Amid growing concern about Legislative Council voting practices, the Electoral Reform Society of South Australia (ERSSA) is calling for an independent inquiry to examine the system and ensure that control of the vote rests with the voters themselves, not with political party machines.
Deane Crabb, Secretary of the Society, said that while the counting of formal Legislative Council votes could certainly be improved through modern computerisation, the real challenge lies in reforming how votes are cast.
“The current system of counting votes seeks to make every formal vote as effective as possible – and generally does so quite fairly,” Mr Crabb said.
“However, it’s high time we seriously tackled the problems bedevilling the actual process of voting.”
A Healthy Democracy – and Its Hidden Pitfalls
Mr Crabb noted that in any democracy, a large field of candidates is usually a positive sign of civic participation. However, in systems using above-the-line (ATL) voting, the multiplication of minor parties and cleverly named groups can produce unintended and opaque results.
He pointed to the 1995 New South Wales Legislative Council election, where A Better Future for Our Children candidate Alan Corbett was elected despite having very few first-preference votes. His success came entirely from prearranged preference flows made possible under the ATL system.
“Since then, catchy party names have proliferated on the ‘tablecloth’ ballot paper – first in NSW in 1999, and now in South Australia’s Legislative Council elections,” Mr Crabb said.
“The biggest problem with above-the-line voting is how it removes transparency from the process.”
Behind-Closed-Doors Deals
Under the current system, most voters simply mark one box above the line, unaware of how their preferences are distributed.
“In a close contest, preference flows can be decisive in determining who wins the final seats,” Mr Crabb explained.
“Yet the deals that determine these flows are struck behind closed doors and registered with the Electoral Office – with most voters having no idea where their vote will end up.”
The 2001 Western Australian election provided a striking example.
“In that election, One Nation supporters marking the party’s box above the line in two Legislative Council regions unwittingly handed the balance of power to the Greens,” Mr Crabb said.
Making Voting Simpler – and Fairer
Mr Crabb argued that voting below the line, the only current alternative, is so cumbersome that it deters genuine voter control.
“To cast a formal vote below the line, a voter must number every single box – an unreasonable and outdated requirement,” he said.
The Society believes that reform should focus on making it easy for voters to express their real preferences without enabling manipulation through party voting tickets.
“The best solution is to remove avenues for behind-the-scenes manipulation while keeping the act of voting straightforward,” Mr Crabb said.
“The Hare–Clark system used in Tasmania and the ACT achieves this balance. It works well, completely avoids ‘safe seats,’ and enhances fairness by rotating candidate names within party columns.”
Call for Independent Review
The Electoral Reform Society is urging the State Government to establish an independent investigation into Legislative Council voting arrangements to restore transparency and strengthen voter choice.
“Such an inquiry would lead to much stronger voter influence over who gets elected,” Mr Crabb concluded.
“That influence is essential to any properly functioning democracy.”
Background
- Under South Australia’s current Legislative Council voting system, voters can either mark a single box above the line (ATL) for a party, or below the line (BTL) for individual candidates.
- Above-the-line voting allows parties to prearrange preference deals, which are not always transparent to voters.
- The Hare–Clark system, used in Tasmania and the ACT, avoids these problems through candidate rotation and the abolition of ATL voting, ensuring that preferences reflect voters’ actual choices.
Leave a Reply