Electoral malapportionments are good for the environment. That’s what the Greens say.

Western Australia has just fixed the worst surviving malapportionment in the country – sorta kinda – where RARA votes were worth up to four times that of city residents. Sorta kinda because of a deal that seems to have been done to protect a weighted electoral system in the Upper House to get the legislation through. The villains? The Greens. And guess why there are Greens in the Western Australian Legislative Council? Because of a weighted electoral system. All slotting into place?

But there’s nothing to worry about, their electoral affairs spokesman Chrissy Sharp says. It’s all good for the environment, apparently. Look at her release on the matter:

The Greens (WA) position on electoral reform has been heavily influenced by concerns for sustainable land management according to their spokesperson, Dr Chrissy Sharp, MLC.

The approach to one vote one value adopted by the Greens is country-friendly.

The State Senate model is not advantageous to the Greens, as we have been reminded by various commentators.

“We like it because it ensures that the regions will continue to have a real say about their water, their land and their resources in State Parliament,” Dr Sharp said.

The Greens have refused to back the Labor Government’s call for the removal of vote weighting in both Houses.

We realise that without adequate political representation, the wide environment of WA and the people responsible for managing it, will be neglected.

That is why we support continued malapportionment in the Upper House: to provide for a Parliament that is better grounded in natural resource management.

Dr Sharp hopes that pastoral and agricultural land care croups will provide some support for their regional Upper House model. She is writing to them all.

So much for talk about proportional representation and democracy. Some people’s vote is still worth more than others’ because of where they live. And the WA Greens are totally blatant about it, too. “We support continued malapportionment.” Sir Joh would be delighted.