The dust is settling on the Council elections and our new Council is all but decided. Certainly we have a new Mayor. I’m sure we all wish all new Councillors and new Mayor Paul Green well and will extend the usual honeymoon period to them to allow them to find their feet.
Then we’ll get stuck into them too. They will inevitably make decisions some of us will disagree with, although probably with not quite the ferocity as we felt obliged to react to the excesses of the previous Council.
In the meantime a look at the process that delivered our Mayor might be interesting.
In the Shoalhaven we have what is officially termed a ‘Popularly-elected Mayor’. That is, there is a separate election by the residents for the position of Mayor. In many Local Government Areas the Mayor is elected by the new Councillors from amongst themselves. There are obvious arguments for and against both systems.
One plus in our system is that the people get the Mayor they want, at least to a point; not the Mayor the dominant faction on Council decides. On the other hand, the popular election of the Mayor creates an extra position on Council. Thus we have 13 on our Council; 12 Councillors plus the Mayor. It can also be the case that a celebrity Mayor will be elected on the strength of his/her profile as, say, a local media ‘star’.
Over the last several elections the State Government has been tinkering with the method of voting. We now have a different system, or more accurately, variations on a system, in each of the three tiers of government. Each though is based on a system of preferences wherein a ballot paper can pass from candidate to candidate depending on the numbers a voter places on the paper. It should be remembered that the net effect of a preferential system is not to elect the most popular candidate but rather the least unpopular candidate.
Locally we now have, at least till they change it again, a State Lower House style, ‘number as many squares as you wish’ model for the election of Mayor and an above and below the line system of electing Councillors. However this above and below system is different to the State and Federal Upper House models. If you choose to vote below the line, only a minimum of four squares need be numbered, it being the number of Councillors to be elected. You may number further squares if you wish. If you choose the above the line option then you get to decide the flow of your preferences by again numbering as many squares as you wish. The backroom preference deals of previous elections are thankfully gone.
This new Local Government election system would, on the face of it, seem to have brought together the best of all options in that it gives the voter maximum choice to allocate his/her vote(s) where he/she deems fit. Ah, but even silver clouds can rain on the parade. The downside to all this choice is that many votes ‘exhaust’ and do not aid in the election of anyone. This was the fate of 17,972 votes in the Shoalhaven Mayoral vote just decided. If we add to this number, the informal votes and the number of voters who just didn’t turn up, then the votes cast which actually determined the new Mayor of the Shoalhaven was a mere 52.6% of the 66,298 eligible voters. Paul Green was declared the winner with 19,953 formal votes after preferences, a tick over 30% of the electorate.
In other words only one in two eligible voters actually took part in the determination of the Mayorship and the Mayor was elected by a definite minority of the electorate.
How can this be? Please explain? OK, here goes. Thinking caps on please. If a voter chooses to number less than all squares then his/her vote may not still be ‘alive’ as the final preference distribution is done. This final distribution occurs when only three candidates are left in the count and the ballot papers of the candidate with fewest votes are allocated to the other two. If any of these ballot papers do not have a number next to one of these remaining two then it is cast aside and does not play a role in determining the winner.
To be specific with respect to the 2008 Mayoral election, the last three candidates standing were Paul Green (17,897 votes), Greg Watson (14,599) and John Fergusson (11,951). Fergusson was excluded from the count and his ballot papers examined in order to allocate preferences. However, only 320 indicated a next preference for Watson and 2056 for Green. The majority (9575) of Fergusson’s ballot papers did not have a number next to either Watson or Green and were deemed ‘exhausted’ votes. Many other ballot papers exhausted at earlier stages of the count because voters chose not to number all squares.
The short of it is that if you chose to not place a number next to one of the two most ‘popular’ candidates ie the two who had most votes just before final preference distribution, then your vote played no part in the election of the Mayor. You may as well have defaced the paper or stayed home.
So there’s the shortfall in the system. Unless you have a crystal ball and know in advance who the two most popular candidates will be, so that you can be sure to mark a number next to at least one of them, then it’s best to number all squares.
So why not make it compulsory to number all squares. The short answer is that having compelled you to turn up with the threat of a fine, the powers that be figure you will feel more relaxed and comfortable about the process if you are given more latitude in filling out the ballot paper even if it effectively disenfranchises up to 50% of voters.
Similarly, numbering less than all squares on the Councillor ballot paper can also lead to your vote being exhausted and taking no part in the result.
The answer to the problem is not simple or one-dimensional. Governments and the media can help but the real key to a more participatory democracy is a better-educated and motivated electorate. The following are my observations.
Firstly, the machinations of the preferential system are not well understood by voters. Education is obviously the key here but a common system in all three tiers of government elections would ease the confusion.
More information in the media about the candidates, particularly the small party and independent candidates and a greater willingness on the part of the average voter to study the field would not go astray either.
Then, given that a voter has made the effort to turn up, willingly or not, is it too much to ask that he/she spend a few seconds longer filling in all squares, above or below the line, as he/she sees fit?
There is no perfect system. As Sir Winston Churchill once said, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” I would add that a democracy in which up to 50% of votes are effectively not counted is intrinsically inferior to a participatory democracy where every vote counts.
Having said all of the above, the Council we have is the one we have to live with for the next 4 years so it's up to all of us to make it work by offering constructive critism where it falls due.
One thing is for certain, no group on the new Council has a mandate for anything more specific than a change from the excesses of the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment