Proportional representation

Proportional representation

• aim to equate percentage of votes received with percentage of seats won in parliament e.g. 30 percent of vote= 30 percent of seats)

• get what you deserve, not “winner takes all”

• fairer to political parties- minor parties gain seats proportionate to voter support, not exaggerated majorities due to winner’s bonus

• multi member electorates- diversity with broader party and independent representation. better captures diverse, multicultural society where many minorities strive for adequate representation

Single transferable vote proportional representation

• state/ territory is electorate

• states elect 12 senators, territories elect 2

• candidates need a quota to secure a seat

• one quota allocated per seat to be filled - regular elections have 6 quotas for 6 seats, double dissolution has 12 quotas for 12 seats. Always at least 2 quotas per election because two territories elect both their senators at each election

quotas

• set proportion of votes needed to win a seat. usually much less than a majority, not a majority requirement→ easier for minor and independents to get elected, multiple candidates from varied parties can represent the same electorate

• quota size depends on electorate’s population

• calculated using a formula and add up to 100 percent of the vote

• on the ballot voters rank parties (above the line) and candidates (below the line) by preference

Proportional system process

1. if candidates win a quota on primary votes, they are elected.

2. their surplus votes are redistributed to other candidates based on elector preference, but at a diminished transfer value (surplus votes/total votes) to eliminate vote wastage and ensure votes circulate per the electors’ preferences.

3. if no additional quotas are achieved, eliminate candidate with fewest votes and reallocate their votes according to elector preference. preferences are distributed until all quotas are fulfilled and all seats are occupied.

Advantages

• is fairer for all electors (less vote wastage), candidates and parties (opportunity for smaller parties and independents to be elected)

• quotas are always lower than majorities, making it easier for diverse candidates to get elected + encouraging election of diversity candidates and minorities→ better protection of minority rights, mirrors societal diversity

• common hung senates because of varied parties and candidates necessitate negotiation and compromise, encouraging senate’s review function

advantages

• is fairer for all electors (less vote wastage), candidates and parties (opportunity for smaller parties and independents to be elected)

• quotas are always lower than majorities, making it easier for diverse candidates to get elected + encouraging election of diversity candidates and minorities→ better protection of minority rights, mirrors societal diversity

• common hung senates because of varied parties and candidates necessitate negotiation and compromise, encouraging senate’s review function

disadvantages

• complex- informal voting rose to 10% after introduction

• weaker accountability- many representatives per electorate→ diluted link between electors and representatives

• hung senates can lead to legislative impasses if consensus isn’t reached

• no single party majority→ minor parties and independents get the balance of power and can amend or block legislation (powerful upper house) even though the government holds majority in the lower house→ undermines majority rule principle (government holds majority in lower house but their legislation is blocked)

History and reforms

• adopted in 1949

• initially increased number of minor parties and independents realizing STV/PV gave them a real chance→ lengthy list and requirement to sequence preferences for every candidate led to increased informal votes. The challenging process was a threat to political right to vote.

• 1984 reform:

• introduced group ticket voting above the line- transferred control of elector’s preferences for simpler voting (elector accepted party’s preferences). Political parties benefited.

• eased candidate voting- permitted up to 3 breaks in sequence and only 90% of boxes to be filled for a formal vote.

• 2016 reform: reverse negative effects by restoring voting power + prevent party exploiting GTVs for electoral advantage

Group ticket voting

• parties preregister a publicly accessible list of candidates with AEC before election

• parties control allocation of preferences for electors who vote for their party

• parties negotiate flow of preferences from their surplus votes with other parties

• majority of electors chose GTV- straightforward but weakens connection between electors and representatives→ delegate and trustee representation models are unworkable as electors vote for a party not an individual representative