While no system will ever be perfect, I agree that one which systematically works against a particular party is unfair and should be changed.

One of my concerns, however, is that the "two party preferred” count is actually nothing of the sort. Usually it doesn’t reveal the voter’s preference, but the preference of the voter’s first- choice party, often allocated to other parties according to arcane inter-party deals that do not accord with the likely preferences of voters.

Most voters vote their preferred party’s ticket, especially in the Senate, unless they’re political tragics dutifully ranking each of the senate candidates from 1 to 99ish (I confess I’m one, but we’re rare beasts).

Of course, this suits the major parties, as they do deals with minor parties to ensure their biggest rivals are ranked last, without regard to the merits of the beneficiaries. And it suits the minors, who would often not get seats on their own merits. But it duds the voters. This is how unrepresentative clowns like Family First wind up in the Senate.

So if preferences are to be given greater weight we need to ensure that votes actually reflect voters’ preference. At the very least this should entail making it clear that voters do not have to either support the party ticket or rank each and every candidate. We should be able to choose to rank only (say) our top ten preferred senators, with the rest deemed equal last, rather than having to fill in every box if voting “below the line”.

More radical would be to forbid party preferences altogether, and make voters make up their own minds.

Further, the number of voters in each electorate varies quite a lot (from Solomon with ~91000 voters to Canberra with ~165000), so it's technically possible that if the TPP process was been applied at a national level across all votes, the result could be, say, 53-47, but when done on a seat-by-seat level, 50-50.
Indeed, 10 of the top 11 most populous seats are held by Labor, and the one that isn't (Leichhardt) may well swing that way this election. OTOH, the Coalition hold 12 of the 15 least populous seats. On that basis, the ALP has to win far more than 53% of the national TPP vote to get it on a seat-by-seat basis.

I am not equipped to go all cerebral about political machinations but I would like to offer to readers an example of what I will go through on the 24th.
I will turn up at my local primary school and be faced with turnips handing out How To Vote cards. I will accept them politely and proceed into the hall and have my name marked off. Now, having avoided the fine for not voting, I will take my ream of paper and place selected ticks in selected boxes.
But my vote is not worth a pinch of poop unless I vote for Mr Katter because he is a given in Kennedy.
What if I didn't vote for him? My vote for the XYZ party has already been traded for a fistful of IOU's months ago and will go somewhere else other than the XYZ. So, why for the love of God, have I given my time to all this?

IS....IT....POSSIBLE ?

Could we ever have a government which was comprised of men and woman who actually stand for the best interests of the nation, rather than just the

1/ 'economic rationalists/business interests' (THE BOSSES)

2/ 'Working classes, Unions, blue collar interests' (THE WORKERS)

How wonderful it would be, if we had a system where policy was not tailored just to win marginal seats... and thus keep power.

It seems to me, that our political realities are adequate testimony to our fundamental greed and self centredness.

UNTIL... people (and that means us) replace 'me me me' as the one for whom they seek the benefit of political conflict and power, we will have the same old same old.. and a pendulum.

This is the part where the 'I hate godbotherers' mob may tune out or change the channel, because the only place my mind and heart can turn when faced with the ugliness of the human condition, is to do as John the Baptist did ..point to Jesus "Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world"

When Nichodemus came and praised Jesus, he received the "sledgehammer" treatment "Unless a man is born again, he will not see the kingdom of God"

Perhaps we need to be reborn as a nation.. embracing more enduring values, tried and tested ? Ok.. sure, we can do that, but there is something better.. Embrace the One who gave us those values.

Our electoral system is out of date, and needs to conform to a voting system that is clear to the voter.

Oh enkew, the joys of living in a safe seat. We don't even get the street theatre entertainment of campaigners dancing at the shopping mall, no junk mail, no door-knocking, no baby-kissing, no pork-barelling, not even TV ads. No Morgan, AC Neilson etc either. Feel quite deprived. I know folks in Bennelong in Sydney. All have been polled at least twice and one has been polled 9 times this year. I never been polled *sniff*

Its so quiet around here wouldn't know an election was on. I have often forgotten it was voting day. Look at the bright side, in the safe seats we tend to get along well with our neighbours? And none of those ugly posters in the front yards. I'm also happy with the team that holds my seat happy to vote for them, but they don't need it. I'd like to post it elsewhere where it might be counted.

I dont like the way local issues or States tend to vote locally for federal elections. Population is obviously unbalanced across the country but in many elections WA is all but irrelevant to the outcome, and Tasmania is over-represented. I'm tired of Tassie's problems becoming national issues every election. From my point-of-view the mill and hospital should be sorted at State govt level. The C'wlth had no right to step in and override a State govt managing its own affairs. Its not a federal issue and it wouldn't have been, if those seats weren't so important for federal govts to win.

By the same token, the C'wlth marching in with national military into the NT should be a federal issue of importance to all Australians. The fact that a national High Court challenge to our federal Constitution has been lodged should be headline news. But NT seats aren't important.

You can always try the Hare-Clarke voting system that Tasmania and ACT use. Its confusing and complex for voters, and a painful exercise in the counting, but all the experts tell me it's very representative and fair.

or you can try democracy: instead of voting for people or parties, you vote for laws and programs through referenda initiated by citizens. but you'll have to go farther than tasmania.

the important part of your post is your english. "needs to be re-thought" is very characteristic of ozzie political discussion. it's always in the passive voice because you can't actually do anything in politics, unless you're a politician. then you don't need to do anything, as you're already on top. that leads to a remarkable fatalism in the national character, a profound conviction that nothing can be done.

until the ozzians get off their collective knees, nothing will be done.

If this article is anything to go by, it looks as if the massive preponderance of intention to vote for the Labor Party revealed(?) by the opinion polls is foreseen as being negated in the actual outcome of the vote on election day! John Phillimore is dragging a red herring across the path to public understanding of such a result.

He is attempting to establish that we should at every level not be voting for persons, but rather political parties, and that the paradox of "Winning but losing...", should it 'inexplicably' happen, will have been due to our collective failure to 're-think' our electoral system along such lines.

How could such a lead (of around ten percentage points) come to be negated?

There are several answers. The first is that the opinion polls have not been accurate.

A second answer is that voters will have changed their minds after having been 'opinion polled'. This is a very satisfying answer, for it almost certainly would mean that this most rivetting of election campaigns has thoroughly engaged the voting public.

A third answer is that the opinion polls of genuine intending voters were broadly correct, but that some other factor, or factors, operated to cancel out this convincing lead by the time the official results were declared.

It seems that John Phillimore is foreshadowing the scenario of the third answer as being applicable. Conventional wisdom has it that the 'other factor' operating to produce a result at variance with the opinion polls is a 'targetting of the marginals'. Given that, it is strange that in this context no mention has been made of the paradoxical 1987 Federal election result, for which 'targetting of the marginals' was given the credit.

It is officially documented that an electoral enrolment accountancy discrepancy of 204,880 enrolments existed at the close of rolls for the 1987 Federal elections. Translated into votes, and appropriately distributed, that could have changed numerous marginals! Needless to say such votes, not being those of real electors, would have been unable to have been forecast by opinion polls.

Happening again?

Boazy: "Unless a man is born again, he will not see the kingdom of God"

Heard in the pub the other night: 'The trouble with born again Christians is that they all seem to acquire brain damage at birth'.

but do consider democracy, after you find out what it is.

Talk about swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat!

50 - 51- 52 percent who cares?

The whole idea of one vote for each person is ridiculous. Some, such as I, should get 2 or 3 votes in view of our understanding, altruism, and thoughtfulness :-)

The Whitlam government tried a referendum to enshrine one vote one value in the Constitution. Unfortunately, they tried to substitute their own gerrymander for the one they had suffered--instead of the geographical size of the electorate being used to determine (in part) the number of voters, they proposed that the total population be used. So the referendum was defeated.

The High Court refused to rule that an election with grossly unequal electorate sizes was unconstitutional. A new appeal that might produce a different outcome, now that the Court has decided that the principal purpose of the Constitution is to set up a parliamentary democracy (and not, as was held earlier, to provide free trade between the states.)

Some form of proportional representation might deal with the problem. There might, however, be more minority governments. And there would be more informal votes. Since Labor suffers disproportionately from informal votes, they will not be in a hurry to introduce complicated voting.

A point not really addressed is that statistically 49.9 to 50.1 or 49 to 51 is in general understanding a split decision. If it was an opinion canvassed the conclusion would be said to be 50:50. Yet our political system has a winner takes all (the power) even though half did not vote for the 'winning side'.

Instead of our combative political party system where 0.1% is the basis to erroneously claim a 100% mandate, it would be more enlightened if both sides worked co-operatively together, because only both parties combined represent the great majority of the electorate.

A good article,but a couple of quibbles.

The author says "too many minor parties" - says who? don't they represent the will of their supporters too?

More seriously, John raises the spectre of a bureaucracy redrawing electoral boundaries based on past voting patterns, a la SA, and a 'fairness test.' Could any suggestion be less democratic and more insulting?

Third quibble, John omits to mention that 'weighting' has more do do with geography than anything else.

Any public money for political advertising should be spent on prescribed outlets(electronic and print) only; as occurs on the ABC for instance; ie an equal share for all. Private Party funds should be forbidden from all broadcast media, and limited to on the ground, electorate based activities that engage, or at least appeal to voters.

One last quibble: it's 50%+1' not 50.1 %

Last Thursday 15 November I was regalled by all media outlets Kevin Rudd was on track to become PM. The polls predicted a Two Party Preferred vote 54 to 46 Labor.

Today 18 Nov the Sunday Telegraph tells me Kevin Rudd is to win 18 marginal seats by an average margin of 4.5%. All the media I've seen, watched or read today have assured me todays poll is a major blow to John Howard.

I nod my head laughing on two counts.

Firstly the article in the Telegraph tells me the situation in the 18 marginals hasn't changed since before the election was called. Stunning. So the media have known all along the race is so close it will boil down to a < 0.5% margin in a couple of marginal seats ... so long as John Howard doesn't win any seats in WA. What a joke.

Secondly a margin of 10% points reducing to 4.5% points in a few days would be greatly encouraging to John Howard. Not according to our media who have ernestly, to the point of desperation, claimed such a reduction in the margin in a couple of days is a major blow to John Howard. That has afforded me the biggest laugh.

Members of the media have consistantly lied about the true state of the parties in the polls over the last 12 months. They've selectively promoted the positive of the Labour 10 - 18 % margins and deliberately ignored the closeness in the marginals. They've been biased. Where do these fools in the media think their credibility stands or more correctly lies. Their deceiptfulness ensures it lies crumpled in the mud of their labor bias.

Howard by 7 is my prediction or 8 if he retains Bonner in Qld...as is likely.

I'd also suggest young Kevin's margin in Griffith will reduce dramatically. Kevin seems to have forgotton there are several thousand people in his electorate, belonging to a church of which he has been ultra critical. They don't normally vote but it has been claimed all have enrolled in Griffith for this election.

It seems to me that the flaws in the electoral system are more fundamental than how the votes are counted. Sure, malapportionment (both of seat size and the concentrations of supporters for each side) can create anomalus results. PR would make this less likely.

The problem is at candidature. We need a system that ensures that the candidature is broadly representative of the populace. We also need to ensure that what we are voting for are not packages of policies "the lunch & salad special" but a pick and mix.

One way of achieving this would be "sortition" -- a kind of jury duty system of selecting candidates. A couple of years before each election, a random selection of those who wanted to nominate would be made, and then these people would be given time to develop and explain their policy interests (pertinent training could be supplied). A dialog with the public would ensue, with time to subject each to public scrutiny. At the end, each could be rated in a number of areas of key policy and probity by their constituents, and these ratings could be reflected in their chances in a second lottery which would then draw out the final winners plus a couple of alternates.

At the time for the new parliament, a conference would be held where the overall direction of the country's policy could be set and approved, rejected or modified as a result of public feedback. It would then be their job of the parliamentarians to try to make these policies work.

What could be more democratic than that?

Bryn

keith, you must be loving the recent betting odds for the Coalition then - that have blown out to about 5.2:1 recently.
I trust you'll be putting your money where your mouth is.

Byrn, it may well be more democratic - but it would be a) a bureaucratic nightmare and worse, b) a farce, because in reality a very small percentage of people have the time or inclination to do the work necessary to determine the possible effects of various policies.

However one idea I've seen floated about that might have merit is the idea of the public voting on the budget - where you get to vote on how much should be allocated to various macro subdivisions(health, education, military spending etc. etc.). The voters need not have complete say in this, but there would be guidelines that meant that if, say, voters elected to double education spending, then education spending must be increased by at least half that amount. This site is U.S. based, but could be applied here:
http://www.zompist.com/restructure.html

The only way our political system can be improved is by referendum. The key point in the referendum would be to provide that all future referendums, including this referendum, would be regarded as being approved by the people if a majority voted "no".

The only problem is that I can't work out which way I would vote.

A return to optional preferential voting would surely reflect the will of the electorate better than the current compulsory preferential system. By allowing us to 'terminate' our vote after indicating number one, or to exclude candidates we dislike and still record a valid vote would be much more democratic. Of course, this would disadvantage the major parties, and reduce their bargaining power in setting up preference deals - which is why they banned it. Same thing with the Senate - above the line voting gives all the power to the major parties, and it is quite alarming to see how their preferences flow - but filling in all the boxes below the line is such a chore and one slip up invalidates the whole thing. The old system of filling in just 12 votes (I thing it was 12) was much better.

I've always thought 'How to Vote' cards should be prohibited - and was amazed last election to come across a friend who was under the impression that unless she followed a how to vote card, her vote would be invalid. I always get very strange looks when I refuse HTV cards and say I don't need to be told how to direct my vote!

Rain are you completely satisfied with what the member for your area delivers?I am fed up with the continual lies,poverty & crime in our area.We definately need a knew system our vote should stay with the party we vote for,preferential between parties should be thrown out.

Candide,

In the Senate a valid vote is to preference your favourite party and give every other party the same number. Below the line that is. Eg the four Liberal candidates 1 to 4 and everyone else 5. Tedious I know but then you don't have to allocate a valid preference for Labor, the Greens, Pauline or any other weirdos.

Oh it is counted as a valid vote in the Senate. It is not informal. But don't do the same in the House of Reps...where such an option is an informal vote.
Didn't know that? Well of course none of the parties want you to vote like that.

Wizo,

The betting agencies are holding roughly just as much on a labor win as they are on a coalition win. I'm a modest gambler and have reached my limit already. Yes of course a win to Howard.

"Wizofaus", you say:

"Bryn, it may well be more democratic - but it would be a) a bureaucratic nightmare and worse, b) a farce, because in reality a very small percentage of people have the time or inclination to do the work necessary to determine the possible effects of various policies."

I disagree. I think if people really thought there was a chance that they could make a difference, we'd get a far greater pool of people taking their civic duty seriously. Indeed, the mere fact that large numbers of people who didn't make it would be getting specific training would over time, increase the pool. I also don't see why it should be all that bureaucratic. Once they got into parliament, surely the structures would be much as they are now. Another advantage of this system is that you wouldn't get institutional corruption and you'd just about eliminate politcal parties from the system, except as organisations for the promotion of policy ideas (rather than the promotion of careerist hacks pushing small target ideas and smearing their opponents. And because getting itno office wouldn't cost a bomb, you caould pay everyone a wage that was more like everyone else's.

Bryn

John,

When you refer to voting is compulsory you just showed you really haven’t got a clue what is constitutionally applicable.
.
On 19 July 2006 I succeeded in the County Court of Victoria against the illegal federal elections held in 2001 and 2004. I proved that regardless of Section 2456 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act purporting voting is compulsory constitutionally it is not. The Court upheld my position!
.
I am BOYCOTTING the purported federal election again!
.
See my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH sets out in detail the issues about elections.
.
All writs are “defective” and so ULTRA VIRES;
ASSOCIATED DOMINIONS ASSURANCE SOCIETY PTY. LTD. v. BALMFORD (1950) 81 CLR 161
The authority state:
The notice actually served did not "specify" such a period: it "specified" a period which was too short by one day, and the Acts Interpretation Act does not affect this position.
Here the Court held that the period of 14 days for the notice had been one day short and the notice therefore was invalid!
1st day 2 November 2007 Friday (declaration of candidates)
2nd day 3 November 2007 Saturday – (start counting for polling)
3rd day 4 November 2007 Sunday –
4th day 5 November 2007 Monday

21st day 22 November 2007 Thursday
22nd day 23 November 2007 Friday
23rd day 24 November 2007 Saturday
24th day 25 November 2007 Sunday (not being a Saturday polling to be held following Saturday)
25th day 26 November 2007 Monday
26th day 27 November 2007 Tuesday
27th day 28 November 2007 Wednesday
28th day 29 November 2007 Thursday
29th day 30 November 2007 Friday
30th day 1 December 2007 Saturday (only possible polling day
.
Again, I succeeded in Court on 19 July 2006 in two cases on this type of calculation!

John,

Who succeeds in Government isn’t based on who get most of the overall votes of electors but rather who can form between those who take up a seat a majority to form a Government. Even then the Governor-General is not bound to appoint members to the federal executive from the parties that have the majority in the House of Representatives.
.
Take the purported 24 November 2007 federal election. The House of Representatives was dissolved on 17 October 2006, meaning that Section 64 allows Ministers only to hold office from thereon for maximum 3 months. As such, if the first sitting of parliament is beyond that, as it is, then not a single Minister retains his office regardless if they held on to holding government.
Also the writs fail to show a “date” for the return of the writs, as the writs show no specific date but on or before!
.
Care should be taken that "shall not be less than 23 days…after the date of the nomination" means 23 clear days and so the 24th day is the first day (if on a Saturday) a poll can be held and failing this to be a Saturday then the next following Saturday is the polling date.
As I presented in my successful cases on 19 July 2006 in the County Court of Victoria, "shall not be less than" means (case law) that not until the number of days have been fully completed can action be taken.
.
In Foster v Jododex Australia Pty Ltd (1972) 127 CLR 421 at 445, Gibbs J referred to the general rule that "not less than" so many days refers to clear days – "unless the context or the statutory intention reveals a contrary intention".
.
What we need is an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations, so finally we can hold real valid elections!
.
Somehow all the lawyers fail to be aware that the writs and proclamation were all "DEFECTIVE" and so "ULTRA VIRES"!

Being a Tasmanian, I should have thought the answer was obvious - go for the Hare-Clark system to cover the whole of Australia. The German or Aotearoa/NZ system is good too, but of course the major parties don't like it as they want majority control. That's why here in Tasmania in 1998 they reducted the seats in each electorate to five rather than seven to get rid of the Greens and save money but they failed on both counts.

Coalitions are the norm in any democracy and work perfectly well with the political will to negotiate.

John Phillimore's article is timely and to the point. I agree with his concerns. These are very serious matters. The question really is what are we doing about it? As I have argued on a number of occasions proportional representation is the answer, which is exactly what the major parties are NOT interested in. In NZ it came about more or less as a "comedy of errors" in spite of major parties having serious problems with it as well. The NZ system is certainly proportional but it is also a compromise between single-member district systems and the proportional system as practiced in the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. In the latter countries party list are presented to voters in an entirely transparent way and with ONE mark voters can indicate which party they prefer and who on that party list. There is no horse trading behind the scenes there, as is the case with our Senate elections, the vote is extremely simple and effective, there are not two classes of politicians (those elected by the old system and the others the result of top-up), and the counting is much easier than with our Senate (an immense task). There is no pork barreling associated with PR, one of the most negative aspects of single-district systems. It is far more democratic, creates diversity in the parliament and changes the adversarial culture of sterile two-party adversarialism that results from single-member systems.
You will have to vote for Senate candidates that advocate proportional representation to achieve this kind of change and jointly they need to be in a balance of power situation to achieve acceptance of this kind of change. There is no other way. Greens, Democrats and my own group listed under P (Beyond Federation, NSW) are committed to PR. On Saturday voters have a real opportunity to express their preference for a different electoral system. When you come to think it not voting for major party Senate candidate at all
would very likely guarantee a change in our electoral system.

Klaas Woldring,
Ph. 4341 5170
woldring@zipworld.com.au

Klaas' post has prompted me to re-read the article.

Could I suggest it is time to think much more carefully about the electoral system we presently have (focussing particularly upon the legal/historical, mechanical, and forensic accountancy aspects of it), rather than proposing changes that may well be based upon unsound assumptions?

In saying this, I am not necessarily claiming that the system we presently have cannot be improved, but that by rushing to change it we witlessly trample residual evidence in what could be considered a long term crime scene.

A common feature of many commentators upon the electoral scene is a reflexive preclusion of sophisticated electoral fraud as a significant factor in the distortion of results, before proceeding to sing the praises of a favoured alternative system in an electoral environment presumed free of fraud or the motivation thereto.

Lest it be thought that in my post earlier, the eighth in this thread, I have been unwittingly self-contradictory in making reference to the paradoxical outcome of the 1987 Federal elections, let me make things quite clear. In 1987, 'targeting of the marginals' was given credit as the reason for the paradoxical re-election of the Hawke Labor government. In 2007 erudite commentators like John Warhurst and John Phillimore seem to be foreshadowing a possible survival of the (presently Howard) Coalition government at the 2007 Federal elections for exactly the same reason, a seemingly successful 'targetting of the marginals'.

If such targetting of the marginals comes to be credited to having been effected, not by the weapon of the pork barrel, but by the operation of sophisticated electoral fraud, then an inference would exist that any such electoral tampering or manipulation was ultimately orchestrated from OUTSIDE either major political grouping. That being said, it would then have to be accepted that significant numbers of successful candidates in BOTH major parties were seen as being potentially, or even dependably, useful to the unidentified orchestrators of such long-continuing fraud in the shaping of public policy.

Is this a dangerous idea, or merely an idea whose time has come?