Yes it is possible to rig an election

in Downunder. 

There was a quite heated debate about this outside the library yesterday. It was not something I intended to get involved in but there were several people already discussing it and my opinion was asked. I hesitated even then because I rarely discuss politics with people unless I know them very well...and I did not know these four men well. 

I do know two of them are strong supporters of a political party - at least strong enough to go out and campaign. The other two men I do not know but I soon found out. 

They were discussing our voting system. It is rather more complicated than a simple "first past the post". It involves "preferences". What it means is that you get a ballot paper and you write a "one" in the box next to the name of the candidate you want to vote for. 

What happens if that candidate does not get enough votes to get elected?  Well you then go on to write a "two" next to the candidate you would like to get in if your candidate does not get elected. That's fine isn't it? It's fair. It gives you another chance to choose. There is no need for an expensive run off election. 

This is what we are told.  We also have a system where there is compulsory attendance at the ballot box. We are told we "must vote". Even the Electoral Commission tells people they "must vote". It is not quite accurate. You can mark the ballot paper any way you like in the privacy of that little space. If you want to waste the opportunity you can just pretend to mark it, fold it over, exit the little space and put it in the relevant box or boxes.

The vast majority of people do vote. Of those who do only about 5% of votes are "informal". People do as they are told.  We are nicely trained and obedient little citizens who fill in each square with a number in order to be sure our vote "counts".

Filling in each square is compulsory if we want our vote to count. It is at that point where it is possible to manipulate the vote. They will do "deals" with minor parties or even put up additional candidates as members of minor parties.  They will do it knowing that the votes will eventually flow in their direction. 

Yes, people shrug and say "But the voter controls where his or her preferences go".  That is not the issue here. The issue is that, in order to have their first choice count, the voter is being compelled to make a second choice - and that choice may not be their choice at all. They may find every other candidate offensive. Their first choice may have been on the basis of "least offensive". A candidate who is perhaps the first choice of 42% of voters can lose to a candidate who is the first choice of only 35% of voters when compulsory preferences come into play. Without the compulsion but still the right to choose a second candidate the results might be very different.  

It is not a question of whether we should or should not be compelled to "vote" which matters here. It is a question of whether, having made a choice, we should be compelled to go on choosing. Perhaps it is time to actually discuss this openly.