What’s wrong with single-member electorates - Part I

Certainly, having more people involved would make branch stacking a less certain route to political office in the latter case. But would it change local political behaviour very much? Arrogant local members might find it a bit harder no longer just having to cultivate just a small handful of influential members. Falling out over preselection would usually be seen as sour grapes.

But this is all largely about conduct within the dominant party. As little would change for others, not much could be expected in the way of improved local political debate. Safe seats would continue to hold a magnetic attraction for the ambitious and the additional involvement possible within the dominant party would amount to little more than window-dressing. The winner-take-all mentality and inequitable regional relationships between votes and representatives would continue.

Voluntary or optional preferential voting?

Voluntary voting is sometimes put forward as another way of keeping MPs more in touch with their constituencies. Some of those putting such views appear to have a genuine belief that compulsion in such matters is inherently undemocratic, while others give the suspicion that the likely political effects might weigh most on their minds.

Of course, no-one seriously believes that anything would change in safe seats. Incumbents with large margins wouldn’t suddenly be putting enormous energy into getting out the vote. The others would know their place.

However, in marginal electorates the extent of turnout of various demographics would be important so campaigning would be even more intense, taking up proportionally more effort and resources than currently occurs.

Optional preferential voting has had its supporters on philosophical or practical grounds.

The Labor Party once used to campaign for it actively and eventually succeeded in instituting it in New South Wales and Queensland Legislative Assembly polls. Cynics point out its support for fully preferential voting during the 90s coincided with a change in flow of advantage from preferences.

Taking away someone’s vote for not filling in all preferences is certainly authoritarian. Some have seen in this a conspiracy by the major parties to maintain their positions. However, the real impacts are again felt only in the smallish numbers of marginal seats.

Whatever tinkering is done at the edges, the major distortions inherent in the winner-take-all nature of single-member electorates remain. While voter involvement can be increased somewhat, patterns of geographic dominance are still widely present and a handful of marginal seats will always attract an unhealthy preponderance of attention.