DOCSLIB.ORG

JSCEM Submission K Bonham

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JSCEM Submission K Bonham Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters: Inquiry into and report on all aspects of the conduct of the 2013 Federal Election and matters related thereto. by Dr Kevin Bonham, submitted 10 April 2014 Summary This submission concerns the system for voting in Senate elections. Following the 2013 Australian federal elections, the existing Senate system of group ticket voting is argued to be broken on account of the following problems: * Candidates being elected through methods other than genuine voter intention from very low primary votes. * Election outcomes depending on irrelevant events involving uncompetitive parties early in preference distributions. * The frequent appearance of perverse outcomes in which a party would have been more successful had it at some stage had fewer votes. * Oversized ballot papers, contributing to confusion between similarly-named parties. * Absurd preference deals and strategies, resulting in parties assigning their preferences to parties their supporters would be expected to oppose. * The greatly increased risk of close results that are then more prone to being voided as a result of mistakes by electoral authorities. This submission recommends reform of the Senate system. The main proposed reform recommended is the replacement of Group Ticket Voting with a system in which a voter can choose to: * vote above the line for one or more parties, with preferences distributed to those parties and no other; or * vote below the line with preferences to at least a prescribed minimum number of candidates and as many others as they wish to This submission does not support the following solutions: * the imposition of primary-vote threshholds for a candidate to be capable of election * the use of Hare-Clark with Robson Rotation for Senate elections * the use of a divisor-based system * the quarantining of party names such as “Liberal” or “Labor” to prevent parties with similar words in their names from running * the raising of deposits Background about this submission This submission is written to supply views and evidence in written form in advance of a hearing in Hobart at which I have been invited to appear. It mainly derives from an article entitled “Senate Reform: Change This System, But To What?” which appeared on my website on 19 October 2013 at the following URL: http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/senate-reform-change-this- system-but-to.html This submission is largely concerned with Senate reform, which I see as the most important topic arising out of the 2013 election, but I am happy to discuss other matters relating to the elections that may be of interest. Author background I am a Tasmanian political analyst with 26 years' experience as a scrutineer and analyst of preference distributions including Senate counts and other multi-member systems (especially Hare- Clark). I am also the author of a blog-form psephology, poll analysis and political comment website located at http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/ and was widely interviewed in the local and national presses in the leadup to recent elections including the 2013 Australian federal election and various state elections. I am also the former house psephologist for the website www.tasmaniantimes.com , which I left to start my own site in October 2012. My professional background is primarily in an area of science unrelated to politics and elections, but my tertiary qualifications include a major in Political Science. I am now also sometimes commissioned for work relating to electoral and polling analysis. I am writing this submission in a private capacity and am not a member of, associated with or strongly supportive of, any political party. Part 1. Comments on the existing Senate system The existing Senate system allows a voter to just vote 1 for a given party, which results in their preferences being allocated according to one or more Group Voting Tickets submitted by their party. If a voter wishes to vote in a way not specified by any Group Voting Ticket, they need to vote below the line and number at least 90% of the boxes, for their vote to be formal. This system was introduced from the 1984 Senate election. This submission argues that, while flaws in the system have been evident for many years, the 2013 Senate election in particular has demonstrated the current system to be broken and in need of replacement. It is worth stressing from the start that the widespread use of above-the-line voting does not demonstrate that it is supported by voters. Rather, it demonstrates that the only alternative way to cast a formal vote (numbering all squares below-the-line) is so onerous that voters increasingly choose above-the-line voting only as the lesser (or lazier) of two evils. This becomes more and more the case as the number of groups and candidates increases. Another thing I want to stress is that calling for the system to be reformed is not necessarily a reflection on the quality of the micro-party Senators who are elected. Rather it is a comment on their mandate or lack thereof. It is sometimes suggested that a system that chose citizens at random to serve in government for short periods would produce good outcomes. Whether or not that is true, such a system would not be democratic. A similar critique applies to this system, in that there is a high degree of effective randomness in which out of a large number of cross-preferencing micro- parties may win a seat in a given state. Submission 48 by the Family First Party in particular misses this point. Australia prides itself on being an electoral democracy. If the process that leads to a candidate being elected is not an adequately democratic process then that alone is reason to change that process, no matter how good or bad that candidate may be. The following are critical defects in the existing Senate system: 1. Snowballing from very low primaries A preference snowball occurs when a candidate starting from a low base continually outlasts other candidates, adding their preferences as this occurs, and builds up to a very high vote from a low base. The 2013 election saw the victory of Ricky Muir (AMEP, Vic) with 0.51% of the primary vote. It saw the formal election (subsequently voided because of loss of ballots) of Wayne Dropulich (Sports Party, WA) with 0.23% of the primary vote. Various other candidates polling considerably less than one percent came reasonably close to election via preference snowball in various states, and in previous elections candidates have won via preference snowball from below 2% of the primary vote (including Steven Fielding in 2004 and Robert Wood (NDP) in 1987.) Preference snowballs have also disrupted the natural order of party exclusions in other counts. It does not matter whether Senators elected in this way turn out to be excellent or disastrous as Senators. The point is that they would not have been elected under any proportional voting system not including Group Ticket Voting. If preferences were determined by direct voter choice (as in Hare-Clark) then candidates with negligible primary vote totals would almost never be elected, because preference flows in such cases are generally not strong enough to keep them in the count. If a candidate with a very low primary did somehow win by a cross-party preference snowball in such a system, it would be because voters who did not give them their number 1 vote were nonetheless unusually strongly inclined to rank them very highly. 2. Outcomes are dependent on irrelevant events The Western Australian 2013 preference distribution, especially, highlighted this problem. The makeup of the final two seats was eventually determined by the question of which out of the Australian Christians and the Shooters and Fishers party was excluded at an early stage of the count. Victory as a result of such a contest, between two parties that were neither in the race for a position themselves nor ideologically related to the parties contesting the final spots, had nothing to do with electoral merit Furthermore, other such contests at earlier stages, such as HEMP vs Animal Justice, were also resolved by small margins and could have gone the other way had certain parties made different preference decisions at seemingly arbitrary points. In normal preferential multi-candidate elections this problem very rarely occurs, firstly because all parties with low primary votes will usually be eliminated sooner or later anyway, and secondly because even if there existed a network of similar parties that strongly preferenced each other, the exclusion of any would favour any other member of the network, so roughly the same sort of candidate would still be competitive. In the Senate system the idea that preferences flow between ideologically similar parties is often violated by preference deals. Because it is so difficult to untangle the relationship between a party's votes and its outcomes, micro-parties are essentially groping around in the dark in attempting to strategise. They know that dealing with lots of other parties increases the chance of success, but ultimately which micro-party might succeed out of a number that have dealt together is a lottery. 3. Frequency of perverse outcomes In many scenarios at the 2013 Senate election, parties might have won seats had their own position at stages in the count been worse, or lost them had they been better. For instance the Liberals would have won in Tasmania had more of their voters mistaken the Liberal Democrats for them and voted Liberal Democrat instead of Liberal. The Sports Party would have won in Western Australia had the Wikileaks Party not preferenced the Sports Party at a certain point in the count and instead preferenced the Animal Justice Party.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Which Political Parties Are Standing up for Animals?
    Which political parties are standing up for animals? Has a formal animal Supports Independent Supports end to welfare policy? Office of Animal Welfare? live export? Australian Labor Party (ALP) YES YES1 NO Coalition (Liberal Party & National Party) NO2 NO NO The Australian Greens YES YES YES Animal Justice Party (AJP) YES YES YES Australian Sex Party YES YES YES Pirate Party Australia YES YES NO3 Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party YES No policy YES Sustainable Australia YES No policy YES Australian Democrats YES No policy No policy 1Labor recently announced it would establish an Independent Office of Animal Welfare if elected, however its structure is still unclear. Benefits for animals would depend on how the policy was executed and whether the Office is independent of the Department of Agriculture in its operations and decision-making.. Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) NO No policy NO4 2The Coalition has no formal animal welfare policy, but since first publication of this table they have announced a plan to ban the sale of new cosmetics tested on animals. Australian Independents Party NO No policy No policy 3Pirate Party Australia policy is to “Enact a package of reforms to transform and improve the live exports industry”, including “Provid[ing] assistance for willing live animal exporters to shift to chilled/frozen meat exports.” Family First NO5 No policy No policy 4Nick Xenophon Team’s policy on live export is ‘It is important that strict controls are placed on live animal exports to ensure animals are treated in accordance with Australian animal welfare standards. However, our preference is to have Democratic Labour Party (DLP) NO No policy No policy Australian processing and the exporting of chilled meat.’ 5Family First’s Senator Bob Day’s position policy on ‘Animal Protection’ supports Senator Chris Back’s Federal ‘ag-gag’ Bill, which could result in fines or imprisonment for animal advocates who publish in-depth evidence of animal cruelty The WikiLeaks Party NO No policy No policy from factory farms.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Misconduct: the Case for a Federal Icac
    MISCONDUCT IN POLITICS A HISTORY OF MISCONDUCT: THE CASE FOR A FEDERAL ICAC INDEPENDENT JO URNALISTS MICH AEL WES T A ND CALLUM F OOTE, COMMISSIONED B Y G ETUP 1 MISCONDUCT IN POLITICS MISCONDUCT IN RESOURCES, WATER AND LAND MANAGEMENT Page 5 MISCONDUCT RELATED TO UNDISCLOSED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Page 8 POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT IN LOBBYING MISCONDUCT ACTIVITIES RELATED TO Page 11 INAPPROPRIATE USE OF TRANSPORT Page 13 POLITICAL DONATION SCANDALS Page 14 FOREIGN INFLUENCE ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS Page 16 ALLEGEDLY FRAUDULENT PRACTICES Page 17 CURRENT CORRUPTION WATCHDOG PROPOSALS Page 20 2 MISCONDUCT IN POLITICS FOREWORD: Trust in government has never been so low. This crisis in public confidence is driven by the widespread perception that politics is corrupt and politicians and public servants have failed to be held accountable. This report identifies the political scandals of the and other misuse of public money involving last six years and the failure of our elected leaders government grants. At the direction of a minister, to properly investigate this misconduct. public money was targeted at voters in marginal electorates just before a Federal Election, In 1984, customs officers discovered a teddy bear potentially affecting the course of government in in the luggage of Federal Government minister Australia. Mick Young and his wife. It had not been declared on the Minister’s customs declaration. Young This cheating on an industrial scale reflects a stepped aside as a minister while an investigation political culture which is evolving dangerously. into the “Paddington Bear Affair” took place. The weapons of the state are deployed against journalists reporting on politics, and whistleblowers That was during the prime ministership of Bob in the public service - while at the same time we Hawke.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Hyperlinks and Networked Communication: a Comparative
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by The Australian National University 1 Hyperlinks and Networked Communication: A Comparative Study of Political Parties Online This is a pre-print for: R. Ackland and R. Gibson (2013), “Hyperlinks and Networked Communication: A Comparative Study of Political Parties Online,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(3), special issue on Computational Social Science: Research Strategies, Design & Methods, 231-244. Dr. Robert Ackland, Research Fellow at the Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia *Professor Rachel Gibson, Professor of Politics, Institute for Social Change, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. *Corresponding author: Professor Rachel Gibson Institute for Social Change University of Manchester, Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL UK Ph: + 44 (0)161 306 6933 Fax: +44 (0) 161 275 0793 [email protected] Word count: 6,062(excl title page and key words) 2 Abstract This paper analyses hyperlink data from over 100 political parties in six countries to show how political actors are using links to engage in a new form of ‘networked communication’ to promote themselves to an online audience. We specify three types of networked communication - identity reinforcement, force multiplication and opponent dismissal - and hypothesise variance in their performance based on key party variables of size and ideological outlook. We test our hypotheses using an original comparative hyperlink dataset. The findings support expectations that hyperlinks are being used for networked communication by parties, with identity reinforcement and force multiplication being more common than opponent dismissal. The results are important in demonstrating the wider communicative significance of hyperlinks, in addition to their structural properties as linkage devices for websites.
    [Show full text]
  • My Wikileaks Party Inquiry
    My WikiLeaks Party Inquiry by Gary Lord (@Jaraparilla) A full independent review of what really happened to The Wikileaks Party. “I am not a politician.” - Julian Assange. Table of Contents Mandate................................................................................................................................................2 Terms of Reference...............................................................................................................................2 Objectives.............................................................................................................................................2 Scope....................................................................................................................................................2 Methodology.........................................................................................................................................3 Assumptions.........................................................................................................................................3 Review & Approval..............................................................................................................................3 About the Author..................................................................................................................................4 Historical Background..........................................................................................................................5 Party Foundations............................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Donor to Political Party Return Form
    Donor to Political Party Disclosure Return – Individuals FINANCIAL YEAR 2014–15 The due date for lodging this return is 17 November 2015 Completing the Return: • This return is to be completed by a person who made a gift to a registered political party (or a State branch), or to another person or organisation with the intention of benefiting a registered political party. • This return is to be completed with reference to the Financial Disclosure Guide for Donors to Political Parties. • Further information is available at www.aec.gov.au. • This return will be available for public inspection from Monday 1 February 2016 at www.aec.gov.au. • Any supporting documentation included with this return may be treated as part of a public disclosure and displayed on the AEC website. • The information on this return is collected under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. NOTE: This form is for the use of individuals only. Please use the form Political Party Disclosure Return- Organisations if you are completing a return for an organisation. Details of person that made the donation Name Postal address Suburb/Town State Postcode Telephone number ( ) Fax number ( ) Email address Certification I certify that the information contained in this return and its attachments is true and complete to the best of my knowledge information and belief. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. Signature Date Enquiries and returns Funding and Disclosure Phone: 02 6271 4552 should be addressed to: Australian Electoral Commission Fax: 02 6293 7655 PO Box 6172 Email: [email protected] Kingston ACT 2604 Office use only Date received DAR_1_indiv.
    [Show full text]
  • Short Report
    AUSTRALIAN EPHEMERA COLLECTION FINDING AID FORMED COLLECTION FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, 1901-2014 PRINTED AUSTRALIANA AUGUST 2017 The Library has been actively collecting Federal election campaign ephemera for many years. ACCESS The Australian Federal Elections ephemera may requested by eCall-slip and used through the Library’s Special Collections Reading Room. Readers are able to request files relating to a specific election year. Please note: . 1901-1913 election material all in one box . 1914-1917 election material all in one box OTHER COLLECTIONS See also the collection of related broadsides and posters, and within the PANDORA archive. See also ‘Referenda’ in the general ephemera run. CONTENT AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE COLLECTION 1901 29-30 March see also digitised newspaper reports and coverage from the period 1903 16 December see also digitised newspaper reports and coverage from the period 1906 12 December see also digitised newspaper reports and coverage from the period 1910 13 April see also digitised newspaper reports and coverage from the period Folder 1. Australian Labour Party Folder 2. Liberal Party 1913 31 May see also digitised newspaper reports and coverage from the period Folder 1. Australian Labor Party Folder 2. Liberal Party Folder 3. Other candidates 1914 ― 5 September (double dissolution) see also digitised newspaper reports and coverage from the period Folder 1. Australian Labor Party Folder 2. Liberal Party 1917 5 May see also digitised newspaper reports and coverage from the period Folder 1. Australian Labor Party Folder 2. National Party Folder 3. Other candidates 1919 13 December see also digitised newspaper reports and coverage from the period Folder 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Australia State Election 2017
    RESEARCH PAPER SERIES, 2017–18 18 SEPTEMBER 2017 Western Australia state election 2017 Rob Lundie Politics and Public Administration Section Contents Introduction ................................................................................................ 2 Background ................................................................................................. 2 Electoral changes ................................................................................................ 2 2013 election ...................................................................................................... 2 Party leaders ....................................................................................................... 3 Aftermath for the WA Liberal Party ................................................................... 5 The campaign .............................................................................................. 5 Economic issues .................................................................................................. 5 Liberal/Nationals differences ............................................................................. 6 Transport ............................................................................................................ 7 Federal issues ..................................................................................................... 7 Party campaign launches .................................................................................... 7 Leaders debate ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Political Finance in Australia
    Political finance in Australia: A skewed and secret system Prepared by Sally Young and Joo-Cheong Tham for the Democratic Audit of Australia School of Social Sciences The Australian National University Report No.7 Table of contents An immigrant society PAGE ii The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not be The Democratic Audit of Australia vii PAGE iii taken to represent the views of either the Democratic Audit of Australia or The Tables iv Australian National University Figures v Abbreviations v © The Australian National University 2006 Executive Summary ix National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data 1 Money, politics and the law: Young, Sally. Questions for Australian democracy Political Joo-Cheong Tham 1 Bibliography 2 Private funding of political parties Political finance in Australia: a skewed and secret system. Joo-Cheong Tham 8 ISBN 0 9775571 0 3 (pbk). 3 Public funding of political parties Sally Young 36 ISBN 0 9775571 1 1 (online). 4 Government and the advantages of office 1. Campaign funds - Australia. I. Tham, Joo-Cheong. II. Sally Young 61 Australian National University. Democratic Audit of 5 Party expenditure Australia. III. Title. (Series: Democratic Audit of Sally Young 90 Australia focussed audit; 7). 6 Questions for reform Joo-Cheong Tham and Sally Young 112 324.780994 7 Conclusion: A skewed and secret system 140 An online version of this paper can be found by going to the Democratic Audit of Australia website at: http://democratic.audit.anu.edu.au References and further
    [Show full text]
  • Week Six Semester Two 2013
    week six semester two 2013 honi soit honi A critique of right- wing commentary p 7 Sex work and social media p 10 First Person: Group Sex p 12 Revue Reviews: Education and Arts p 16 DISCONTENTS The art of listening COKE IN THE 4 BUBBLERS As easy it is to become apathetic about rience that we may never be unlucky individual threads are loathe to be sev- the current state of Australian politics enough to have scarred onto our bodies ered. The warmest fabrics are built from Hannah Ryan and give up altogether, your vote will and minds, but that we may be trusted the collaboration, peaceful coexistence help lessen the possibility of an Abbott- enough to share. If you are trusted with and reciprocity of the threads that com- MALE POLITICIANS’ led government. Use it wisely. But of them, treat the fragments kindly. Some- prise it. Of we, the threads, that hold course, you’ve heard this all before, so times they flicker with structural oppres- the fragile balance of power in our 8 DAUGHTERS I’ll leave it here. Don’t let him win. sion, institutionalised discrimination, daily weaves, that collectively dictate the Matilda Surtees Now, onto more practical matters. and daily struggle. structural integrity of the fabric. Being wrong can be a useful experi- Ask questions. Considerate, relevant And lessons learnt in fraying threads THE JOB ence. When we are wrong, we learn. questions. Listen for the answers that are not fast forgotten. 11 But only if we listen. Last week, a par- explain better than wilful ignorance, Listen for knowledge and understand- INTERVIEW ticularly saddening Facebook argument bigotry, projected insecurities and the ing, empathise with grief, and ask for Anonymous I was lurking got me thinking.
    [Show full text]
  • Optional Preferential Voting for the Australian Senate
    ELECTORAL REGULATION RESEARCH NETWORK/DEMOCRATIC AUDIT OF AUSTRALIA JOINT WORKING PAPER SERIES OPTIONAL PREFERENTIAL VOTING FOR THE AUSTRALIAN SENATE Michael Maley (Associate, Centre For Democratic Institutions, Australian National University) WORKING PAPER NO. 16 (NOVEMBER 2013) 1 Introduction This paper explores the possible use of optional preferential voting (OPV) as a way of dealing with concerns which have been crystallised at the 2013 Australian federal election about the operation of some aspects of the Senate electoral system. Its main emphasis is on the extent to which full preferential voting no longer enables voters to express their preferences truthfully, and the role which OPV could play in correcting this.1 In a number of respects, the election was remarkable. • The 40 vacancies were contested by a record number of candidates, 529. • The percentage of votes polled by parties already represented in the Parliament dropped significantly from 2010. • In five out of the six States, a candidate was elected from a party which had never previously been represented in the federal Parliament. • For the first time ever, the seats in one State, South Australia, were divided between five different parties. • In Victoria, a minor party candidate was elected after having polled only 0.5% of the first preference votes cast in the State. • In Western Australia, a partial recount of ballot papers was ordered, and in the aftermath of its conduct it was revealed by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) that some 1,375 ballot papers “all of which had been verified during the initial WA Senate count … could not be located, rechecked or verified in the recount process”.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 11 Inquiry Into and Report on All Aspects
    The Hon Mr Tony Smith MP Chair, Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters PO Box 6021 PARLIAMENT HOUSE ACT 2600 7 April 2014 Dear Mr Smith Inquiry into and report on all aspects of the conduct of the 2013 Federal Election and matters related thereto A healthy political philosophy reflects a balanced view across many social issues. There once was a time whereby parliaments using the Westminster system consisted of progressive local representatives with a broad gamut of individual special interests. Today this type of representative is labelled as ‘single issue’ or ‘independent’ and big parties have become dominate for convenience of getting laws passed. I was a senate candidate for a micro party in the federal election on 7 September 2013. The party I represented was not a front party, not aligned with any existing political party or Member of Parliament. We were a member of the Minor Party Alliance and lodged a Group Voting Ticket. Political parties are responsible for social and national development. Misinformed and misguided choices at the ballot box can produce hazardous consequences for our society and we all then have to live with those consequences, at least for a period of time. Many millions of Australians have never been a member of any political party. The membership numbers for the major parties is said to be around 80,000 Liberal and 35,000 Labor. Yet in elections around 10 million people vote for these two parties. This situation needs to be challenged. Voters over generations have been trained to vote for one of two camps.
    [Show full text]
  • Donor to Political Party Disclosure Lndividuals
    Donor to Political Party Disclosure AEC Return - lndividuals FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 The due date for lodging this return is 17 November 2015 Gompleting the Return: o This return is to be completed by a person who made a gift to a registered political party (or a State branch), or to another person or organisation with thé intention of benefiting a registered political party. This return is to be completed with reference to the Financial Disclosure Guide for Donors to Potiticat Parties. ¡ Further information is available at www.aec.ôov.au. o This return will be available for public inspection from Monday 1 February 2016 al www.aec.qov.au. Any supporting documentation included with this return may be treated as part of a public disclosure and displayed on the AEC website. o The information on this return is collected under the Commonweatth ElectoralAct 1918. \' NOTE: This form is for the use of individuals only. Please use the form Political Party Disclosure Return- Organisations if you are completing a retum for an organisation. Details of person that made the donation Name CLIVE FREDERICK PALMER Postal address PO BOX 1538 Suburb/Town BRISBANE QLD 400 Telephone number (07) 38322044 ( ) Email address s. mole@mi neralogyy.com.au Gertification I certify that the information contained in this return and its attachments is true and complete to the best of my knowtedge information and belief. I understand that giving false or misleading information rs a serious offence. Signature Enquiries and retums Funding and Disclosure Phohe: 026271 4552 should be addressed to: Australian Electoral Commission Fax: 0262937655 PO Box6172 Email: [email protected] Kingston ACT 2604 Office use only Date received DAR_1_indiv.
    [Show full text]