sheet fall into the wacko category.
Yes, I also find it ironic now that I’m voting in the seat of Wentworth that I will not be voting Turnbull as a result of Abbott being the leader of the Liberal Party.
However, I’m not convinced that I want proportional voting for both houses of parliament. I guess the advantages of the current system is that it put some of the local issues that the Federal Government influences and/or responsible for onto the political agenda (yes, unfortunate that it does gets more attention if it’s in a marginal seat) and it also allows for Independent MPs to be voted into parliament – it would be much more difficult for an Independent candidate to get a seat under a proportional voting system in the House of Reps.
My problem with the current system is that ‘local’ issues only get represented if you live in a marginal seat – hence all the hoopla over 800 people in boats at the cost of so many other important issues. I would prefer a system that more accurately reflected the nation.
I will admit that it would make getting independent candidates into parliament much harder … but should also admit that I don’t see this as a problem. I think of the way Brian Harridine held the government hostage over such ridiculous issues. Today I was listening to Bob Katter talk about the issues he would want to take up in a minority government and they too were scary.
One of the other advantages I saw with proportional representation is that it would would encourage the minor parties to take a more realistic and feasible approach to government – raising the level of political discussion.
Yeah but remember that Bob Katter is not *really* an independent and was actually voted in as a National Party MP until he quit the party but continue to hold the seat. I see a role of true independent MPs in parliament (at both Federal, State and Local level) – people who do not believe in or align themselve to a political party but feel passionate about making a difference should be given a fair opportunity to put their hands up and elected into parliament.
I agree that a review of the system would be a good idea… and should involve both houses of parliament as there’s no point having both House of Reps and Senate being elected based on proportional voting.
I also like some of what Natasha Stott Despoja (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-blank-ballot-not-the-answer-to-a-lacklustre-campaign-20100816-126ys.html)… “we should be doing more to encourage young, educated Australians into politics – and we most certainly should be encouraging people with ideals and vision, people with the courage of their convictions.”
So how did you vote?
I ranked the first 10 or so people individually – the group of people I think would be best. I generally ranked “liberal” parties (think gay marriage) higher and conservative/crazy/extreme parties lower (I made some exception for individuals within parties who I deemed unfit for government). I also put most independents down low as past experience has shown me that silly changes to legislation get made if the balance of power is held by someone like Brian Harradine. I also worry that people like Steve Fielding can sneak into the senate without us really knowing what they stand for until it is too late (and I am not going to research the individuals in as much detail as the parties).