Extremists wish to gain the balance of power in parliament. How can we safe guard the system and make it more difficult for them to do so?
Not Truly Representative
The Preferential System and First Past the Post Under both systems it is easy for a candidate to win with a small percentage of the vote even though the candidate who wins may be very unpopular. In some elections it would be relatively easy for an extremist to gain the balance of power.
It is important to note that the problem with first past the post and the preferential systems is not what votes are counted but rather what votes are not counted. (An electoral system which does not reflect the popularity and unpopularity of candidates is not truly democratic.)
First Past the Post
Every voter gets just one vote in the first past the post system; under this system a candidate can win with a very small percentage of the votes. The more candidates there are the fewer votes are needed to win. You might say, "well that's fair if they get more votes than any one else", but is it? Suppose there are ten candidates, one of those candidates can win with just 20% of the vote. The 80% of voters who did not vote for that candidate may have preferred anyone else rather than him or her. 80% of voters may have voted that candidate last if they were able to allocate preferences to all candidates. It is easy to see how a small united group can win over a much larger divided community. It is much easier for someone like Hitler to be elected under this system than any other voting system (that I am aware of). The Preferential System
Note: You will not be able to identify the serious flaw with the preferential system until you look at what votes are not counted. (If you are not sure how the preferential system works see the following example on the Australian Electoral Commission's website.)
To highlight a serious flaw in the system lets imagine an election is held in which ten candidates run in a particular electorate (Candidates A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J.)1.
One of the candidates, candidate A, receives 30% of the primary vote (first preferences) and is voted last by 49% of voters.Question: Is it possible for candidate A to win in this electorate?
Yes, it is possible for candidate A to win, as long as he or she does not receive 50% or more of the last preferences.
In this same electorate another candidate, candidate B, receives 100% of the 2nd preferences (candidate B was every voters 2nd choice). Question: Is it possible for candidate B to win with 100% of the 2nd preferences?
No, it is not possible for candidate B to win. Not one preference will be counted as the candidate with the least number of primary votes after the first count is no longer in the running.
70% of voters voted for candidate B before candidate A yet candidate A is elected (70% of voters did not give their primary or 2nd preference to candidate A). Is the preferential system fair to the electorate? No, they may as well have voted candidate B last as none of the preferences which were allocated to him were counted. Is the preferential system fair to the candidate? No! Is the system fair to the individual voter? To answer this question another illustration must be used.
Most preferences, in all elections are not counted. Many voters do not get any of their preferences counted or their candidate elected.
To illustrate a serious flaw with the system imagine there are five candidates and you voted the following way.
Candidate A
1
Candidate B
2
Candidate C
3
Candidate D
4
Candidate E
5
The lowest remaining preferences is counted in each count
All the primary votes are counted first (the first count) and the candidate with the least primary votes (number ones) is out of the running; everyone who voted one for that candidate now has their 2nd preference distributed, which, when counted, is equal to a vote for that candidate. Sounds fair doesn't it?
Let's imagine that in the above example candidate B is coming last after all the primary votes have been counted. Because candidate B is coming last, she is now excluded; none of the preferences allocated to her (including yours) are counted. You may as well have voted her last. Your 2nd preference was not and will not get counted in this election. Those who voted 1 for candidate B will now have their 2nd preferences counted (when a vote is counted it is equal to a primary vote). For the sake of explanation let's imagine that after the 2nd count is finished candidate C is now coming last. Candidate C is now out of the running so your 3rd preference is not counted either. After the 3rd count candidate A (the candidate you voted for) is coming last and so your candidate is out of the running. So which of your preferences are going to be counted? Your 4th preference will be counted even though your 2nd and 3rd preferences were not. So in effect you were forced to choose between the two candidates you least preferred while none of your other preferences were counted. Note: Some people will have their 2nd and 3rd preferences counted. Doesn't it seem unfair that their preferences were counted while yours were not? Why should the way other people vote affect which of my preferences are counted? If you want to go deeper here is a more complex example which illustrates some of the serious problems with the preferential system (see here). If you think that is unrealistic then compare that example to the following real life situation. History shows that there are many such similar examples. Unfortunately the results never show us how many last preferences and second last preferences an elected candidate receives. Candidates can easily be elected with more than 50 (or even 60%) of the second last preferences and last preferences (combined). For a vote to be fair each vote must be counted and the unpopularity of each candidate must be reflected in the results. (A system which can elect one of the most unpopular candidates in an electorate is not a reliable system.)
Note: The following system will not confuse voters as they will continue to vote in the same manner as in past elections. (All boxes on a ballot paper must be numbered, no boxes are to be left blank and no number is to be used more than once.) The difference with the proposed system is with the way votes are counted.
A Better System
Like the present system, if a candidate receives 50% of the primary vote + 1 they will automatically be elected.
The rules for the way individuals vote will be exactly the same as they are at present. The difference with the proposed system is not with how votes are made but with how votes are counted.
The unpopularity as well as the popularity of each candidate will be measured. We've named the proposed system the Merit Assessment System.
Suppose 5 candidates are running, if a voter puts a 5 next to a candidates name that candidate receives 5 votes against her. The candidate with the least number of votes is the most acceptable candidate to the electorate as a whole. Under the preferential system it is possible for a candidate to win with as little as 20% of the primary votes and 49% of the last preferences. Under the proposed system it would be impossible for such a candidate to win.
In a 5 candidate race, if a candidate received 40% of the last preferences it would only be possible for that candidate to win if they received more than 50% of the primary vote. Such a system would stop most radicals of any persuasion being elected into government.*
How Votes Would Be Counted The count would be extremely quick under the proposed system and very difficult to cheat.
Ideally it would be done through touch screen voting and hard copies of the results would be made. However, even if all the counting was done manually it would still be as least as quick as the present system.
Example: In a five candidate race there would be five counters sitting side by side at each polling booth once voting was finished. There would be one counter for each candidate who counts only the votes for that candidate. After the vote is counted he or she would put a tick on the score sheet in the one, two or three box etc. for candidate A (similar to a cricket run sheet) and then slip the ballot paper (through a slot in the cardboard wall) to the next counter who will put a mark next to the appropriate box for candidate B. The process would continue till the ballot paper reached the end of the line. In a five candidate race each ballot paper is numbered one to five, so the total on each ballot paper would equal 15 (1+2+3+4+5=15). Mathematically it would be almost impossible to cheat the system during the count. If a mistake was made while counting ballot papers, it just wouldn't add up. The ballot box (or that pile of ballot papers, e.g. a pile of one hundred ballot papers) with the mistake in it would be put to the side to be recounted if the results were very close. Scrutineers would also watch counters in exactly the same way as they do now.
Summary: We need to adopt a better system of voting so that radicals do not win electorates with a relatively small percentage of their electorates vote. The real danger in this is that they may gain the balance of power. The preferential system is better than first past the post but is still deeply flawed. The problems with both systems can only be recognized when the votes which are not counted are looked at. The proposed system, the merit assessment system, makes it almost impossible for candidates who are unpopular to be elected and ensures all votes are counted. A democracy is only as good as the vote is fair and just.
Note: The proposed system would destabilise government if introduced into the lower house and upper house at the same time, as governments could (and probably would) be rapidly changed. Therefore it should only be introduced for the election of the lower house for between ten and 15 years as a trial period. After that time it could be implemented for the senate or left as is. (Note: In Australia, it is easier for radicals to be elected into the lower house as relatively few votes are needed for a person to be elected, but 15% of an entire states vote is required to be elected into the senate.)
1. In the 2007 election many electorates had more than 10 candidates running. This is not uncommon.
