Submission to the Commonwealth Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2019 Federal Election By Antony Green Election Analyst Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2 How to Assess the Impact of the Electoral Changes ........................................................................... 2 Comparing Results in 2013 and 2019 ................................................................................................. 4 Changes to Party Nominations under the Senate's New Electoral System ........................................ 6 How Voters Reacted to the New Senate System in 2016 ................................................................... 7 The Impact of the New Senate Voting System on House Informal Voting ......................................... 8 Recommendations on the Senate's New Electoral System ................................................................ 9 Recommendation on the Registration of Political Parties ................................................................ 10 Introduction The 2019 Senate election was the second conducted under the reformed electoral system introduced in 2016. The system's first use was at the 2016 double dissolution election using the lower 7.7% state quota to elect state senators. As the first double dissolution election since 1987, it was difficult to assess the impact of the new system compared to past half-Senate results. The 2019 election was the first to be held under the new system with the higher 14.3% state quota at a half-Senate election. It is possible to compare the 2019 results with the result of the last half-senate election under group voting tickets in 2013. As the 2013 election was the high point (or maybe low point) for the manipulation of results by group voting ticket preference deals, the comparison of results is illuminating. In this submission I look at several features of the 2019 results in comparison to the 2013 results, point out how the changes met their intended objective of minimising the impact of preference deals and maximising reward for parties that campaigned and attracted first preference votes. For simplicity I will refer to the Senate system in place from 1984 to 2013 as the old Senate system, and the system used for the 2016 and 2019 elections as the new Senate system. How to Assess the Impact of the Electoral Changes The abolition of group voting tickets has radically altered the flow of between-party preferences at Senate elections. Under the old Senate system, more than 90% of voters voted above the line with a single preference for a party ticket. This meant that more than 90% of between-party preferences were directly under party control. With the abolition of group voting tickets, party control over preferences was abolished. Parties could still influence the flow of preferences by distributing how-to-vote recommendations to voters, but the choice on preferences was now entirely for the voter. To assess the impact of between-party preferences, it is best to compare Senate results with likely outcomes under a non-preferential form of proportional representation where final vacancies are filled based on party first preference vote share. Table 1 on the next page compares outcome of Senate elections since 1977 with outcomes had the same vote shares been used to allocate seats to parties using a List Proportional Representation system (List-PR). The analysis uses the same Droop quota used for the Senate, but instead of using preferences to allocate the final seats in each contest, it allocates final seats non-preferentially using a highest remainder method. The difference between Senate results and a List-PR result can be measured by the number of parties that fill seats from trailing positions. A second measure is the number of parties with higher quotas that are passed during the count by trailing parties elected on preferences. As an observation, the stronger the flow of between-party preferences, the more a Senate result will diverge from a List-PR for an election with the same party vote shares. The weaker the flows, the more PR-STV outcomes will match List-PR outcomes. 2 Antony Green – JSCEM Submission The columns in Table 1 on the next page are explained as follows. • Filled quotas – the number of Senators elected through complete quotas filled on the total of first preference votes by party; • Highest remainder – the number of Senators elected from the highest remainder or leading partial quota on first preference votes; • Trailing wins – the number of Senators elected after having trailed the party with the highest remainder on the initial counts; and • Parties passed – the number of higher polling parties passed by trailing winners. Table 1 - Senate Results Compared to List-PR with Highest Remainder Allocation Highest Election (Seats) Filled Quotas Remainder Trailing Wins Parties Passed 1977 (30) 24 5 1 1 1980 (30) 25 4 1 1 1983 (60) 54 3 3 2 1984 (42) 33 7 2 2 1987 (72) 62 6 4 6 1990 (36) 28 6 2 2 1993 (36) 30 4 2 3 1996 (36) 28 7 1 1 1998 (36) 24 7 5 5 2001 (36) 25 6 5 6 2004 (36) 29 6 1 3 2007 (36) 27 8 1 2 2010 (36) 27 7 2 4 2013 (36) 21 6 9 33 2016 (72) 52 18 2 7 2019 (26) 22 14 .. .. Source: Calculations by author. Excludes Territory Senate races. 2013 calculations based on original 2013 WA Senate result, not the 2014 Senate re-election. Under group voting tickets at the 2013 election, a quarter of the Senators elected were from trailing positions, and the ratio of parties passed to trailing wins was much higher than at any previous election. In Western Australia, Wayne Dropulich of the Australian Sports Party was elected despite the party polling just 0.23 percent or 0.016 quotas. The Sports Party finished 21st of 27 parties on first preferences, but received ticket preferences from 20 different parties to achieve a quota, 15 of those parties having polled a higher first preference vote. Preferences allowed Dropulich to leap frog parties and defeat a Labor candidate who began the count with a remainder of 0.86 quotas. In Victoria, Ricky Muir and the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party began the count with 0.51 percent or 0.035 quotas, receiving preferences from 22 other parties including nine with more votes, and passed a Liberal candidate who began the count with 0.81 quotas. Antony Green – JSCEM Submission 3 Comparing Results in 2013 and 2019 The hypothesis that the Senate's new electoral system weights the allocation of final seats in favour of highest remainders can be tested using the results of the 2013 and 2019 half-Senate elections. Table 1 looked at results since 1977. The tables below concentrate on how the new Senate system worked in 2019 compared to the old system in 2013. A summary of this comparisons is provided in Table 2. It shows that nine Senators were elected from trailing partial quotas in 2013, but no trailing parties were elected under the new system in 2019. With the new electoral system responsible for weaker party control over preferences and a greater number of exhausted preferences, the new Senate system behaved more like List-PR than the old Senate system using group voting tickets. Table 2 - Comparing the 2013 and 2019 Results with simulated List-PR results 2013 Senators Elected 2019 Senators Elected Filled Quotas 21 22 Highest Remainder 6 14 Trailing Wins 9 .. Source: Calculations by author. Excludes the four Territory Senators. 2013 calculations based on original 2013 WA Senate result, not the 2014 Senate re-election. More detail on the 14 Senators elected from leading partial quotas in 2019 is shown in Table 3. On the left are the initial partial quotas and parties for successful Senators, while on the right are the highest polling unsuccessful candidates and parties. Table 3 - 2019 election – success from partial quotas State Successful Party and Partial Quota Unsuccessful Party and Partial Quota NSW 0.70 LIB 0.61 GRN 0.35 ONP VIC 0.74 GRN 0.51 LIB 0.20 ONP 0.20 DHJP QLD 0.72 LNP 0.72 ONP 0.70 GRN 0.58 ALP WA 0.93 ALP 0.86 LIB 0.83 GRN 0.41 ONP SA 0.76 GRN 0.65 LIB 0.34 ONP TAS 0.88 GRN 0.62 JLN 0.24 ONP Source: AEC election results, calculations by author. Minor party codes are DHJP – Derryn Hinch Justice Party, JLN – Jacqui Lambie Network, ONP – Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Of the 15 parties with a partial quota above 0.5 at the start of the count, only Labor in Queensland failed to win a seat. That was a contest where four parties started with more than 0.5 partial quotas in a race for three seats. In the other five States, the partial quota for the next party in order, in each case One Nation, ranged from 0.20 quotas to 0.41 quotas, all well short of the partial quota of the successful sixth party. It was a very different pattern in 2013 where every State except Queensland saw candidates elected from trailing partial quotas, shown in Table 4 by underlined text. In Victoria the ratio of the lowest elected party to the highest defeated candidate was 0.04 quotas to 0.81, and in Western Australia 0.02 quotas to 0.86. 4 Antony Green – JSCEM Submission Table 4 - 2013 election – success from partial quotas State Successful Party and Partial Quota Highest Unsuccessful Parties and Quotas NSW 0.67 LDP 0.39 L/NP 0.55 GRN VIC 0.76 GRN 0.04 AMEP 0.81 LIB QLD 0.90 LNP 0.69 PUP 0.42 GRN WA 0.74 LIB 0.66 GRN 0.02 SPRT 0.86 ALP 0.35 PUP 0.35 NAT SA 0.92 LIB 0.50 GRN 0.26 FFP 0.74 XEN 0.59 ALP TAS 0.82 GRN 0.46 PUP 0.63 LIB Source: AEC election results, calculations by author.