In addition to the elections this Saturday that will determine government in South Australia and Tasmania, South Australians also vote to elect their Legislative Council, the second most democratic house of parliament in Australia.
What makes it democratic is that the whole state votes as one electorate, electing 11 members every four years (for eight-year terms), so the quota for election is 8.3% of the vote. What makes it less democratic than the New South Wales upper house is that it uses a ticket system or “above the line” voting, so preferences are mostly distributed according to the wishes of the party machines, not the voters.
Those preference tickets have now been published by the SA Electoral Commission, and in slightly more user-friendly form on the ABC website. Anyone planning to vote above the line should make a point of studying them: otherwise you are voting blind, and blind voting can have unexpected effects — just ask Steve Fielding.
The last Legislative Council election was made noteworthy by the extraordinary performance of anti-pokies independent Nick Xenophon, who received more than 20% of the vote — easily electing himself and a running mate, with almost half a quota to spare. The other nine seats went four ALP, three Liberal, and one each to Family First and the Greens.
With no Xenophon in the race this time, it’s universally expected that the Liberals will win a fourth seat, but the eleventh spot is wide open. This is the sort of election in which a hitherto-unknown minor party or independent can harvest enough preferences to reach the later stages of the count and, with luck, win a seat — as groups such as the Outdoor Recreation Party and “A Better Future for our Children” did in NSW before they abolished ticket voting.
However, that seems unlikely this time around in South Australia — partly because 8.3% is a bigger target than the 4.5% required in NSW, but also because none of the lesser candidates seems to have a particularly favorable position on preferences.
The minor parties that seem to be getting most attention are Dignity for Disability, the Save RAH [Royal Adelaide Hospital] Party, and Independent SA Fishing and Lifestyle. There are also the Democrats, still clinging if not to life then to a sort of afterlife, and incumbent ex-Democrat David Winderlich, standing as “Communities Against Corruption”.
But none of these are swapping preferences very effectively. Dignify for Disability, Winderlich and the Democrats are mostly swapping preferences, but their votes then go to the Greens or Family First ahead of Save RAH. Save RAH and Fishing & Lifestyle both go straight to Family First, as do several smaller groups — plus, of course, anything left over from the Liberal ticket.
This means that unless their vote collapses dramatically, Family First is pretty much assured of a seat. (The major parties should get far more grief than they do for giving preferences to the extremists of the Assemblies of God party — Labor is little better, going to Family First straight after the Greens.) But there’s not likely to be anything to spare to help any of the other minor parties.
That leaves the most likely result as a fifth seat for whichever of the major parties is having a good day — as the Liberals did in 2002, and Labor would have last time were it not for Xenophon — although if the Greens do well enough to generate a surplus, it’s possible they might elect a Democrat or Dignity for Disability. So the new Legislative Council should be eight Labor, seven Liberal, two Greens, two Family First, two Xenophonites and one doubtful.
God help us in SA if Family First are starting to get first preferences.
And yes I understand the irony in that statement.
I was amazed when I started looking at the preferences at how high up Family First is with so many of the independents and parties. Doesn’t Labor notice things like Steve Fielding? Dignity for Disability should have known better as the Greens are far more likely to deliver on promises than Family First who have managed to do no more than look pious and concerned. Voting below the line is not popular but South Australians may do more of it in this election than before because of the insidious nature of the preference deals.
If I’ve encouraged more people to look at the preference tickets, I’ll be very pleased. For those who are interested, Antony Green has now published his calculator for the Legislative Council, where you enter primary votes and it distributes all the preferences for you: http://www2b.abc.net.au/elections/view/senatecalculator.aspx?e=3&ca=lc . I haven’t tried it myself yet, but I’ve got a lot of faith in Antony’s computers.
How come Lysistrata gets the same icon as me?
This item is slightly different to the others. It’s about the need to number every square on the ballot paper for the South Australian upper house.
A media release I just received from the Electoral Reform Society of South Australia (that state’s branch of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia) written by its secretary Deane Crabb gives the position on compulsory marking of preferences both for South Australia and also for the Senate and for each other state. I’ll do a precis of it as it’s too long otherwise:
If anyone wants to vote below the line for the (South Australian) Upper House on March 20, they face the tedious task of numbering all 74 candidates. For a formal vote, this must be done without omission or duplication. Just one blank square is allowed, but only if the others have been numbered sequentially from 1 to 73.
“This is outrageous when everyone has a single transferable vote,” said Deane Crabb, Secretary of the Electoral Reform Society of South Australia.
“No where else in Australia is there such an unfair requirement.
“While voters should be encouraged to mark preferences, they should not be needlessly robbed of their vote because they make some minor numbering error below the line.
“Past experience suggests that if it was not for the checking required because of the unreasonable formality provisions below the line, during the scrutiny in most cases no more than 20 to 25 numbers would actually be looked at.
“At the last State election, 24% who tried to vote below the line voted informally. I would expect it will again be an unacceptably high figure for this election” said Mr Crabb.
FORMAL VOTE REQUIREMENTS ELSEWHERE
More moderate requirements for a formal vote in other Australian elections involving proportional representation are as follows:
* in the Senate, at least 90% of the squares have to be marked with no more than three departures from sequential numbering;
* at least as many preferences as vacancies are required in Tasmania’s Hare-Clark system for the House of Assembly, South Australia’s local government elections and the Victorian Legislative Council;
* 15 preferences below the line are enough for a formal vote in New South Wales where there are 21 Legislative Council vacancies;
* a single first preference is enough for a formal vote in elections for the ACT Legislative Assembly where five or seven MLAs are returned from each seat.
Only Western Australia has the same onerous obligation as South Australia for its Legislative Council. But there, the whole State is divided into six electorates each returning six members and there are not such a large number of candidates contesting each electorate.