I want to make a suggestion on electoral reform to someone who
is considering changing their system. The suggestion I have is
minor, but I think it could make electors' votes have more chance
of counting for their choice than any system I am aware of.
Background:
Some responses I have heard in casual conversation are:
a) 'I hear these guys making lots of promises about doing good
things, but when they get elected, none of it happens. So why waste
my time voting?'
- At this time, I do not see much that we can do with this,
other than research it and give the information to the
politicians.
b) 'Why waste my time voting? The candidate (or party) I would
vote for does not have a chance anyway, so why bother voting?'
- For this response, I think we could give their vote another
way to count, even though their candidate does not have a
reasonable probability of winning that seat by First Past the Post
or Preferential. Our electoral system could be set up to give that
candidate another chance to be elected. I understand we have
federal parties that get a large enough proportion of the total
vote to have 3 members of parliament, but have no voice in
parliament.
How about an Optional / Preferential / Proportional Vote
Operating Totally Through the Electoral Process?
I think this sounds a lot more complicated than it is, and it
would give us a more true representative democracy. It would take
extra seats in parliament not allocated to electoral districts and
make counting votes more involved. It has a higher probability of
minority governments, but it seems that minority governments can be
very effective. Governments seem more effective when they see the
whole picture. That is where it seems a more representative
democracy could be more effective.
How Would It Work?
1. Voting would be optional / preferential.
i.e. Electors could vote above the red line choosing just their
first choice, and the other choices would go in as chosen and shown
by the candidate or party they choose; or they could make all their
own choices for the remainder of the candidates by voting
preferentially below the line (as in Australia).
2. Counting would be preferential. The votes of candidates with
the least number of votes, one by one are redistributed until one
candidate has an absolute majority (more than 50%) and is elected.
However those candidates not elected on the initial preferential
count still have a chance of being elected by the proportional
vote.
3. The Proportional Vote would be used to elect representatives
from parties to give a truer representation (percentage) of the
total electoral vote (as in New Zealand). These MLAs would be
elected from a set number of seats over and above those elected
from electoral districts (possibly 40% of seats). The seats would
go to parties on a proportional basis to achieve a closer
representation of the total electoral vote. As I see it, the
parties¹ seats would go to their candidates who acquired
the highest percentage of first choice votes in their own electoral
districts. They would be elected in the electoral process, not be
chosen by their party (as I understand occurs in all electoral
systems I have found). Candidates and supporters from all parties,
even though not elected here, could gain satisfaction in having
helped their party gain representation in parliament.
NOTE: Much of the information has come from the State Electoral
Office of Southern Australia, but has not been formally researched.
This 'Optional/Preferential/Proportional Vote Operating Totally
Through the Electoral System', I have not been able to document, so
I do not know the positives and negatives of it. However, I think
it is worth considering.
levelCMS