DOCSLIB.ORG

Transformationof Australianpolitics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transformationof Australianpolitics AustralianAustralianStudies Studies Association of Japan Transformation of Australian Politics : From Majoritarian to Consensus Hiroya Sugita' That Australian politics by and large conforms to the Westminster system appears to be the view shared by the general public, if not by political scientists and well-informed observers of Australian politics. Behind this is the conventional view that the Australian party system is basically "twopartism", a two-cornered contest, between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberai-National Coalition, The left-right ideological spectrum, characterised by a conflict between labour and capital, "twopartism" is considered to form the foundation of this Australian as Labor broadly represents interests of the working class while the Coalition broadly represents interests of urban and rural capital. In a sense, it is understandable that many have reached such an assessment. In Australia, just as in the UK, the executive government is formed by a majority party in the lower house of parliament. Since 1909, the Australian government has been the exclusive domain ior Labor, the Liberal Party or the Liberal-Natienal Coalition ( although the non-Labor side has experienced several name changes ). Nevertheless, is this an accurate picture of Australian politics in 1997? After all, as Thompson pointed out, some of Australia's constitutional arrangements, such as adaptation of federalism and bicameral parliamentary system, are clearly distinguishable from the Westminster model ( Thompson "majoritarian" "consensus" 1980). Indeed, according to Lijphart's criteria for the and the models of "consensus" politics, Australia has had some, if not all, of the characteristics oi the model for a very long tirne. "majoritarian" This argues Australian paper that politicshas undergene a transformationfrom the "consensus" model to the model. This fundamental change to Australian politics has been brought about largely by the change to the balance oi power in the Senate, most notably the emergence, and endurance, of the Australian Democrats. For that purpose, this paper analyses Lijphart's "majoritarian" "consensus" and models, the chronological developmept of the Australian party system and the Australian Democrats' parliamentary performance. "Majoritarian" "Consensus" The Model and the Model In 1984, after examining twenty-one democratic countries with timeframe ranging from 1945 to 198e, Arend Lijphart wrote that the democratic political system could be classified inte two "majoritarian" "consensus" categeries: the model and the model (Lijphart 1984). The basic principle of the majoritarian model is to make government responsible to the will of the majority by removing "minority any possibility of veto" (Lijphart 1984, 4). The consensus. model, in contrast, is based on "all the premise that who are affected by a decision should have the chance to participate in making that decision, either directly or through chosen representatives" (Lijphart 1984, 21). * Embassy of Japan, Canbera -1- NII-Electronic Library Service AustralianAustralianStudies Studies Association of Japan t-- FV i) 7er fi ag 9g 1997. 12 Lijphart presents eight elements which can be used to distinguish the majoritarian model and the consensus model (Lijphart 1984, 1-36). These eight elements can be roughly categorised into five basic components of parliamentary democracy: the executive gevernment, the legislature, the party system, the electoral system, and the constitutional framework. First, in terms of the executive government and its relation to the legislature, government under the majoritarian model of democracy is formed by a single party which commands majority in the lower house of parliament. The executive establishes dominance over the parliament because it is endorsed by the parliamentary majority which is expected to approve most of the government's legislative programmes. In contrast, government under the consensus model of dernocracy is formed by a coalition of parties. The separation of powers between the executive and the legislature is established either formally or informally. This arrangement makes the relationship between the twe more balanced and thus difficult for the executive to exert dominance over the regislature, Second, in terms of the legislature, the majQritarian model is characterised by unicameralism "asymmetric or bicameralism", that is, one chamber whose majority forms the executive holds most of legislative power and thus has clear dominance over the other chamber. The consensus model is characterised by bicameral parliamentary system. In order for minority views to be represented in the upper house, its members should be elected by a different electoral system from the lower house and it should have legislative power almost equal to the lower house. Third, the bipolar party system is the feature of the majoritarian model while the consensus model is characterised by the multi-party system. This is because, according to Lijphart's analysis, the majoritarian model tends to work well in a homogenous society and the consensus model is suitable for a plural society, This means that the majoritarian democracy tends to have a single social cleavage, in many cases cLass cleavage, based on the left-right ideological $pectrum. In contrast, plural society tends to have several social cleavages such as ethnicity or religion as well as class, which results in the multi-party system. Fourth, as far as the electoral system is concerned, the majoritarian democracy tends to use the single-member electoral system, especially the first-past-the-post system, which can most easily produce a single-party majority government. In centrast, in the consensus democracy, the proportional representation is used so that the parliamentary representation reflects voters' will more accurately. There is little doubt that this type of eleetoral system, in turn, assists the emergence and development of the multi-party system. Fifth, concerning the constitutional framework, the majoritarian model is characterised by the centralised, unitary system of government. Rather than having a written constitution, constitutional conventions play a large role in defining nation's governance. As a result, the judiciary is said to have little role in reviewing the Acts of parliament and a party in government has almost unlimited power. In contrast, the consensus model is characterised by the decentralised, federal system of government and by having a written constitution which can usually be amended only by a referendum or a special majority vote in parliament. Australia's political system contains elements of both the majoritarian and the consensus models. For instance, Australia has adopted federalism with a written constitution. Nevertheless, the Australian Constitution is arguably flawed as a document which stipulates basic principle for the nation's governance. According to the Constitution, neither the Prime Minister nor the Cabinet exists and the Governor-General can be a dictator! As a resuit, constitutional conventions, rather -2- NII-Electronic Library Service AustralianAustralianStudies Studies Association of Japan Transformation of Australian Politics than the written constitution, are vital for effective workings of the government and the parliament. Furthermore, Australia clearly follows the majoritarian model in terms of the executive government which is formed by a single majority party (or a near-permanent coalition of parties) in, and is dominant over, the House of Representatives. At the same time, however, Australia is distinguished from the Westminster system by the existence of the Senate which is elected by a different electoral system from the House of Representatives and whose legislative power is almost on a par with that of the House of Representatives. Pointing out the existence of both the majoritarian and the consensus elements, and thus a potential conflict between the executive government based on the majoritarian model and the bicameral system of parliament (Lijphart 1984, 101-3), Lijphart nonetheless considerecl Australia as belonging to the majoritarian model <Lijphart 1984, 215-20) mainly because he judged the Australian "two-and-a-half' party system as the party system (Lijphart 1984, 118), Considering that he reached this conclusion as a result of analysis between 1945 and 1980, this assessment was accurate at the time of his writing. Since 1981, however, characteristics of the consensus model have increasingly been salient in Australia. The following section addresses two questions: why Lijphart's assessment was correct at the time of his writing but is no longer applicable, and which force has been transforming Australian politics from the majoritarian to the consensus model since 1981. of the Party Chronology Australian System The Australian system is usually viewed as a variation of the two-party system. Although party "contemporary Duverger described Australia as having a three-party system" (Duverger 1964, 235), his classification, the main criteria of which appears to be the number of parties in a system, is less than satisfactory because of his disregard of the nature of a party system, In 1959, Lipson "a wrote that Australia displays trio in form, a duet in function" (Lipson 1959). Writing in 1968, "theugh Blondel regarded the Australian party system as the two-party model, there is some ambiguity" (Blondel 1968), Jaensch has pointed out, however, that Blondel simply put the Liberal and National Parties together
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]
  • 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 Health Australia Party YES YES YES Science Party YES YES YES3 Pirate Party Australia YES YES NO4 Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party YES No policy YES Sustainable Australia YES No policy YES 1Labor recently announced it would establish an Independent Office of Animal Welfare if elected, however its struc- ture 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. Australian Democrats YES No policy No policy 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. Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) NO No policy NO5 3The Science Party's policy states "We believe the heavily documented accounts of animal suffering justify an end to the current system of live export, and necessitate substantive changes if it is to continue." Australian Independents Party NO No policy No policy 4Pirate 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.” 6 Family First NO No policy No policy 5Nick 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Independents in Australian Parliaments
    The Age of Independence? Independents in Australian Parliaments Mark Rodrigues and Scott Brenton* Abstract Over the past 30 years, independent candidates have improved their share of the vote in Australian elections. The number of independents elected to sit in Australian parliaments is still small, but it is growing. In 2004 Brian Costar and Jennifer Curtin examined the rise of independents and noted that independents ‘hold an allure for an increasing number of electors disenchanted with the ageing party system’ (p. 8). This paper provides an overview of the current representation of independents in Australia’s parliaments taking into account the most recent election results. The second part of the paper examines trends and makes observations concerning the influence of former party affiliations to the success of independents, the representa- tion of independents in rural and regional areas, and the extent to which independ- ents, rather than minor parties, are threats to the major parities. There have been 14 Australian elections at the federal, state and territory level since Costar and Curtain observed the allure of independents. But do independents still hold such an allure? Introduction The year 2009 marks the centenary of the two-party system of parliamentary democracy in Australia. It was in May 1909 that the Protectionist and Anti-Socialist parties joined forces to create the Commonwealth Liberal Party and form a united opposition against the Australian Labor Party (ALP) Government at the federal level.1 Most states had seen the creation of Liberal and Labor parties by 1910. Following the 1910 federal election the number of parties represented in the House * Dr Mark Rodrigues (Senior Researcher) and Dr Scott Brenton (2009 Australian Parliamentary Fellow), Politics and Public Administration Section, Australian Parliamentary Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Telstra Agreement Will Haunt the National Party Lessons from the Democrats’ GST Deal
    THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE Why the Telstra agreement will haunt the National Party Lessons from the Democrats’ GST Deal Andrew Macintosh Debra Wilkinson Discussion Paper Number 82 September 2005 ISSN 1322-5421 ii © The Australia Institute. This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes only with the written permission of the Australia Institute. Such use must not be for the purposes of sale or comme rcial exploitation. Subject to the Copyright Act 1968, reproduction, storage in a retrieval system or transmission in any form by any means of any part of the work other than for the purposes above is not permitted without written permission. Requests and inquiries should be directed to the Australia Institute. The Australia Institute iii Table of Contents Tables and Figures v Acknowledgements vi Summary vii 1. Introduction 1 2. The Telstra agreement 3 2.1 Regulatory commitments 3 2.2 Spending commitments 4 3. The flaws in the spending component of the Telstra agreement 7 3.1 Policy flaws 7 3.2 Political flaws 10 4. The GST/MBE deal 12 4.1 Background on the GST/MBE deal 12 4.2 The outcomes of the GST/MBE deal 14 5. The GST/MBE deal and the Telstra agreement 23 5.1 Comparing the deals 23 5.2 Lessons for the Nationals 27 6. Conclusions 29 References 31 Telstra and the GST iv The Australia Institute v Tables and Figures Table 1 Funding commitments made by the Howard Government 12 concerning MBE expenditure initiatives ($million) Table 2 Estimated actual spending on the MBE expenditure programs over 14 their four-year life span (2000/01-2003/04) ($million) Table 3 Spending on the MBE expenditure programs projected in 2005/06 15 federal budget (2004/05-2008/09) ($million) Table 4 Nationals’ Telstra agreement vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Todd Farrell Thesis
    The Australian Greens: Realignment Revisited in Australia Todd Farrell Submitted in fulfilment for the requirements of the Doctorate of Philosophy Swinburne University of Technology Faculty of Health, Arts and Design School of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities 2020 ii I declare that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a degree in any university or another educational institution and to the best of my knowledge and belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text. iii ABSTRACT Scholars have traditionally characterised Australian politics as a stable two-party system that features high levels of partisan identity, robust democratic features and strong electoral institutions (Aitkin 1982; McAllister 2011). However, this characterisation masks substantial recent changes within the Australian party system. Growing dissatisfaction with major parties and shifting political values have altered the partisan contest, especially in the proportionally- represented Senate. This thesis re-examines partisan realignment as an explanation for party system change in Australia. It draws on realignment theory to argue that the emergence and sustained success of the Greens represents a fundamental shift in the Australian party system. Drawing from Australian and international studies on realignment and party system reform, the thesis combines an historical institutionalist analysis of the Australian party system with multiple empirical measurements of Greens partisan and voter support. The historical institutionalist approach demonstrates how the combination of subnational voting mechanisms, distinctly postmaterialist social issues, federal electoral strategy and a weakened Labor party have driven a realignment on the centre-left of Australian politics substantial enough to transform the Senate party system.
    [Show full text]
  • Determining Parliamentary Parties—A Real Status Symbol
    Democratic Audit of Australia — December 2004 Determining Parliamentary Parties—A Real Status Symbol Norm Kelly∗ The current requirement for parliamentary party status in the Federal Parliament is that a party holds a total of at least five seats in the House of Representatives and/or the Senate. Some of the benefits of having party status include additional resources, such as extra research and media staff (around 12 extra staff in all), and increased salaries, travel and postal allowances for party leaders. For smaller parties such as the Nationals and Australian Democrats, these additional resources make a significant difference in the ability of these parties to be effective both inside and outside of Parliament. It is understandable that the two major parties, Labor and Liberal, have a common interest in limiting the effectiveness of minor parties; however, the Liberal Party’s reliance on the Nationals has meant that concessions have been made for its junior Coalition partner. As a result, the Democrats, who have had similar parliamentary representation and voting support as the Nationals (up until the 2004 election), have been able to benefit from the same entitlements, including party status, that have been primarily intended for the Nationals. One of the outcomes of the 2004 Senate election is that the Australian Democrats will lose party status from 1 July 2005, when the party’s representation drops from seven to four Senators. The Greens, who had a relatively successful election result, have just failed to win party status, with their Queensland Senate candidate, Drew Hutton, narrowly missing out on winning the party a fifth Senate seat.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Brief No. 3
    No. 3 January 2021 Women in the Senate Women throughout Australia have had the right national Parliament (refer to the table on page 6). to vote in elections for the national Parliament for more than one hundred years. For all that time, There were limited opportunities to vote for women they have also had the right to sit in the before the end of the Second World War, as few Australian Parliament. women stood for election. Between 1903 and 1943 only 26 women in total nominated for election for Australia was the first country in the world to either house. give most women both the right to vote and the right to stand for Parliament when, in 1902, No woman was endorsed by a major party as a the federal Parliament passed legislation to candidate for the Senate before the beginning of the provide for a uniform franchise throughout the Second World War. Overwhelmingly dominated by Commonwealth. In spite of this early beginning, men, the established political parties saw men as it was 1943 before a woman was elected to the being more suited to advancing their political causes. Senate or the House of Representatives. As of It was thought that neither men nor women would September 2020, there are 46 women in the vote for female candidates. House of Representatives, and 39 of the 76 Many early feminists distrusted the established senators are women. parties, as formed by men and protective of men’s The Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 stated interests. Those who presented themselves as that ‘all persons not under twenty-one years of age candidates did so as independents or on the tickets of whether male or female married or unmarried’ minor parties.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics of Senate Electoral Reform 2016
    ELECTORAL REGULATION RESEARCH NETWORK/DEMOCRATIC AUDIT OF AUSTRALIA JOINT WORKING PAPER SERIES AN INSTANCE OF CARTEL BEHAVIOUR? THE POLITICS OF SENATE ELECTORAL REFORM 2016 Dr. Nick Economou (Monash University) WORKING PAPER NO. 40 (APRIL 2016) 1 Abstract This working paper outlines the history, politics and mechanics of the recent changes to Senate voting. *********** Introduction As the result of the count of the 2013 half-Senate election indicated that a high number of candidates from parties other than Labor, the Greens and the Liberal-National coalition had won seats in the Australian Senate, pressure began to mount on aspects of the Senate voting system. In particular, the ‘Group Vote Ticket’ (or GVT) (i.e. the option that electors have to vote for a party ticket rather than fill in preferences for all candidates) became the focus of criticism of the system. This option has been available to electors since 1983 when the then Labor government undertook extensive changes to the Electoral Act (1918) (see Rydon 1988, 1985). Since its introduction, the GVT has been immensely popular with voters (see Figure 1). However, it was also the case that the new system provided scope for the administrative executives of the political parties to seek to exercise influence over outcomes through the decisions they made on how preferences would be ordered. Parties could, and did, enter into negotiations over the allocation of preferences (the colloquial term for this being preference “wheeling and dealing” (Mayer 1980)). This aspect of the system became the source of controversy especially where there were contentious representational outcomes (see Green, A.
    [Show full text]
  • Postmaterialism and the Australian Party System
    Charnock, David and Ellis, Peter (2003) The Structure of the Australian Party System and its Strategic Consequences, The Australian Journal of Political Science 38(3):423-443. The Structure of the Australian Party System and its Strategic Consequences David Charnock and Peter Ellis Faculty of Media, Society and Culture, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth WA 6845, Australia. Corresponding author: David Charnock Email: [email protected] Charnock, David and Ellis, Peter (2003) The Structure of the Australian Party System and its Strategic Consequences, The Australian Journal of Political Science 38(3):423-443. The Structure of the Australian Party System and its Strategic Consequences In this paper we explore the positioning of Australian political parties at the 2001 federal election using data from the Australian Election Study and discuss some of the strategic implications. We focus on some of the attitudes of Senate voters for the various parties, concentrating on how Inglehart’s postmaterialism measures and a measure of postmodern attitudes can be used to supplement more traditional left-right descriptions of the party system. We find that descriptions based on a single left-right dimension are inadequate but that attitudes on this dimension and on a postmaterialism or postmodernism dimension are correlated, thus creating constraints for parties. We use comparisons with the 1998 election to assess the stability of the structure and the significance of the electoral context, and generally find that the structure was stable between the two elections. 2 Charnock, David and Ellis, Peter (2003) The Structure of the Australian Party System and its Strategic Consequences, The Australian Journal of Political Science 38(3):423-443.
    [Show full text]
  • Proportional Representation in Theory and Practice the Australian Experience
    Proportional Representation in Theory and Practice The Australian Experience Glynn Evans Department of Politics and International Relations School of Social Sciences The University of Adelaide June 2019 Table of Contents Abstract ii Statement of Authorship iii Acknowledgements iv Preface vi 1. Introduction 1 2. District Magnitude, Proportionality and the Number of 30 Parties 3. District Magnitude and Partisan Advantage in the 57 Senate 4. District Magnitude and Partisan Advantage in Western 102 Australia 5. District Magnitude and Partisan Advantage in South Eastern Jurisdictions 132 6. Proportional Representation and Minor Parties: Some 170 Deviating Cases 7. Does Proportional Representation Favour 204 Independents? 8. Proportional Representation and Women – How Much 231 Help? 9. Conclusion 247 Bibliography 251 Appendices 260 i Abstract While all houses of Australian parliaments using proportional representation use the Single Transferable Vote arrangement, district magnitudes (the numbers of members elected per division) and requirements for casting a formal vote vary considerably. Early chapters of this thesis analyse election results in search for distinct patterns of proportionality, the numbers of effective parties and partisan advantage under different conditions. This thesis argues that while district magnitude remains the decisive factor in determining proportionality (the higher the magnitude, the more proportional the system), ballot paper numbering requirements play a more important role in determining the number of (especially) parliamentary parties. The general pattern is that, somewhat paradoxically, the more freedom voters have to choose their own preference allocations, or lack of them, the smaller the number of parliamentary parties. Even numbered magnitudes in general, and six member divisions in particular, provide some advantage to the Liberal and National Parties, while the Greens are disadvantaged in five member divisions as compared to six or seven member divisions.
    [Show full text]
  • State Government Elections Western Australian Pr8783
    J S Battye Library of West Australian History Collection STATE GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PR8783 To view items in the Ephemera collection, contact the State Library of Western Australia . CALL NO. DESCRIPTION PR8783/1880-1959 Box containing items and envelopes relating to the following: 1880-1900 Various Parties. 1901-1939 W.A Labor Party. 1901-1939 Various Parties. 1924 Map Cabinet Yelland's Manifesto. Manifesto presented to the electors 20/13 of East Province giving the position and views of H.J. Yelland, candidate for East Province, April 1924. 4 page ‘newspaper’. B19436208. 1930 Map Cabinet Maley’s Reminder. Circulating through the Greenough 20/13 electorate. “No. 1, February 1930”. H.K. Maley, MLA. Four pages. 1938 Sussex by-election 1940-1954 Australian Labor Party. 1940-1954 Various Parties. 1955-1956 Australian Labor Party. 1955-1956 Country Party. 1955-1956 Liberal Party. 1955-1956 Liberal & Country League. 1958 All Parties. 1959 Australian Labor Party. 1959 Country Party. 1959 Democratic Labor Party. 1959 Liberal Party. 1959 Independent Candidates. 1959 Communist Party. PR8783/1960-1967 Box containing items and envelopes relating to the following: 1960 Australian Labor Party. 1960 Liberal Party. 1962 Australian Labor Party. PR8783 Page 1 of 5 Copyright SLWA ©2010 1962 Democratic Labor Party. 1962 Country Party & Independents. 1962 Communist Party. 1962 Liberal Party. 1963 By-election 1965 Australian Labor Party 1965 Liberal Party. (Envelope 1). 1965 Liberal Party. (Envelope 2). 1965 Communist Party. 1965 Country Party. 1965 Independent & Various Parties. 1965 Democratic Labor Party. 1967 Country Party. By-Election. PR8783/1968-1971 Box containing items and envelopes relating to the following: 1968 Australian Labor Party.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia 2007 by Aurelie Marfort
    International Snapshot: Australia 2007 By Aurelie Marfort IRV system was crucial to ensure democratic results for the last Australian federal legislative election. Introduction: On November 24 th 2007, Australia elected its House of Representatives with instant runoff voting (IRV), as it has for more than eight decades. After four straight election defeats, the Labor Party won a landslide majority of seats. Under IRV, Labor's initial 44% of first choices turned into a clear majority after considering the choices of supporters of third party candidates with too little support to win seats. The Green Party's 7.79% share of the national vote largely went to Labor in House races; that share earned several senate seats elected by proportional voting. Due in large part to compulsory voting, turnout was 94.77%; Australians rank near the top of national comparisons of voter satisfaction with their government. Background: IRV or preferential voting was introduced in Australia in 1918 to deal with the “spoiler” problem created by the rise of the Country Party. Australia’s democracy faced negative side effects with the increased voter choice, as the Country Party split the right-of-center vote in rural areas, thus allowing some left-of-center Labor Party candidates to win with a minority of votes. Prime Minister Bill Hughes’ conservative government enacted IRV so as to allow competition and choice between parties but without putting seats in jeopardy. Since 1918, use of IRV has gradually been extended, and it is now applied to the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament, in the federal, state and territory legislatures, to municipal elections, party primaries, and for some elections to corporate boards.
    [Show full text]