Changing the way we vote

is a conversation we need to have in this country.

I am not talking about which party we vote for or even which individual. That is entirely your affair. I do not want to know who you vote for or why you vote for them. 

My concern is about something rather different. It is of particular concern after the most recent events. Yesterday's blog post mentioned a Senator I, and many others, believe is not fit to hold the office of Senator. How did she get there?

Contrary to the belief of many people she did not get there because people marked her as a "one" on their ballot papers. There were only a very small number of people who did that, so small that she would not even have had her deposit returned to her. (The deposit is made to try and ensure candidates are serious about their intentions. If you achieve enough votes the money is returned even if you do not succeed.)

No, this Senator managed to achieve a place through what are known as "compulsory preferences". These need to be investigated.

As I have pointed out elsewhere in this blog there is no actual requirement to vote in this country. Yes, it is put to us that "voting is compulsory". Even the Electoral Commission tells us that. The reality is that there is a legal requirement to "attend the ballot box"  unless given a postal vote or legal reason to abstain from voting. There is a legal requirement to be on the electoral roll once you reach a point where you will be old enough to vote (eighteen) on your next birthday too. You are supposed to "mark" the ballot paper you receive but in the privacy of that little enclosure nobody can be sure you do. It would be foolish to waste the opportunity though wouldn't it?

The problem after that is as follows. There will almost always be more than one candidate. There may be many candidates. I think there were seven in this electorate at the last state election. In order for a vote to be valid the candidates all need to be numbered in order - in this case from one to seven. It does not matter if you do not want any of the other candidates. You put a "one" next to your candidate of choice and then go on until you have numbered all the boxes in order. 

We are told that this is fair and reasonable and that it prevents run off votes and more. No, it isn't fair or reasonable and it most certainly is not desirable because it is compulsory. It is the compulsion which is wrong. While there are perhaps grounds for making attendance at the ballot box compulsory there are no grounds at all for compelling people to make a second choice in order to have their first choice count. This "compulsion" can be manipulated, some would say "rigged".

Of the seven candidates on the ballot paper for this electorate there was one each from both the major parties. Most of the votes would go their way. That was bound to happen. There was no highly popular rogue candidate. After that there was someone from "the Greens" and their preferences would flow heavily towards the leftist candidate. There were two very minor party candidates and there were two "independent" candidates. The problem is that the latter were not "independent" at all. They were there to ensure the preferences flowed to a major party candidate. It worked of course. It works all the time. People win a seat on preferences.

Voting for the Senate is even more complex.  There are "quotas" to fill. You can also vote "above the line" for a party" or "below the line" for individual candidates. Thorpe actually had just 1.05% of first preference votes as a Greens candidate. Seven months later she left the party to sit as an independent. She is there for a full six year term and it seems nothing can be done about it. 

It is no secret that I have no time for the Greens. I have read their policy manifesto more than once and see much of it as dangerous nonsense which would be impossible to implement. At the same time I believe that they put the time and money into getting Thorpe elected and she should not have been able to use them in that way. The same could be said of any other elected member who deserts the party which helped them win office.

There needs to be a change to our electoral system. We need to ensure preferences at very least are voluntary. It would reduce the ability to manipulate the outcome. We also need to ensure that people who are elected cannot desert the party which put the time and money in to helping them get there. If you want to resign from the party go back to the electorate and get their permission to do it. There would be more than one way of doing that. 

It is time to start thinking about these things - or we could be dealing with more people like Thorpe.