Democratic dysfunction in thumping Queensland result

It is a bit like having slightly faulty TV reception – some pixilation, an annoying red line or some snow. Some people will put up with it out of apathy or fear that trying to do something might cause a total failure of reception – catastrophe. Others will go out a fiddle with the aerial or thumb through the ever-increasingly complex menu of reception and picture-quality options on the remote in the pursuit of a better picture.

I’m and aerial and remote-control fiddler.

As at 2012, Queensland may well be better governed under the LNP than Labor, but I think that Queensland would be better governed by the LNP with a majority of 10 to 20 than by the LNP with a majority of 60 or 70.

Another way to deal with the swamp effect is to have multi-member electorates as in the ACT and Tasmania. That works for places small in area and population. If we had had single-member electorates in the ACT we would have had a swamp effect at nearly every election since self-government, with Labor or Liberal winning all 17 seats on some occasions.

It would have been terrible for democracy. The reason we did not have a single-member system is because the Coalition in the Senate prevented the then Labor Government having its way.

The gasps of incredulity at the Queensland result have obscured the fact that the LNP in fact got a whisker under 50 per cent of vote and the “thumping” part of its majority was delivered by the electoral system, not the voters. Yes, the LNP should have won handsomely and the ALP should have lost badly, but an electoral system should not skew the result in a way that hurts democracy.