Do we need Electoral Reform in the Senate? Yes we do!

It was the day after sitting, and all through the house, not a pollie was stirring not even the house! They said there was a chance of showers in our nation’s capital but the air was humid and the flag hung still limp. After a quick trip to the High Court of Australia, were I was able to listen to an appeal proceed I was back for round three! Inside Parliament house there was a quietness that had not been present the last two days, and the formality of governing was not as distinct. Nevertheless, when the guard stationed at the entrance of the building recognises you from your previous visits you know you have serious political issues!

My destination was not the House of Representatives, but the Main Senate Committee Room, placed between the House and the Senate and was for a very special reason. The Senate, during the year host a number of Occasional Lectures, covering a wide range of political topics, and Yesterdays happened to be given by Antony “Mr Elections” Green on whether “Is it time for Fundamental Review of the Senates Electoral System?” Antony Green for all those not in the know, is one of Australia’s leading Psephologists and Election commentator for the ABC. As well as creating the election program which is used for every State and Federal Election as well as by-elections, he is a wealth of electoral political knowledge.

Since the 2013 Federal Election on September 7, many political commentators and reporters have been talking about the need for electoral reform in the Senate, because as of July first a record number of micro parties will be the balance of power in the Upper House. One of the more outspoken commentators regarding this matter has been Antony Green who advocates for simplicity rather than complexity when it comes to the way in which Senators are elected given they are elected for 6 year terms (rather than the 3 in the House of Reps) and in New South Wales 110 candidates contested 6 seats. Greens argument that even the most competent voter, one who had avidly studied preference flows could not have predicted the Senates outcome. Furthermore in Western Australia, where the Senate Outcome is still being contested, if less than 20 voters IN THE STATE had voted differently two different Senators would have been elected.

Green goes on to further back his claims, by using the example of the Liberals and the Liberal Democrats in New South Wales (but I know the same issue was in South Australia). Voters who wanted to vote for the Abbott lead Liberal Party when in fact they voted for the Liberal Democrats as they were at the beginning of the ballot paper. Green further states that in forcing voters to either choose backroom deals (above the line voting) or to be subjected to filling in up to 110 boxes is not acceptable anymore.

Saying that however, Green does provide possible solutions, however some would be more popular than others in the electorate. Among the more popular options, is optional preferential above or below the line. Above the line would require voters to list parties from one to N or below the line to a threshold of perhaps 50 or 2/3 the candidates and if the preferences need to flow longer then, that ballot would be disqualified. This option is quite popular in the community, however does pose some problems. Another solution would be to make senate candidates (or parties) achieve a minimum quota threshold on first preference votes to ensure that micro parties who receive under say 5% of the vote could not eventually get a seat.

One thing Green said is certain, is change will happen, as the current system is unmanageable for modern day politics in its current form, but whatever form it takes it must “ensure the Senate system reflects the will of the electorate” rather than backroom deals and “voters must have the power over preferences”.

Furthermore, in a democracy voters are the key, as it is them who ultimately decide who will make and create the laws in which we are need to live by. Therefore there is simply no point in a voting system which deters voters from being informed and when simplicity is the key complexities need to be avoided at all costs.