'Education' for major party benefit?

It is heartening when the Australian Electoral Commission, which has a solid administrative reputation, launches an educational program on voting for the young. The avoidance to vote, especially among the young, was estimated to be extremely high in the 2010 federal election.

According to one reliable academic source 3.25 m. people who could have voted, did not do so. In a country that has compulsory enrolment, compulsory voting and compulsory preferencing, as part of its system, something is plainly wrong. Just what it is may be considered later but the AEC appears to address the issue by concentrating on educational programs for school elections.

However, when reading the AEC’s media release about what has been proposed serious questions arise. The AEC has introduced a schools program called "Get Voting" described as "a nation-wide education initiative supporting the conduct of free and fair school elections". This is, as Electoral Commissioner Ed Killestey explains, "a new practical program providing on-line information and tools for schools to conduct elections for their student representative bodies". This aims "to develop good voting habits in the electoral process as adults".  

When checking out the Get Voting website we note then that there are only two electoral systems described there as "informed resources": Preferential voting and "first-past-the post", the former preferred in the customary way.

Surely this is a seriously inadequate initiative by the AEC. There is no mention of proportional representation, in any form.

This has existed in this country for over 100 years as the Hare-Clark system. There is also no mention of other, even more suitable, proportional systems, which would be a great improvement on the two, mentioned by the AEC. They are used in dozens of other countries with proven success. 

If the AEC program is to be introduced nation-wide, as suggested, a grand opportunity would be lost to educate school children about various systems, alternative systems used both in Australia and elsewhere. Without explaining alternatives it would NOT be a "practical and meaningful experience of voting", as claimed.

Amazingly, the Garran School in the ACT is the first one on the list. The ACT territory itself has a proportional representation system in place. How could this be omitted? Education is part of the AEC’s statutory role. It may be answerable to the Joint Standing Committee of Electoral Matters,

completely dominated by the major parties, but surely it has an independent educational function and should exercise that function!

As to the wider question why so many people are avoiding to vote one very obvious answer would have to be that voters have had enough the adversarial two-party system that has become very dysfunctional in the last few years. Thus, questions have to be asked why this so and in particular how is this related to the electoral system.

Amazingly, this causal question is generally not asked by political journalists and it is not asked either at the universities or the research institutes. We have all heard that the membership number of the major parties have dropped back to their lowest possible levels, that intra-party democracy is declining or has disappeared and that there is a problem with the funding of political parties. That issue resulted in the ineffectual 2009 Election Inquiry which, deliberately, avoided questions about the election system itself.

That system certainly suits the major parties but does it suit the voters, the Australian people? I would say no, because apart from the Senate, which is elected on a (very imperfect) system of proportional representation, the choice that voters have in Australia for the House of Representatives, is virtually meaningless. It has nothing to do with democracy. Voters will have to vote for the least objectionable major party and those who realize that, a growing number, will endeavour to avoid voting, even enrolling.

Would the system itself become more attractive if automatic enrolment is introduced as has been reported? Most unlikely I would say. The reason why the young stay away is that they find the entire political system off-putting, it has little attraction for most.

Voters should have the opportunity to consider proportional representation (preferably the Open-Party-List-System) as a far superior alternative to the present electoral system (preferential voting) that is GROSSLY biased towards the major parties in the House of Representatives. Proportional representation is based on multi-member electoral districts that provide opportunity for new parties to gain representation in the National Parliament.

The current system is appallingly adversarial. Most European countries use PR (21 out of 28) and also many others, like New Zealand and South Africa. Altogether 89 states use a PR system. Japan and Thailand are considering now changing to PR. A form of PR is used in Australia in the Senate where smaller parties and Independents are doing an excellent job as a result.

Tasmania and the ACT also have the Hare-Clark system of PR. Amazingly, Australians have NEVER had the opportunity in a referendum or plebiscite to express a preference for an electoral system. Education about electoral systems has been rudimentary here – and can now be improved considerably IF the AEC gets its act together.

This is a supposedly a democracy and we should have a say in what electoral system we prefer in Australia. Proportional representation promotes diversity in our Parliaments and introduces a new political culture. In the Open-Party-List-Systems (used mostly) voters can indicate their preference for a party AND a particular candidate on its list with ONE mark. It is a flexible system resulting in coalition government that produces parliamentary majorities. It is flexible, inexpensive and fast in counting.

No, proportional representation is NOT like minority government, often claimed here. Minority government reflects a failing of a two-party system that is the result of single-member-district preferential voting (since 1918) combined with compulsory voting (in 1924).

PR proper produces majority government of diverse groups in Parliament. It is long overdue. It will produce a much more cooperative political culture, a new beginning – and will also help end the blocking of amendments to the Constitution. This is an important aspect frequently overlooked.

Unless both major parties support a proposal for constitutional amendment it is hardly possible to gain acceptance for a proposal. The toxic adversarialism of the system has long blocked constitutional renewal.

So if the ALP wants make its mark in electoral reform it should introduce PR (Open-Party-List-System). It introduced Hare-Clark for the Senate in 1948. Its National Conference is elected on the basis of PR. What is good for the ALP should be good for the nation as well.