Single member electoral systems

FPP and Preferential

winner’s bonus

there’s one seat per electorate. the party who wins the absolute majority, even by a small margin, represents ALL of the electorate. There’s a “winner takes all” principle. This exaggerates the seat share of the party.

First past the post

• simple majority (plurality) required to win

• electors choose one candidate from list

• HOR and Senate initially used FPP until Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

FPP advantages

• simplicity→ quick vote counting, easy election

• amplifies winner’s margin→ pronounced majority in parliament

• high accountability (one representative per constituency facilitating direct public scrutiny)

FPP disadvantages

• fosters 2 party system by amplifying representation of winning candidates and parties by eliminating all others- winner’s bonus

• high vote wastage (votes for non-winning parties disregarded

• prone to vote splitting→ can favor less preferred parties if similar parties split the majority vote

FPP examples

Parties A1 (25 voters) and A2 (30 voters) appeal to the same voter base. Although most voters prefer A ideas, party C (45 voters) is elected because they individually have plurality. There’s 55% vote wastage- the votes for the nonwinning parties A1 and A2 are disregarded. There’s a huge winner’s bonus- 45% of votes become 100% percent of the representation for that electorate since there is only one candidate per electorate.

FPP impacts

often resulted in decisive majorities→ party dominance in senate (rubber stamp government senate or opposition-controlled obstructionist senate) → hampering effective debate and scrutiny on bills and government→ undermines constitutional role (state representation) and Westminster role (house of review)p

preferential systems

• need for absolute majority

• electors ranking candidates by preferences (exhaustive preferential (number all candidates) or optional preferential (number a specified number of candidates)

• if no candidate secures majority of primary votes→ votes for less preferred candidates are distributed according to electors’ preferences until a candidate achieves absolute majority

advantages

• eliminates vote splitting

• promotion of accountability

• enhanced majority rule

• reduced vote wastage

• opportunities for smaller parties

• stable government

enhanced majority rule

• absolute majority to win→ elected candidate is electorate’s preferred choice

• prevents FPP situation where most popular candidate (C) may not be the majority preference (A)

• winner’s bonus→ large majorities forming stable government, democratic governance must reflect majority

eliminating vote splitting

• if first choice is eliminated→ vote can be transferred to next preference (likely to have similar worldview) → prevents splitting of votes among similar parties/ candidates + ensures that votes continue to count until absolute majority is reached

• reduces potential for less preferred parties to triumph by fragmenting the majority vote→ closer resemblance to electorate’s majority preference, solidifying majority rule principle

Reduced vote wastage

unlike FPP where votes for defeated candidates are wasted, vote continues to be transferred based on preference until a majority is reached→ less vote wastage

Promotion of accountability

• like FPP

• single representative per electorate→ easy for constituents to hold them accountable, know who to approach about quality of representation

Opportunity for smaller parties

• smaller parties/candidates can negotiate preference deals with larger parties→ opportunity to influence policies of successful candidates even if they don’t win a seat.

• e.g. Gillard Government: hung HOR that took 17 days where PM sought alliances with several independents and lone greens’ member to secure confidence and supply to form government, eventually formed minority government

Stable government

• large majorities in HOR enables formation of stable government and democratic governance reflects majority rule

• single member electorates reinforced bond between citizens and representatives→ improves representative democracy

Disadvantages

• Potential for skewed result

• Complicated preference deals

• Overrepresentation of major parties

• Vote wastage

• Complexity

• limited reflection of societal diversity

Complexity

electors need to number candidates in order of preference→ confusing→ more informal/ incorrectly filled ballots

Potential for skewed result undermining majority rule

• government formed by party with most seats: party with more popular, concentrated support in a few electorates will win those HOR seats by a high margin and those extra votes will be wasted, but party with less popular, more evenly distributed support in many electorates will win more HOR seats by a narrow margin and form government→ potential for skewed results

• undermines the majority rule principle (that the party with majority voter support should govern) because power goes to the party that wins the most electorates, not necessarily the most votes overall.

• 1998 federal election: ALP (concentrated voters in few electorates, victory by large margins) 51% of national vote but only won 67 seats, whereas Liberal National Party Coalition (distributed voters, won more electorates by smaller margins) had only 49.02% of the national vote but won 80 seats, got majority, and became government

Complicated preference deals

• preference deals can be advantageous BUT can be hidden from electors + can be driven more by political strategy than policy alignment/ not in electorate’s best interests, undermining transparency

• deals aren’t enforceable so there can be breaches of trust

Overrepresentation of major parties

more diverse representation than FPP but can still lead to overrepresentation of major political parties and underrepresentation of smaller parties+ independent candidates because of winner’s bonus.

Vote wastage

• less than FPP but still has vote wastage

• happens when votes don’t contribute to electing a candidate, such as exhausted ballots, votes for losing candidates, or surplus votes beyond what’s needed to win.

Limited reflection of societal diversity

• single member system might not adequately represent diverse society

• parties preselect conventional/ safe candidates over diversity candidates to reduce electoral risk→ system favors conventional/ safe candidates

• overrepresenting specific demographics (white middle class, 3 education males; HOR in 47th parliament is only 38% female)

• most significant disadvantage in modern Australia because of increased diversity

• caused by its advantage in promoting majority rule principle through its inherent winner’s bonus

Reduced upper house function

• majority dominated upper house:

• government controlled senate- rubber stamp model, echoed government stance, diminished capacity for effective oversight

• opposition controlled senate- obstructionist

Disadvantage of single member electorates

• limited reflection of societal diversity caused by the winner’s bonus (one seat per electorate and winner takes all→ exaggerated seat share of largest party, prioritizing majority rule over proportionality)

• so to secure majority support and prevent perceived electoral risk, parties preselect “safe” candidates with broad appeal

• parliament becomes overrepresented by conventional demographics (e.g. white, middle-class, tertiary-educated men), while underrepresenting the diversity (ethnic, LGBTQI+) of society.

• requires deliberate interventions (e.g. quotas) to promote diverse candidates in winnable seats, otherwise single member electoral systems (FPP and preferential) inadvertently suppress diverse representation and undermine equality of minorities’’ political rights. e.g. ALP has quotas for women but Liberal doesn’t- only 28 percent.s

Regional party representation

• not simply two-party system- two and half because of Nationals’ representation

• the nationals have concentrated support in agricultural regions→ can achieve absolute majorities and secure lower house seats

Australian history

• exhaustive preferential voting for federal election since 1918, replacing FPP

• PV for HOR, not senate

• changing it didn’t significantly alter the composition of parliament- winner’s bonus with two majority party system, underrepresented minor parties, adversarial partisanship