 |
|---|
| Constitución |
El sistema electoral australiano comprende las leyes y los procesos utilizados para la elección de los miembros del Parlamento australiano . El sistema tiene actualmente una serie de características distintivas que incluyen la inscripción obligatoria, el voto obligatorio , la mayoría de votos preferenciales de desempate instantáneo en escaños uninominales para elegir la cámara baja , la cámara de representantes y el uso del sistema de representación proporcional de voto único transferible. para elegir la cámara alta , el Senado . [1]
El calendario de elecciones se rige por la Constitución y las convenciones políticas. Generalmente, las elecciones se llevan a cabo aproximadamente cada tres años y son conducidas por la Comisión Electoral Australiana independiente (AEC).
Realización de elecciones [ editar ]
Las elecciones federales, las elecciones parciales y los referéndums están a cargo de la Comisión Electoral de Australia (AEC).
Registro de votantes [ editar ]
En Australia, el registro de votantes se llama inscripción, que es un requisito previo para votar en elecciones federales, elecciones parciales y referendos. La inscripción es obligatoria para los ciudadanos australianos mayores de 18 años que hayan vivido en su dirección actual durante al menos un mes. [2] Los residentes en Australia que se habían inscrito como sujetos británicos el 25 de enero de 1984, aunque no eran ciudadanos australianos, continúan inscritos. No pueden optar por no inscribirse y deben mantener sus datos actualizados y votar. (Estos comprenden aproximadamente el 9% de las inscripciones).
Padrones electorales [ editar ]
La AEC mantiene un padrón electoral permanente de la Commonwealth. Las elecciones estatales y locales se basan hoy en día en el censo electoral de la Commonwealth, mantenido bajo arreglos de censo conjunto. [3] aunque cada estado y territorio regula su propia parte del censo electoral. La única solicitud de inscripción o formulario de actualización se puede utilizar para las listas locales, estatales y del Commonwealth (excepto en Australia Occidental).
Existe una protección en la Sección 101 (8) para delitos antes de la inscripción (incluida la falta de inscripción) para aquellos inscritos de esa manera por el Comisionado Electoral. Cualquier persona que cumpla una sentencia de prisión de 3 años o más es eliminada del registro federal y debe volver a inscribirse al ser liberada. [4]
Inscripción de electores [ editar ]
Se aplican reglas especiales a los ciudadanos que viajan o viven fuera del país, [5] al personal militar y a los presos, los cuales no residen en su domicilio habitual con fines electorales. Las personas sin hogar o aquellas que no tienen una dirección fija tienen un problema particular con el registro, ya que no tienen una dirección actual para dar. La inscripción es opcional para los jóvenes de 16 o 17 años, pero no pueden votar hasta que cumplen 18 años. [6] Una persona puede registrarse o actualizar sus datos en línea o enviando un formulario en papel.
Si un cambio de dirección hace que una persona se traslade a otro electorado (división electoral), está legalmente obligado a notificar a la AEC en un plazo de 8 semanas. La AEC monitorea las ventas de casas y departamentos y envía un recordatorio (y los formularios) a los nuevos residentes si se han mudado a otro electorado, lo que facilita el cumplimiento de la ley. La AEC lleva a cabo campañas periódicas de puerta a puerta y postales para tratar de garantizar que todas las personas elegibles estén registradas en el electorado correcto. Una persona tiene 8 semanas después de cumplir los 18 para registrarse y el período de 8 semanas también se aplica a la actualización de los detalles. No inscribirse o actualizar los detalles puede incurrir en una multa. [7]
Cierre de padrones electorales antes de una elección [ editar ]
Los padrones electorales federales y estatales están cerrados para nuevas inscripciones o actualización de detalles antes de cada elección. Para las elecciones federales, se cierran 7 días después de la emisión de los autos para la elección . [8] [9] Las fechas de cierre varían para las elecciones estatales y territoriales. Históricamente, la mayoría de las nuevas aplicaciones y actualizaciones se reciben después de convocar una elección, antes del cierre de listas.
Financiamiento público de partidos políticos [ editar ]
Para recibir financiamiento público federal , un partido político debe estar registrado bajo la Ley Electoral, que requiere que tenga al menos 500 miembros. Todas las nominaciones de candidatos respaldados por un partido deben estar firmadas por el oficial registrado de un partido registrado. El nombre de los partidos registrados aparece en las cédulas de votación. Se mantienen registros separados de partidos para cada estado y territorio, con sus propios requisitos de membresía.
Para recibir fondos públicos, un candidato (respaldado por un partido o independiente) debe recibir al menos el 4% del primer voto de preferencia en la división o el estado o territorio que impugnó. [10]
Nominación [ editar ]
Los candidatos para cualquiera de las cámaras deben nominar formalmente ante la Comisión Electoral. La nominación de un candidato respaldado por un partido debe estar firmada por el Oficial Registrado de un partido registrado bajo la Ley Electoral. Se requieren cincuenta firmas de votantes elegibles para un candidato independiente.
Se requiere un depósito de $ 2,000 para un candidato a la Cámara de Representantes o al Senado. (Antes de marzo de 2019, el depósito para la Cámara de Representantes era de $ 1,000). Este depósito se reembolsa si el candidato es elegido o gana al menos el 4% del primer voto de preferencia. [11] [12]
Deben permitirse entre 10 y 27 días después de la emisión de los escritos antes del cierre de las nominaciones. [13]
El nombre y la afiliación política de los candidatos que son destituidos por un partido o que renuncian a él después del cierre de las nominaciones continúan apareciendo en la papeleta de votación y se presentan como independientes. Sin embargo, surgen complicaciones para los candidatos al Senado en esa posición con respecto a la votación "por encima de la línea", ya que las listas de los partidos también se habrían registrado.
Día de las elecciones [ editar ]
La fecha y el tipo de elección federal los determina el Primer Ministro, después de considerar los requisitos constitucionales, los requisitos legales y las consideraciones políticas, quien aconseja al Gobernador General que ponga en marcha el proceso disolviendo una o ambas cámaras y emitiendo escritos para la elección . La Constitución de Australia no requiere elecciones simultáneas para el Senado y la Cámara de Representantes , pero durante mucho tiempo se ha preferido que las elecciones para las dos cámaras se realicen simultáneamente. La elección más reciente de la Cámara de Representantes tuvo lugar en 1972 , y la elección más reciente del Senado tuvo lugar en 1970 . Las elecciones federales deben celebrarse en sábado[14] que ha sido el caso desde las elecciones federales de 1913 . [15]
Con sujeción a esas consideraciones, se puede convocar una elección para la Cámara de Representantes en cualquier momento antes de que expire el mandato de tres años de la Cámara de Representantes [16] [17] El mandato de la Cámara de Representantes comienza en la primera sesión. día de la Cámara después de su elección y tiene una duración máxima de tres años, pero la Cámara puede disolverse antes. [16] La fecha de la primera sesión puede prorrogarse siempre que "Habrá una sesión del Parlamento al menos una vez al año, de modo que no transcurran doce meses entre la última sesión del Parlamento en una sesión y su primera sentado en la próxima sesión ". [18]La fecha real de la elección es posterior. Se deben permitir entre 10 y 27 días para las nominaciones, [13] y la elección real se establecería entre 21 y 31 días después del cierre de las nominaciones. [19] En consecuencia, deben permitirse entre 31 y 58 después de la emisión de los autos para la elección.
El mandato de los senadores finaliza el 30 de junio tres (para la mitad de los senadores si sigue a una doble disolución) o seis años después de su elección. Las elecciones de senadores en una elección de medio Senado deben tener lugar en el año anterior a la expiración de los mandatos, excepto si el parlamento se disuelve antes. [20] Los mandatos de los senadores de los territorios se alinean con las elecciones a la Cámara. La fecha límite para la celebración de una elección a medio Senado debe dar tiempo para que se cuenten los votos y se devuelvan los autos antes de que los senadores recién elegidos asuman el cargo el 1 de julio. Esto tomó más de un mes en 2016, por lo que prácticamente la fecha en la que se va a realizar una elección a medio Senado debe ser entre el 1 de julio del año anterior a que expiren los mandatos del Senado hasta mediados de mayo del año de vencimiento.
Una doble disolución no puede tener lugar dentro de los seis meses anteriores a la fecha de expiración de la Cámara de Representantes. [21]
Disposiciones constitucionales y legales [ editar ]
Las disposiciones constitucionales y legales que influyen en la elección de las fechas electorales incluyen: [22]
- El artículo 12 de la Constitución dice: "El gobernador de cualquier estado puede hacer que se dicten órdenes judiciales para la elección de senadores de ese estado".
- El artículo 13 de la Constitución dispone que la elección de Senadores se realizará en el período de doce meses antes de que queden vacantes las plazas.
- La sección 28 de la Constitución dice: "Cada Cámara de Representantes continuará durante tres años desde la primera sesión de la Cámara, y no más, pero el Gobernador General podrá disolverla antes". [23] Dado que el 45º Parlamento de Australia se inauguró el 30 de agosto de 2016, expirará el 29 de agosto de 2019.
- El artículo 32 de la Constitución dice: "Los autos se dictarán dentro de los diez días siguientes a la expiración de una Cámara de Representantes o a la proclamación de su disolución". Diez días después del 29 de agosto de 2019 es el 8 de septiembre de 2019.
- El artículo 156 (1) de la CEA dice: "La fecha fijada para la nominación de los candidatos no será menor de 10 días ni mayor de 27 días después de la fecha del auto". [13] Veintisiete días después del 8 de septiembre de 2019 es el 5 de octubre de 2019.
- El artículo 157 de la CEA dice: "La fecha fijada para la votación no será menor de 23 días ni mayor de 31 días después de la fecha de nominación". [19] Treinta y un días después del 5 de octubre de 2019 es el 5 de noviembre de 2019, un martes.
- El artículo 158 de la CEA dice: "El día fijado para las elecciones será sábado". [14] El sábado anterior al 5 de noviembre de 2019 es el 2 de noviembre de 2019. Por lo tanto, esta es la última fecha posible para las elecciones a la cámara baja.
Sistema de votación [ editar ]
Voto obligatorio [ editar ]
El voto es obligatorio en las elecciones federales, las elecciones parciales y los referéndums para los que figuran en el censo electoral, así como para las elecciones estatales y territoriales. Australia impone el voto obligatorio. [24] A las personas en esta situación se les pide que expliquen su falta de voto. Si no se proporciona una razón satisfactoria (por ejemplo, enfermedad o prohibición religiosa), se impone una multa de hasta $ 170, [25] y la falta de pago de la multa puede resultar en una audiencia judicial y costos adicionales. Aproximadamente el 5% de los votantes inscritos no vota en la mayoría de las elecciones. En Australia del Sur, Tasmania y Australia Occidental no es obligatorio votar en las elecciones locales. [26] En los demás estados, las elecciones a los consejos locales también son obligatorias. [27]
El voto obligatorio se introdujo para las elecciones estatales de Queensland en 1915 , para las elecciones federales desde las elecciones federales de 1925 , [28] y Victoria lo presentó para la Asamblea Legislativa en las elecciones estatales de 1927 y para las elecciones del Consejo Legislativo en 1935. [29] Nuevo Sur Gales y Tasmania introdujeron el voto obligatorio en 1928, Australia Occidental en 1936 y Australia Meridional en 1942. [30]
Aunque la justificación inmediata para el voto obligatorio a nivel federal fue la baja participación de votantes (59,38%) [31] en las elecciones federales de 1922 , por debajo del 71,59% en las elecciones federales de 1919 , su introducción fue una condición para que el Partido del País accediera a formar una alianza con el entonces minoritario Partido Nacionalista . La votación obligatoria no estaba en la plataforma ni del gobierno de coalición del partido Nacionalista / Country liderado por Stanley Bruce ni de la oposición laborista liderada por Matthew Charlton . El cambio tomó la forma de la factura de un miembro privado iniciada por Herbert Payne., un senador de los nacionalistas de Tasmania, quien el 16 de julio de 1924 presentó el proyecto de ley en el Senado. El proyecto de ley de Payne se aprobó con poco debate (la Cámara de Representantes aceptó en menos de una hora), y en ninguna de las cámaras se requirió una división, por lo que no se registraron votos en contra del proyecto. [32] Recibió el Asentimiento Real el 31 de julio de 1924 como Ley Electoral de la Commonwealth de 1924 . [33] La elección federal de 1925 fue la primera que se llevó a cabo bajo votación obligatoria, en la que la participación aumentó al 91,4%. La participación aumentó a aproximadamente el 95% en un par de elecciones y se ha mantenido en ese nivel desde entonces. Votación obligatoria en referendosse consideró cuando se propuso un referéndum en 1915, pero, como el referéndum nunca se celebró, la idea quedó en suspenso. [31]
Es un delito "engañar a un elector en relación con la emisión de su voto". Un "voto informal" es una papeleta que no indica una preferencia de voto clara, se deja en blanco o lleva marcas que puedan identificar al votante . [34] Se cuenta el número de votos informales pero, en la determinación de las preferencias de los votantes, no se incluyen en el número total de votos (válidos) emitidos. Alrededor del 95% de los votantes registrados asisten a las urnas y alrededor del 5% de los votos de la Cámara de Representantes son informales. [35] [36]
Cuando se introdujo el voto obligatorio en Victoria en 1926 para la Asamblea Legislativa, la participación aumentó del 59,24% en las elecciones estatales de 1924 al 91,76% en las elecciones estatales de 1927 , pero el voto informal aumentó del 1,01% en 1924 al 1,94% en 1927. Pero cuando se introdujo para la elección del Consejo Legislativo de 1937 , que no se celebró el mismo día que para la Asamblea Legislativa, la participación aumentó del 10% a solo el 46%.
El requisito es que la persona se inscriba, asista a una mesa de votación y tenga su nombre marcado en el censo electoral como asistente, reciba una papeleta y la lleve a una casilla de votación individual, la marque, doble la papeleta y la coloque en el urna electoral. No existe un requisito explícito para realizar una elección, la papeleta solo debe estar "marcada". Según la ley, la forma en que una persona marca el papel depende completamente del individuo. A pesar del riesgo de sanciones, la participación de votantes en las elecciones federales está cayendo, con 1.4 millones de votantes elegibles, o casi el 10% del total, que no votaron en las elecciones federales de 2016 , la participación más baja desde que comenzó la votación obligatoria. [37] En las elecciones estatales de Tasmania de 2010, con una participación de 335,353 votantes, alrededor de 6,000 personas fueron multadas con $ 26 por no votar, y alrededor de 2,000 pagaron la multa. [38] El voto por correo está disponible para aquellos para quienes es difícil asistir a un colegio electoral. La votación anticipada, o previa a la votación, en un centro de votación anticipada también está disponible para aquellos que puedan tener dificultades para llegar a una mesa de votación el día de las elecciones. [39]
Debate sobre la votación obligatoria [ editar ]
Tras las elecciones federales de 2004 , en las que el gobierno de coalición Liberal - Nacional obtuvo la mayoría en ambas cámaras, un ministro de alto rango, el senador Nick Minchin , dijo que estaba a favor de la abolición del voto obligatorio. Algunos liberales prominentes, como Petro Georgiou , ex presidente del Comité Conjunto Permanente de Asuntos Electorales del Parlamento, se han pronunciado a favor del voto obligatorio. [ cita requerida ]
Peter Singer , en Democracia y desobediencia , sostiene que el voto obligatorio podría anular la obligación de un votante de apoyar el resultado de las elecciones, ya que la participación voluntaria en las elecciones se considera una de las fuentes de la obligación de obedecer la ley en una democracia. . [ cita requerida ] En 1996 Albert Langerfue encarcelado durante tres semanas por cargos de desacato en relación con una impugnación constitucional sobre una forma legal de no votar por ninguno de los partidos principales. Chong, Davidson y Fry, escribiendo en la revista del grupo de expertos de derecha CIS, argumentan que el voto obligatorio australiano es de mala reputación, paternalista, pone en desventaja a los partidos políticos más pequeños y permite a los principales partidos apuntar a escaños marginales y hacer algunos ahorros en tonterías. debido a esta orientación. Chong y col. También argumentan que la negación es un aspecto significativo del debate sobre el voto obligatorio. [40]
Un argumento en contra de los que se oponen al voto obligatorio es que en estos sistemas el individuo todavía tiene la capacidad práctica de abstenerse en las urnas votando informalmente si así lo desea, debido al secreto del voto. Un voto frustrado no cuenta para ningún partido político y efectivamente es lo mismo que elegir no votar bajo un sistema de votación no obligatorio. Sin embargo, Singer sostiene que incluso la apariencia de participación voluntaria es suficiente para crear una obligación de obedecer la ley. [ cita requerida ]
En las elecciones australianas de 2010, Mark Latham instó a los australianos a votar informalmente entregando papeletas en blanco para las elecciones de 2010. También afirmó que siente que es injusto que el gobierno obligue a los ciudadanos a votar si no tienen opinión o los amenace con una multa para votar. [41] Un portavoz de la Comisión Electoral de Australia declaró que la Ley Electoral de la Commonwealth no contenía una disposición explícita que prohibiera emitir un voto en blanco. [42] Se desconoce cómo llegó la Comisión Electoral Australiana a esta opinión; va en contra de las opiniones del presidente del Tribunal Supremo, Sir Garfield Barwick, quien escribió que los votantes deben marcar la papeleta y depositarla en una urna, y el juez Blackburn, quien opinó que emitir un voto inválido era una violación de la ley. [40]
Tim Evans, director de Política y Sistemas Electorales de la AEC, escribió en 2006 que "no es el caso, como han afirmado algunas personas, que solo es obligatorio asistir al lugar de votación y tener su nombre marcado y esto ha ha sido confirmada por una serie de decisiones legales ". [43] Sin embargo, en la práctica, sigue siendo el hecho de que al recibir una papeleta, el elector puede simplemente doblarla y colocarla en la urna sin marcarla formalmente, si se opone, en principio, a emitir un voto. . Sin embargo, el número consistentemente bajo de votos informales en cada elección indica que habiendo asistido, habiendo marcado su nombre, muy pocos electores deciden no votar formalmente.
También se ha promovido el voto obligatorio por sus beneficios colectivos. Se vuelve difícil que se utilice la coacción para evitar que las personas desfavorecidas (ancianos, analfabetos o discapacitados) voten y que se pongan obstáculos en el camino de las clases de personas (étnicas / de color; requisitos de registro o ubicación de las cabinas de votación) como sucede a menudo con otros sistemas de votación. [ cita requerida ]El requisito obligatorio también debe mantenerse en proporción: el servicio como jurado y el servicio militar obligatorio son obligaciones ciudadanas mucho más onerosas que asistir a una cabina de votación local una vez cada pocos años. Quizás la razón más convincente para utilizar un sistema de votación obligatoria es una simple cuestión de logística, es decir, facilitar el proceso ordenado y sin problemas de una elección. Cada año, en los países que no tienen voto obligatorio, los funcionarios electorales tienen que adivinar el número de votantes que podrían asistir; esto a menudo depende de los caprichos del clima. A menudo, los votantes se ven privados de sus derechos en esos países cuando los funcionarios electorales se equivocan y no se proporcionan suficientes cabinas de votación. Las largas colas pueden resultar en que los votantes sean rechazados al cierre de la votación, sin haber tenido la oportunidad de ejercer su derecho democrático al voto.
Voto preferencial [ editar ]
Australia utiliza varias formas de voto preferencial para casi todas las elecciones. Bajo este sistema, los votantes enumeran a los candidatos en la papeleta en el orden de su preferencia. El sistema preferencial se introdujo para las elecciones federales de 1918, en respuesta al surgimiento del Partido del Campo , un partido que representa a los pequeños agricultores. El Partido del País dividió el voto anti-laborista en áreas conservadoras del país, permitiendo que los candidatos laboristas ganaran con un voto minoritario. El gobierno federal conservador de Billy Hughes introdujo el voto preferencial como un medio para permitir la competencia entre los dos partidos conservadores sin poner en riesgo los escaños. [44] Se utilizó por primera vez en las elecciones parciales de Corangamite el 14 de diciembre de 1918. [45][46] El sistema se utilizó por primera vez para las elecciones alParlamento de Queensland en 1892. Se introdujo en la Cámara de la Asamblea de Tasmania en 1906 como resultado del trabajo de Thomas Hare y Andrew Inglis Clark .
El voto preferencial se ha extendido gradualmente tanto a la cámara alta como a la cámara baja, en las legislaturas federal, estatal y territorial, y también se utiliza en las elecciones municipales, y también en la mayoría de los otros tipos de elecciones, como las elecciones internas de partidos políticos, las elecciones sindicales, la iglesia. elecciones, elecciones a consejos de administración de empresas y elecciones en organismos voluntarios como clubes de fútbol. Los candidatos toman muy en serio las negociaciones para la disposición de las recomendaciones de preferencias a los votantes porque las preferencias transferidas tienen el mismo peso que las votaciones primarias. Los partidos políticos suelen producir tarjetas de cómo votar para ayudar y guiar a los votantes en la clasificación de candidatos.
Votación secreta [ editar ]
El voto secreto fue implementado por Tasmania , Victoria y Australia del Sur en 1856, [47] seguido de otras colonias australianas: Nueva Gales del Sur (1858), Queensland (1859) y Australia Occidental (1877). Las leyes electorales coloniales (que pronto se convertirán en Estados), incluida la votación secreta, se aplicaron a la primera elección del Parlamento australiano en 1901, y el sistema ha seguido siendo una característica de todas las elecciones en Australia y también se aplica a los referéndums.
La Ley Electoral del Commonwealth de 1918 no establece explícitamente el voto secreto, pero una lectura de los artículos 206, 207, 325 y 327 de la Ley implicaría su asunción. Sin embargo, las secciones 323 y 226 (4) aplican el principio de voto secreto al personal de votación y también apoyarían la suposición.
No se permite el voto por poder en las elecciones federales y estatales.
Métodos de votación alternativos [ editar ]
La mayoría de las votaciones se llevan a cabo con votantes registrados que asisten a una mesa de votación el día de las elecciones, donde se les entrega una papeleta que marcan de la manera prescrita y luego la colocan en una urna. Sin embargo, existen métodos de votación alternativos. Por ejemplo, una persona puede votar mediante una papeleta de voto ausente mediante la cual un votante asiste a un lugar de votación que no se encuentra en el distrito electoral en el que está registrado para votar. En lugar de marcar la papeleta y ponerla en la urna, la papeleta del votante se coloca en un sobre y luego el oficial de votación la envía al distrito de origen del votante para que se cuente allí. Otras alternativas son el voto por correo y el voto anticipado., known as "pre-poll voting", which are also available to voters who would not be in their registered electoral districts on an election day.
A form of postal voting was introduced in Western Australia in 1877, followed by an improved method in South Australia in 1890.[48] On the other hand, concerns about postal voting have been raised as to whether it complies with the requirements of a secret ballot, in that people cast their vote outside the security of a polling station, and whether voters can cast their vote privately free from another person's coercion.
In voting for the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, voters may choose between voting electronically or on paper.[49] Otherwise, Australian elections are carried out using paper ballots. If more than one election takes place, for example for the House of Representatives and the Senate, then each election is on a separate ballot paper, which are of different colours and which are deposited into separate ballot boxes.
Allocation process[edit]
Allocation process for House of Representatives[edit]
The main elements of the operation of preferential voting for single-member House of Representatives divisions are as follows:[50][51]
- Voters are required to place the number "1" against their first choice of candidate, known as the "first preference" or "primary vote".
- Voters are then required to place the numbers "2", "3", etc., against all of the other candidates listed on the ballot paper, in order of preference. (Every candidate must be numbered, otherwise the vote becomes "informal" (spoiled) and does not count.[52])
- Prior to counting, each ballot paper is examined to ensure that it is validly filled in (and not invalidated on other grounds).
- The number "1" or first preference votes are counted first. If no candidate secures an absolute majority (more than half) of first preference votes, then the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded from the count.
- The votes for the eliminated candidate (i.e., from the ballots that placed the eliminated candidate first) are re-allocated to the remaining candidates according to the number "2" or "second preference" votes.
- If no candidate has yet secured an absolute majority of the vote, then the next candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. This preference allocation is repeated until there is a candidate with an absolute majority. Where a second (or subsequent) preference is expressed for a candidate who has already been eliminated, the voter's third or subsequent preferences are used.
Following the full allocation of preferences, it is possible to derive a two-party-preferred figure, where the votes have been allocated between the two main candidates in the election. In Australia, this is usually between the candidates from the Coalition parties and the Australian Labor Party.
Alternative allocation methods for Senate[edit]
For the Australian Senate, each State constitutes one multi-member electorate. Currently, 12 senators are elected from each State, one half every three years, except in the case of double dissolution when elections for all 12 senators in each State take place. The number of senators to be elected determines the 'quota' required to be achieved for election by quota-preferential voting.[53] For a half-Senate election of 6 places to be filled, the quota in each State is 14.28% (calculated using the formula 1/(6+1)), while after a double dissolution the quota is 7.69% (calculated using the formula 1/(12+1)). The AEC also conducts a special recount after a double dissolution using a half-Senate quota for the purpose of allocating long and short terms so that rotation of Senators can be re-established, however the Senate has never used the results to allocate terms, despite two bipartisan senate resolutions to use it.
The federal Senate electoral system from 1984 to 2013, and those currently used for some state legislatures, provide for simultaneous registration of party-listed candidates and party-determined orders of voting preference, known as 'group voting tickets' or 'above the line voting' which involves placing the number '1' in a single box and the vote is then allocated in accordance with the party's registered voting preferences. The AEC automatically allocates preferences, or votes, in the predetermined order outlined in the group voting ticket. Each party or group can register up to three group voting tickets. This highly complex system has potential for unexpected outcomes,[54] including the possible election of a candidate who may have initially received an insignificant primary vote tally (see, for example, the Minor Party Alliance at the 2013 federal election). An estimated 95% of all votes are cast 'above the line'.[55]
The alternative for Senate elections from 1984 to 2013 was to use 'below the line voting' by numbering a large number of individual candidate's boxes in the order of the voter's preference. To be valid, the voter placed sequential numbers against every candidate on the ballot paper, and the risk of error and invalidation of the vote was significant.
In 2016, the Senate voting system was changed again to abolish group voting tickets and introduce optional preferential voting. An "above the line" vote for a party now allocates preferences to the candidates of that party only, in the order in which they are listed. The AEC directs voters to number 6 or more boxes above the line. If, instead, voters choose to vote for individual candidates in their own order of preference "below the line", at least 12 boxes must be numbered. (See also Australian Senate#Electoral system).[56][57]
Gerrymandering and malapportionment[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. (August 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) |
Malapportionment occurs when the numbers of voters in electorates are not equal. Malapportionment can occur through demographic change or through the deliberate weighting of different zones, such as rural v. urban areas. Malapportionment differs from a gerrymander, which occurs when electoral boundaries are drawn to favour one political party or group over others.
There is no scope for malapportionment of Senate divisions, with each State constituting one multi-member electorate, though no account is taken of differences in the relative populations of states.
For the House of Representatives, members are elected from single member electorates.
Australia has seen very little gerrymandering of electoral boundaries, relevant only for the House of Representatives and State Legislative Assemblies, which have nearly always been drawn up by public servants or independent boundary commissioners. But Australia has seen systematic malapportionment of electorates. All colonial legislatures before Federation, and the federal parliament after it, allocated more representation to rural districts than their populations merited. This was justified on several grounds, such as that country people had to contend with greater distances and hardships, that country people (and specifically farmers) produced most of the nation's real wealth, and that greater country representation was necessary to balance the radical tendencies of the urban population.
However, in the later 20th century, these arguments were successfully challenged, and by the early 21st century malapportionment was abolished in all states. In all states, electoral districts must have roughly the same number of voters, with variations allowed for rural areas due to their sparse population. Proponents of this concept call this "one vote, one value".
For the 2019 Federal election, most electorates contained between 105,000 and 125,000 voters. However, in Tasmania 5 electorates contained between 73,000 and 80,000 voters, because the Constitution (s.24) grants Tasmania a minimum of 5 members in the House of Representatives.
Examples[edit]
The most conspicuous examples of malapportionment were those of South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia.
South Australia[edit]
In South Australia, the 1856 Constitution stipulated that there must be two rural constituencies for every urban constituency.
By the early 1960s, the urban-rural voter ratio was almost exactly reversed: more than two-thirds of the state's population lived in Adelaide and its suburbs, but the rural areas elected two-thirds of the legislature. This was despite the fact that by this time, rural seats had on average one-quarter as many voters as urban seats: in one of the more extreme cases, a vote in the rural seat of Frome was worth 10 times a vote in an Adelaide seat.
The setup allowed the Liberal and Country League to stay in office from 1932 to 1965, the last 27 of these under Thomas Playford. However, from 1947, the LCL lost by increasing margins in terms of actual votes, and in 1953, even retained power despite losing the two-party vote and Labor winning a majority of the primary vote. Largely because Playford was the main beneficiary, the setup was called "the Playmander", although it was not strictly speaking a gerrymander.
The gross inequities of this system came into sharp focus during three consecutive state elections in the 1960s:
- In 1962, Labor won with 54.3% of the two party vote, a margin normally large enough for a comprehensive victory, but came up one seat short of a majority as it only managed a two-seat swing, and Playford was able to continue in power with the support of two independents.
- While the Playmander was overcome when Labor defeated the LCL in 1965, the rural weighting was strong enough that Labor won only a one-seat majority, despite winning again with 54.3% of the two-party vote.
- In 1968, the LCL regained power despite Labor winning the popular vote with 53.2% to the LCL's 46.8%, as Labor suffered a two-seat swing, leaving both parties with 19 seats each before conservative independent Tom Stott threw his support to the LCL for a majority.
Playford's successor as LCL leader, Steele Hall, was highly embarrassed at the faricial manner in which he became Premier, and immediately set about enacting a fairer system: a few months after taking office, Hall enacted a new electoral map with 47 seats: 28 seats in Adelaide and 19 in the country.
Previously, there had been 39 seats (13 in Adelaide and 26 in country areas), but, for some time, the LCL's base in Adelaide had been limited to the wealthy eastern crescent and the area around Holdfast Bay.
While it came up slightly short of "one vote, one value", as Labor had demanded, the new system allowed Adelaide to elect a majority of the legislature, which all but assured a Labor victory at the next election; despite this, Hall knew he would be effectively handing the premiership to his Labor counterpart, Don Dunstan.
In the first election under this system, in 1970, Dunstan won handily, picking up all eight new seats.
Queensland[edit]
In Queensland, the malapportionment initially benefitted the Labor Party, since many small rural constituencies were dominated by workers in provincial cities who were organised into the powerful Australian Workers' Union. But after 1957, the Country Party (later renamed the National Party) governments of Sir Frank Nicklin and Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen tweaked the system to give the upper hand to their rural base and isolate Labor support in Brisbane and provincial cities. In later years, this system made it possible for Bjelke-Petersen to win elections with only a quarter of the first preference votes. On average, a Country/National seat took only 7,000 votes to win, compared with 12,000 for a Labor seat. Combined with the votes of the Liberals (in Queensland, the National Party had historically been the senior partner in the non-Labor coalition), this was enough to lock Labor out of power even in years when Labor was the biggest single party in the legislature. This "Bjelkemander" was not overcome until the final defeat of the Nationals in 1989. Under new Labor premier Wayne Goss, a revised map was enacted with 40 seats in Brisbane and 49 in the country. Seats had roughly the same number of voters, with a greater tolerance allowed for seats in rural areas.
Western Australia[edit]
Western Australia retained a significant malapportionment in the Legislative Assembly until 2008. Under the previous system, votes in the country were worth up to four times the value of votes in Perth, the state's capital city. On 20 May 2005 the state Parliament passed new electoral laws, removing the malapportionment with effect from the following election. Under the new laws, electorates must have a population of 21,343, with a permitted variation of 10%. Electorates with a land area of more than 100,000 km2 (39,000 sq mi) are permitted to have a variation of 20%, in recognition of the difficulty of representing the sparsely populated north and east of the state.[58] Large districts would be attributed an extra number of notional voters, equal to 1.5% the area of the district in square kilometres, for the purposes of this calculation. This Large District Allowance will permit large rural districts to have many fewer voters than the average district enrolment. The Office of the Electoral Distribution Commissioners[59] gives the following example: Central Kimberley-Pilbara district has 12601 electors and an area of 600038 square kilometres. The average district enrolment for WA is 21343. Central Kimberley-Pilbara thus obtains 9000 notional extra electors, bringing its notional total to 21601, which is acceptably close to the average district enrolment.
A modified form of malapportionment was, however, retained for the Legislative Council, the state upper house. Rural areas are still slightly overrepresented, with as much as six times the voting power of Perth on paper.[60] According to ABC election analyst Antony Green, the rural weighting in the Legislative Council is still significant enough that a Liberal state premier has no choice but to include the National Party in his government, even if the Liberals theoretically have enough seats in the Legislative Assembly to govern alone.[61]
The Parliament[edit]
The Parliament of Australia is a bicameral (two-house) parliament. It combines some of the features of the Parliament of the United Kingdom with some features of the United States Congress. This is because the authors of the Australian Constitution had two objectives: to reproduce as faithfully as possible the Westminster system of parliamentary government, while creating a federation in which there would be a division of powers between the national government and the states, regulated by a written constitution.
In structure, the Australian Parliament resembles the United States Congress. There is a House of Representatives elected from single-member constituencies of approximately equal population, and there is a Senate consisting of an equal number of Senators from each state, regardless of population (since 1975 there have also been Senators representing the territories).
But in function, the Australian Parliament follows the Westminster system. The Prime Minister holds office because he can command the support of the majority of the House of Representatives, and must resign or advise an immediate election if the house passes a vote of no-confidence in his administration. If he fails to do so, he risks dismissal by the Governor-General. All ministers are required to be members of Parliament (although the constitution permits a person who is not currently a member of parliament to hold a ministerial portfolio for a maximum period of three months).
The House of Representatives[edit]
The Australian House of Representatives has 151 members elected from single-member constituencies (formally called "Electoral Divisions", but usually called seats or electorates in Australia; see Australian electorates) for three-year terms. Voters must fill in the ballot paper by numbering all the candidates in order of their preference. Failure to number all the candidates, or an error in numbering, renders the ballot informal (invalid).[62] The average number of candidates has tended to increase in recent years: there are frequently 10 or 12 candidates in a seat, and at the Wills by-election in April 1992 there were 22 candidates.[63] This has made voting increasingly onerous, but the rate of informal voting has increased only slightly.
The low rate of informal voting is largely attributed to advertising from the various political parties indicating how a voter should number their ballot paper, called a How-to-Vote Card. On election day, volunteers from political parties stand outside polling places, handing voters a card which advises them how to cast their vote for their respective party. Thus, if a voter wishes to vote for the Liberal Party, they may take the Liberal How-to-Vote Card and follow its instructions. While they can lodge their vote according to their own preferences, Australian voters show a high degree of party loyalty in following their chosen party's card.
A disinterested voter who has formed no personal preference may simply number all the candidates sequentially, 1, 2, 3, etc., from top to bottom of the ballot paper, a practice termed donkey voting, which advantages those candidates whose names are placed nearest to the top of the ballot paper. Before 1984, candidates were listed in alphabetical order, which led to a profusion of Aaronses and Abbotts contesting elections. A notable example was the 1937 Senate election, in which the Labor candidate group in New South Wales consisted of Amour, Ashley, Armstrong and Arthur—all of whom were elected. Since 1984, the listed order of candidates on the ballot paper has been determined by drawing lots, a ceremony performed publicly by electoral officials immediately after the appointed time for closure of nominations.
Lower house primary, two-party and seat results since 1910[edit]
A two-party system has existed in the Australian House of Representatives since the two non-Labor parties merged in 1909. The 1910 election was the first to elect a majority government, with the Australian Labor Party concurrently winning the first Senate majority. A two-party-preferred vote (2PP) has been calculated since the 1919 change from first-past-the-post to preferential voting and subsequent introduction of the Coalition. ALP = Australian Labor Party, L+NP = grouping of Liberal/National/LNP/CLP Coalition parties (and predecessors), Oth = other parties and independents.
| Primary vote | 2PP vote | Seats | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALP | L+NP | Oth. | ALP | L+NP | ALP | L+NP | Oth. | Total | |
| 18 May 2019 election | 33.3% | 41.4% | 25.2% | 48.5% | 51.5% | 68 | 77 | 6 | 151 |
| 2 July 2016 election | 34.7% | 42.0% | 23.3% | 49.6% | 50.4% | 69 | 76 | 5 | 150 |
| 7 September 2013 election | 33.4% | 45.6% | 21.1% | 46.5% | 53.5% | 55 | 90 | 5 | 150 |
| 21 August 2010 election | 38.0% | 43.3% | 18.8% | 50.1% | 49.9% | 72 | 72 | 6 | 150 |
| 24 November 2007 election | 43.4% | 42.1% | 14.5% | 52.7% | 47.3% | 83 | 65 | 2 | 150 |
| 9 October 2004 election | 37.6% | 46.7% | 15.7% | 47.3% | 52.7% | 60 | 87 | 3 | 150 |
| 10 November 2001 election | 37.8% | 43.0% | 19.2% | 49.0% | 51.0% | 65 | 82 | 3 | 150 |
| 3 October 1998 election | 40.1% | 39.5% | 20.4% | 51.0% | 49.0% | 67 | 80 | 1 | 148 |
| 2 March 1996 election | 38.7% | 47.3% | 14.0% | 46.4% | 53.6% | 49 | 94 | 5 | 148 |
| 13 March 1993 election | 44.9% | 44.3% | 10.7% | 51.4% | 48.6% | 80 | 65 | 2 | 147 |
| 24 March 1990 election | 39.4% | 43.5% | 17.1% | 49.9% | 50.1% | 78 | 69 | 1 | 148 |
| 11 July 1987 election | 45.8% | 46.1% | 8.1% | 50.8% | 49.2% | 86 | 62 | 0 | 148 |
| 1 December 1984 election | 47.6% | 45.0% | 7.4% | 51.8% | 48.2% | 82 | 66 | 0 | 148 |
| 5 March 1983 election | 49.5% | 43.6% | 6.9% | 53.2% | 46.8% | 75 | 50 | 0 | 125 |
| 18 October 1980 election | 45.2% | 46.3% | 8.5% | 49.6% | 50.4% | 51 | 74 | 0 | 125 |
| 10 December 1977 election | 39.7% | 48.1% | 12.2% | 45.4% | 54.6% | 38 | 86 | 0 | 124 |
| 13 December 1975 election | 42.8% | 53.1% | 4.1% | 44.3% | 55.7% | 36 | 91 | 0 | 127 |
| 18 May 1974 election | 49.3% | 44.9% | 5.8% | 51.7% | 48.3% | 66 | 61 | 0 | 127 |
| 2 December 1972 election | 49.6% | 41.5% | 8.9% | 52.7% | 47.3% | 67 | 58 | 0 | 125 |
| 25 October 1969 election | 47.0% | 43.3% | 9.7% | 50.2% | 49.8% | 59 | 66 | 0 | 125 |
| 26 November 1966 election | 40.0% | 50.0% | 10.0% | 43.1% | 56.9% | 41 | 82 | 1 | 124 |
| 30 November 1963 election | 45.5% | 46.0% | 8.5% | 47.4% | 52.6% | 50 | 72 | 0 | 122 |
| 9 December 1961 election | 47.9% | 42.1% | 10.0% | 50.5% | 49.5% | 60 | 62 | 0 | 122 |
| 22 November 1958 election | 42.8% | 46.6% | 10.6% | 45.9% | 54.1% | 45 | 77 | 0 | 122 |
| 10 December 1955 election | 44.6% | 47.6% | 7.8% | 45.8% | 54.2% | 47 | 75 | 0 | 122 |
| 29 May 1954 election | 50.0% | 46.8% | 3.2% | 50.7% | 49.3% | 57 | 64 | 0 | 121 |
| 28 April 1951 election | 47.6% | 50.3% | 2.1% | 49.3% | 50.7% | 52 | 69 | 0 | 121 |
| 10 December 1949 election | 46.0% | 50.3% | 3.7% | 49.0% | 51.0% | 47 | 74 | 0 | 121 |
| 28 September 1946 election | 49.7% | 39.3% | 11.0% | 54.1% | 45.9% | 43 | 26 | 5 | 74 |
| 21 August 1943 election | 49.9% | 23.0% | 27.1% | 58.2% | 41.8% | 49 | 19 | 6 | 74 |
| 21 September 1940 election | 40.2% | 43.9% | 15.9% | 50.3% | 49.7% | 32 | 36 | 6 | 74 |
| 23 October 1937 election | 43.2% | 49.3% | 7.5% | 49.4% | 50.6% | 29 | 44 | 2 | 74 |
| 15 September 1934 election | 26.8% | 45.6% | 27.6% | 46.5% | 53.5% | 18 | 42 | 14 | 74 |
| 19 December 1931 election | 27.1% | 48.4% | 24.5% | 41.5% | 58.5% | 14 | 50 | 11 | 75 |
| 12 October 1929 election | 48.8% | 44.2% | 7.0% | 56.7% | 43.3% | 46 | 24 | 5 | 75 |
| 17 November 1928 election | 44.6% | 49.6% | 5.8% | 48.4% | 51.6% | 31 | 42 | 2 | 75 |
| 14 November 1925 election | 45.0% | 53.2% | 1.8% | 46.2% | 53.8% | 23 | 50 | 2 | 75 |
| 16 December 1922 election | 42.3% | 47.8% | 9.9% | 48.8% | 51.2% | 29 | 40 | 6 | 75 |
| 13 December 1919 election | 42.5% | 54.3% | 3.2% | 45.9% | 54.1% | 25 | 38 | 2 | 75 |
| 5 May 1917 election | 43.9% | 54.2% | 1.9% | – | – | 22 | 53 | 0 | 75 |
| 5 September 1914 election | 50.9% | 47.2% | 1.9% | – | – | 42 | 32 | 1 | 75 |
| 31 May 1913 election | 48.5% | 48.9% | 2.6% | – | – | 37 | 38 | 0 | 75 |
| 13 April 1910 election | 50.0% | 45.1% | 4.9% | – | – | 42 | 31 | 2 | 75 |
Counting votes in elections for the House of Representatives[edit]
The House of Representatives uses full preferential voting, which is known outside Australia by names such as "instant runoff voting" (IRV) and "alternative voting".
When the polls close at 6 pm on election day, the votes are counted. The count is conducted by officers of the Australian Electoral Commission, watched by nominated volunteer observers from the political parties, called scrutineers, who are entitled to observe the whole voting process from the opening of the booth. The votes from each polling booth in the electorate are tallied at the office of the returning officer for the electorate. If one of the candidates has more than 50% of the vote, then they are declared elected. Australian politics are influenced by social and economic demographics, though the correlation between "class" and voting is not always simple.[64] Typically, the National Party will poll higher in rural seats. The Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party are not as easily generalised. In a strong seat, the elected party might win up to 80% of the two-party-preferred vote. In the 2004 federal election, the highest winning margin in a seat was 25.1%,[65] with most seats won by a margin of less than 10%.
In the remaining seats, no single candidate will have a majority of the primary votes (or first-preference votes). A hypothetical result might look like this:
White (Democrat) 6,000 6.0% Smith (Labor) 45,000 45.0% Jones (Liberal) 35,000 35.0% Johnson (Green) 10,000 10.0% Davies (Ind) 4,000 4.0%
On election night, an interim distribution of preferences called a TCP (two-candidate-preferred) count is performed. The electoral commission nominates the two candidates it believes are most likely to win the most votes and all votes are distributed immediately to one or the other preferred candidate.[66] This result is indicative only and subsequently the formal count will be performed after all "declaration" (e.g. postal, absent votes) votes are received.
In this example, the candidate with the smallest vote, Davies, will be eliminated, and his or her preferences will be distributed: that is, his or her 4,000 votes will be individually re-allocated to the remaining candidates according to which candidate received the number 2 vote on each of those 4000 ballot papers. Suppose Davies's preferences split 50/50 between Smith and Jones. After re-allocation of Davies's votes, Smith would have 47% and Jones 37% of the total votes in the electorate. White would then be eliminated. Suppose all of White's preferences went to Smith. Smith would then have 53% and would be declared elected. Johnson's votes would not need to be distributed.
Exhausted preferences[edit]
The exhausted counts correspond to votes that ought to be informal, if strictly following the rules above, but were deemed to have expressed some valid preferences. The Electoral Act has since been amended to almost eliminate exhausted votes.
Section 268(1)(c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 now has the effect of making the vote of any elector that does not preference every candidate on the ballot paper an informal vote as opposed to counting the vote until the voter's preference exhausts.
Two-party majorities, swings and pendulums[edit]
Since 1984 the preferences of all candidates in House of Representatives seats have been distributed, even if this is not necessary to determine the winner of the seat. This is done to determine the percentage of the votes obtained by the winning candidate after the distribution of all preferences. This is called the two-party-preferred vote. For example, if (in the example given above), Smith finished with 58% of the vote after the distribution of Johnson's preferences, Smith's two-party vote would be 58% and the seat would be said to have a two-party majority of 8%. It would therefore need a two-party swing of 8 percentage points to be lost to the other side of politics at the next election.
Once the two-party majorities in all seats are known, they can then be arranged in a table to show the order in which they would be lost in the event of an adverse swing at the next election. Such tables frequently appear in the Australian media and are called election pendulums or sometimes Mackerras pendulums after the political scientist Malcolm Mackerras, who popularised the idea of the two-party vote in his 1972 book Australian General Elections.
Here is a sample of the federal election pendulum from the 2001 election, showing some of the seats held by the Liberal-National Party coalition government, in order of their two-party majority. A seat with a small two-party majority is said to be a marginal seat or a swinging seat. A seat with a large two-party majority is said to be a safe seat, although "safe" seats have been known to change hands in the event of a large swing.
| Seat | State | Majority | Member | Party |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hinkler | Qld | 0.0 | Paul Neville | NPA |
| Solomon | NT | 0.1 | Dave Tollner | Lib |
| Adelaide | SA | 0.2 | Hon Trish Worth | Lib |
| Canning | WA | 0.4 | Don Randall | Lib |
| Dobell | NSW | 0.4 | Ken Ticehurst | Lib |
| Parramatta | NSW | 1.1 | Ross Cameron | Lib |
| McEwen | Vic | 1.2 | Fran Bailey | Lib |
| Paterson | NSW | 1.4 | Bob Baldwin | Lib |
| Herbert | Qld | 1.6 | Peter Lindsay | Lib |
| Richmond | NSW | 1.6 | Hon Larry Anthony | NPA |
| Deakin | Vic | 1.7 | Philip Barresi | Lib |
| Eden-Monaro | NSW | 1.7 | Gary Nairn | Lib |
| Hindmarsh | SA | 1.9 | Hon Christine Gallus | Lib |
Redistributions[edit]
The boundaries of Australian electoral divisions are reviewed periodically by the Australian Electoral Commission and redrawn in a process called redistribution.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 requires that all seats have approximately an equal number of enrolled voters. When the Commission determines that population shifts within a state have caused some seats to have too many or too few voters, a redistribution is called and new boundaries are drawn up.
Redistributions are also held when the Commission determines (following a formula laid down in the Electoral Act) that the distribution of seats among the states and territories must be changed because some states are growing faster than others.
House casual vacancies[edit]
If a member's seat becomes vacant mid-term, whether through disqualification, resignation, death or some other possible reason, a by-election may be held to fill the casual vacancy. A member may resign by tendering the resignation to the Speaker, as required by section 37 of the Australian Constitution, or in the absence of the Speaker to the Governor-General. A resignation is not effective until it is tendered in writing to the Speaker or Governor-General. If a redistribution has taken place since the last election, the by-election is held on the basis of the boundaries at the time of original election.
Senate[edit]
The Australian Senate has 76 members: each of the six states elects 12 Senators, and the Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) each elect two Senators. The several other Australian Territories have very small populations and are represented by Northern Territory and ACT Senators (for example, Christmas Island residents are represented by NT Senators, while Jervis Bay Territory residents are represented by ACT Senators).
Senators for the states serve six-year terms, with half the Senators from each state usually being elected at each federal election. The terms of the territory Senators coincide with the duration of the House of Representatives.
The Senate is elected both proportionately and preferentially, except that each state has an equal number of seats so that the distribution of seats to states is non-proportional to the total Australian population. Thus, although within each state the seats proportionally represent the vote for that state, overall the less populous states are proportionally stronger in representation for their population compared to the more populous states.
At the 2013 federal election, the Senate election, contested by over 50 groups,[67] saw extensive "preference deals" (legitimate manipulation of group voting tickets), resulting in the election to the Senate of Ricky Muir from the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, who had received only 0.5% of first-preference support.[68] This exploitation of the system was alleged to undermine the entitlement of voters "to be able to make real choices, not forced ones—and to know who they really are voting for".[69]
Following the 2013 election, the Abbott Liberal government announced it would investigate changing the electoral system for the Senate in order to prevent the preference system being abused. On 22 February 2016, the Turnbull Liberal government announced several proposed changes.[70] The changes had the support of the Liberal/National Coalition, the Australian Greens, and Nick Xenophon − a three-vote majority.[71] The Senate reform legislation passed both houses of the Parliament of Australia on 18 March 2016 after the Senate sat all night debating the bill.[72]
The changes abolished group voting tickets and introduced optional preferential voting, along with party logos on the ballot paper. The ballot paper continues to have a box for each party above a heavy line, with each party's candidates in a column below that party's box below the solid line. Previously, a voter could either mark a single box above the line, which triggered the party's group voting ticket (a pre-assigned sequence of preferences), or place a number in every box below the line to assign their own preferences. As a result of the changes, voters may assign their preferences for parties above the line (numbering as many boxes as they wish), or individual candidates below the line, and are not required to fill all of the boxes. Both above and below the line voting are now optional preferential voting. For above the line, voters are instructed to number at least their first six preferences, however, a "savings provision" still counts the ballot if less than six are given. As a result, fewer votes are classed as informal, however, more ballots do "exhaust" as a result (i.e. some votes are not counted towards electing any candidate). For below the line, voters are required to number at least their first 12 preferences. Voters are still free to continue numbering as many preferences as they like beyond the minimum number specified. Another savings provision allows ballot papers with at least 6 below the line preferences to be formal, catering for people who confuse the above and below the line instructions; an additional change to the savings provision will also accept below the line votes with a higher number of sequence errors than previously, treating the sequence as stopping at the first error (missed or repeated numbers).
As a result of these reforms, it is now much less likely that a candidate with such a minuscule primary vote as Muir's in 2013 could win election to the Senate. ABC electoral psephologist Antony Green wrote several publications on various aspects of the proposed Senate reforms.[73][74][75][76][77][78]
Usually, a party can realistically hope to win no more than three of a state's Senate seats. For this reason, a person listed as fourth or lower on a party ticket is said to be in an "unwinnable" position. For example, incumbent Liberal South Australian Senator Lucy Gichuhi was ranked fourth on the Liberal ticket for the 2019 election, a move that commentators believed made it difficult, if not impossible, for her to win another term.[79][80][81]
Senate count[edit]
The form of preferential voting used in the Senate is technically known as the "Unweighted Inclusive Gregory Method".[82][83]
The system for counting Senate votes is complicated, and a final result is sometimes not known for several weeks. When the Senate vote is counted, a quota for election is determined. This is the number of valid votes cast, divided by the number of Senators to be elected plus one.
For example, here is the Senate result for the state of New South Wales from the 1998 federal election. For greater clarity the votes cast for 50 minor party and independent candidates have been excluded.
The quota for election was 3,755,725 divided by seven, or 536,533.
- Enrolment: 4,031,749
- Turnout: 3,884,333 (96.3%)
- Informal votes: 128,608 (03.3%)
- Formal votes: 3,755,725
- Quota for election: 536,533
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Vote % | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labor: Group H, Q:2.7073 | ||||
| Steve Hutchins | ALP | 1,446,231 | 38.5 | Elected 1 |
| Hon John Faulkner | ALP | 2,914 | 00.1 | |
| Michael Forshaw | ALP | 864 | 00.0 | |
| Ursula Stephens | ALP | 2,551 | 00.1 | |
| One Nation: Group K, Q:0.6729 | ||||
| David Oldfield | ON | 359,654 | 09.6 | |
| Brian Burston | ON | 570 | 00.0 | |
| Bevan O'Regan | ON | 785 | 00.0 | |
| Liberal: Group L, Q:2.5638 | ||||
| Bill Heffernan | Lib | 1,371,578 | 36.5 | Elected 2 |
| Dr John Tierney | Lib | 1,441 | 00.0 | |
| Sandy Macdonald | NPA | 1,689 | 00.0 | |
| Concetta Fierravanti-Wells | Lib | 855 | 00.0 | |
| Australian Democrats: Group M, Q:0.5142 | ||||
| Aden Ridgeway | AD | 272,481 | 07.3 | |
| Matthew Baird | AD | 457 | 00.0 | |
| Suzzanne Reddy | AD | 2,163 | 00.1 | |
| David Mendelssohn | AD | 809 | 00.0 | |
| Greens: Group U, Q:0.1521 | ||||
| John Sutton | Grn | 80,073 | 02.1 | |
| Catherine Moore | Grn | 748 | 00.0 | |
| Lee Rhiannon | Grn | 249 | 00.0 | |
| Suzie Russell | Grn | 542 | 00.0 | |
In this table, the group number allocated to each list is shown with the number of quotas polled by each list. Thus, "Q:2.7073" next to the Labor Party list indicates that the Labor candidates between them polled 2.7073 quotas.
It will be seen that the leading Labor and Liberal candidates, Hutchins and Heffernan, polled more than the quota. They were therefore elected on the first count. Their surplus votes were then distributed. The surplus is the candidate's vote minus the quota. Hutchins's surplus was thus 1,446,231 minus 536,533, or 909,698. These votes are multiplied by a factor (called the "transfer value") based on the proportion of ballot papers preferencing other parties. ABC Election commentator Antony Green believes that this method distorts preference allocation.[83]
After Hutchins's surplus votes were distributed, the count looked like this:
| Candidate | Votes distributed | % of distributed votes | Total after distribution | % | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hutchins | N/A | N/A | 536,533 | 14.3 | Elected 1 |
| Faulkner | 908,567 | 99.9 | 911,481 | 24.3 | Elected 3 |
| Forshaw | 196 | 00.0 | 1,060 | 00.0 | |
| Stephens | 130 | 00.0 | 2,681 | 00.1 | |
| Oldfield | 186 | 00.0 | 359,840 | 09.6 | |
| Burston | 6 | 00.0 | 576 | 00.0 | |
| O'Regan | 4 | 00.0 | 789 | 00.0 | |
| Heffernan | N/A | N/A | 1,371,578 | 36.5 | Elected 2 |
| Tierney | 13 | 00.0 | 1,454 | 00.0 | |
| Macdonald | 1 | 00.0 | 1,690 | 00.0 | |
| Fierravanti-Wells | 1 | 00.0 | 856 | 00.0 | |
| Ridgeway | 278 | 00.0 | 272,579 | 07.3 | |
| Baird | 5 | 00.0 | 462 | 00.0 | |
| Reddy | 3 | 00.0 | 2,166 | 00.1 | |
| Mendelssohn | 4 | 00.0 | 813 | 00.0 | |
| Sutton | 66 | 00.0 | 80,139 | 02.1 | |
| Moore | 2 | 00.0 | 750 | 00.0 | |
| Rhiannon | 1 | 00.0 | 250 | 00.0 | |
| Russell | 0 | 00.0 | 542 | 00.0 | |
| Total | 909,698 | 3,755,725 | |||
It will be seen that virtually all of Hutchins's surplus votes went to Faulkner, the second candidate on the Labor ticket, who was then elected. This is because all those voters who voted for the Labor party "above the line" had their second preferences automatically allocated to the second Labor candidate. All parties lodge a copy of their how-to-vote card with the Electoral Commission, and the commission follows this card in allocating the preferences of those who vote "above the line." If a voter wished to vote, for example, Hutchins 1 and Heffernan 2, they would need to vote "below the line" by numbering each of the 69 candidates.
In the third count, Heffernan's surplus was distributed and these votes elected Tierney. Faulkner's surplus was then distributed, but these were insufficient to elect Forshaw. Likewise, Tierney's surplus was insufficient to elect McDonald.
After this stage of the count, the remaining candidates in contention (that is, the leading candidates in the major party tickets) were in the following position:
| Candidate | Votes | % | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hutchins | 536,533 | 14.3 | Elected 1 |
| Faulkner | 536,533 | 14.3 | Elected 3 |
| Forshaw | 375,587 | 10.0 | |
| Oldfield | 360,263 | 09.6 | |
| Heffernan | 536,533 | 14.3 | Elected 2 |
| Tierney | 536,533 | 14.3 | Elected 4 |
| Macdonald | 300,313 | 08.0 | |
| Ridgeway | 273,109 | 07.3 | |
| Sutton | 80,186 | 02.1 | |
| (others) | 220,135 | 5.8 | |
| Total | 3,755,725 | ||
All the other candidates were then eliminated one by one, starting with the candidates with the smallest number of votes, and their votes were distributed among the candidates remaining in contention in accordance with the preferences expressed on their ballot papers. After this process was completed, the remaining candidates were in the following position:
| Candidate | Votes | % | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hutchins | 536,533 | 14.3 | Elected 1 |
| Faulkner | 536,533 | 14.3 | Elected 3 |
| Forshaw | 450,446 | 12.0 | |
| Oldfield | 402,154 | 10.7 | |
| Heffernan | 536,533 | 14.3 | Elected 2 |
| Tierney | 536,533 | 14.3 | Elected 4 |
| Macdonald | 357,572 | 09.5 | |
| Ridgeway | 286,157 | 07.6 | |
| Sutton | 112,602 | 03.0 | |
| Total | 3,755,725 | ||
Sutton was then eliminated. 80% of Sutton's preferences went to Ridgeway, giving Ridgeway more votes than McDonald. McDonald was then eliminated, and 93% of his preferences went to Ridgeway, thus giving him a quota and the fifth Senate seat. Ridgeway's surplus was then distributed, and 96% of his votes went to Forshaw, thus giving him a quota and the sixth seat. Oldfield was the last remaining unsuccessful candidate.
A final point needs to be explained. It was noted above that when a candidate polls more votes than the quota, their surplus vote is distributed to other candidates. Thus, in the example given above, Hutchins's surplus was 909,698, or 1,446,231 (his primary vote) minus 536,533 (the quota). It may be asked: which 909,698 of Hutchins's 1,446,231 primary votes are distributed? Are they chosen at random from among his votes? In fact they are all distributed, but at less than their full value. Since 909,698 is 62.9% of 1,446,231, each of Hutchins's votes is transferred to other candidates as 62.9% of a vote: each vote is said to have a transfer value of 0.629. This avoids any possibility of an unrepresentative sample of his votes being transferred. After each count the candidate's progressive total is rounded down to the nearest whole number. This means that a small number of votes are lost by fractionation in the final count.
If at the end of the Senate count the two candidates remaining have an equal number of votes, the Australian Electoral Officer for the state shall have a casting vote which is their only vote at that election.[84]
Senate casual vacancies[edit]
If a senator's seat becomes vacant mid-term, through disqualification, resignation, death or other cause, the legislature of the relevant state or territory chooses a replacement senator. A senator may resign by tendering their resignation to the President of the Senate or to the Governor-General, as required by section 19 of the constitution. A resignation is not effective until it is tendered in writing to the President or Governor-General.
Double dissolutions[edit]
Under the Australian Constitution, the House of Representatives and the Senate generally have equal legislative powers (the only exception being that appropriation (supply) bills must originate in the House of Representatives). This means that a government formed in the House of Representatives can be frustrated if a Senate majority rejects or delays passage of its legislative bills.
In such circumstances, Section 57 of the constitution empowers the Governor-General to dissolve both the House of Representatives and the Senate (termed a "double dissolution") and issue writs for an election in which every seat in Parliament is contested. The Governor-General would usually take such action only on the advice of the Prime Minister.
See also[edit]
- Elections in Australia
- Electoral systems of the Australian states and territories
References[edit]
- ^ Scott Bennett and Rob Lundie, 'Australian Electoral Systems', Research Paper no. 5, 2007–08, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra.
- ^ AEC, Enrol to vote
- ^ Joint Rolls Arrangement between Commonwealth, State and Territories Archived 20 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ VEC, The electoral roll
- ^ "Enrol to vote". Australian Electoral Commission. 4 July 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
- ^ AEC, Enrol to vote
- ^ "Section 101(6), Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918". Retrieved 16 September 2012.
- ^ Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s. 155
- ^ "DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE CALLING OF THE DOUBLE DISSOLUTION ELECTION FOR 2 JULY 2016" (PDF). Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. 8 May 2016. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 May 2016.
- ^ "Candidates – Frequently Asked Questions". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 23 July 2013.
- ^ The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Modernisation and Other Measures) Act 2019, which came into effect on 1 March 2019.
- ^ Candidates Handbook, p.6.
- ^ a b c "Commonwealth Electoral Act, s. 156". Austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
- ^ a b "Commonwealth Electoral Act, s. 158". Austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
- ^ "Australia's major electoral developments Timeline: 1900 – Present". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 28 June 2013.
- ^ a b Constitution of Australia, s. 28.
- ^ Constitution of Australia, s. 32.
- ^ Constitution of Australia, s. 6.
- ^ a b "Commonwealth Electoral Act, s. 157". Austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
- ^ Constitution of Australia, s. 13
- ^ Constitution of Australia, s. 57.
- ^ Lundie, Rob. "Australian elections timetable". Parliament of Australia. Archived from the original on 8 January 2011.
- ^ "Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act – Section 28". Austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
- ^ Scott Bennett, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Research Brief No. 6, 2005–06, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra.
- ^ "Electoral Offences". Voting within Australia – Frequently Asked Questions. Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 21 October 2006.
- ^ Independent Review of Local Government Elections: Issues Paper Archived 18 February 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 28 July 2010.
- ^ Australian Electoral Commission Site on Rules Governing Compulsory Voting in Federal and State Elections http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/Compulsory_Voting.htm
- ^ Australian Electoral Commission-Page 4 "Voter turnout–2016 House of Representatives and Senate elections"
- ^ Victorian Electoral Commission: Unit 2: Voting rights and responsibilities
- ^ Australian Electoral Commission: Compulsory voting in Australia
- ^ a b "Compulsory Voting in Australia". Australian Electoral Commission. 16 January 2006. Retrieved 4 February 2011.
- ^ ""The case for compulsory voting"; by Chris Puplick". Mind-trek.com. 30 June 1997. Archived from the original on 4 January 2013. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
- ^ "Odgers, Australian Senate Practice". Aph.gov.au. Archived from the original on 31 December 2004. Retrieved 29 December 2010.
- ^ "Ballot paper formality guidelines 2016" (PDF). Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 28 October 2017.
- ^ Australian Electoral Commission, Electoral Pocketbook, Australian Electoral Commission, Canberra, June 2006, pp. 71–77. Retrieved September 2007.
- ^ AustralianPolitics.com, Informal Voting in the House of Representatives 1983–2013. Retrieved July 2016.
- ^ Election 2016: Voter turnout lowest since compulsory voting began in 1925
- ^ "Tasmanian political leaders face off in televised debate". 27 February 2014. Retrieved 28 March 2018.
- ^ "Voting options". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 2 March 2016.
- ^ a b Derek Chong, Sinclair Davidson, Tim Fry "It's an evil thing to oblige people to vote" Policy vol. 21 No. 4, Summer 2005–06
- ^ "Blank vote legitimate, Latham asserts". Watoday.com.au. Retrieved 29 December 2010.
- ^ Burton-Bradley, Robert (16 August 2010). "Latham not breaking the law, says AEC". news.com.au. Archived from the original on 19 August 2010.
- ^ Evans, Tim Compulsory voting in Australia at Australian Electoral Commission official website, June 2006. Accessed 15 June 2013
- ^ Global Investment & Business Center (2013). Australia Country Study Guide: Volume 1 Strategic Information and Developments. ISBN 9781438773841.
- ^ Adam Carr. "By-Elections 1917–19". Psephos Australian Election Archive. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
- ^ "Australia's major electoral developments". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 16 February 2011.
- ^ "Payment of Members Act 1870 (Vic)". Foundingdocs.gov.au. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
- ^ Sawer, Marian; Norman Abjorensen; Philip Larkin (2009). Australia: The State of Democracy. Federation Press. pp. 107–114. ISBN 978-1862877252. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ Electronic voting and counting, Australian Capital Territory Electoral Commission
- ^ "Preferential Voting". Australianpolitics.com. Archived from the original on 14 May 2010. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
- ^ "How the House of Representatives votes are counted". Australian Electoral Commission. 13 February 2013. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
- ^ "How does Australia's voting system work?". The Guardian. 14 August 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2016.
- ^ "Voting Systems, Peak Body Proportional Representation Advocacy and Victorian Local Government" (PDF). Australian Political Studies Association.
- ^ "Voters stung by back room deals between minor parties". news.com.au. Retrieved 7 May 2015.
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 20 July 2008. Retrieved 14 May 2009.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ "Voting in the Senate". Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 15 February 2019.
- ^ Anderson, Stephanie (26 April 2016). "Senate voting changes explained in Australian Electoral Commission advertisements". ABC News. Retrieved 15 February 2019.
- ^ "View News Headlines". Findlaw.com.au. 20 May 2005. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
- ^ Information Centre for the 2007 Electoral Distribution, Where will you be in 2009?, p2.
- ^ Green, Antony (6 March 2017). "The Growing Bias Against Perth and the South West in WA's Legislative Council". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
- ^ Green, Antony (7 February 2013). "2013 WA Election Preview". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
- ^ "Voting HOR". Aec.gov.au. 31 July 2007. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
- ^ Adam Carr. "By-Elections 1990–1993". Psephos Australian Election Archive. Retrieved 10 February 2011.
- ^ "Betts, K. – People and Place Vol. 4 No. 4". Elecpress.monash.edu.au. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
- ^ "2004 Federal Election. Latest Seat Results. Election Results. Australian Broadcasting Corporation". ABC. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
- ^ "Counting the Votes". Aec.gov.au. 13 February 2008. Retrieved 16 June 2010.
- ^ First Preferences by Group Archived 12 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine at Australian Electoral Commission
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 9 May 2017.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ Colebatch, Tim Bringing a barnyard of crossbenchers to heel The Age, Melbourne, 10 September 2013
- ^ Senate election reforms announced, including preferential voting above the line, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 22 February 2016
- ^ Explainer: what changes to the Senate voting system are being proposed?, Stephen Morey, The Conversation, 23 February 2016
- ^ "Electoral laws passed after marathon Parliament sitting". Abc.net.au. 18 March 2016. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
- ^ Antony Green (2 March 2016). "Senate Reform – Below the Line Optional Preferential Voting Included in Government's Legislation". Blogs.abc.net.au. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
- ^ Antony Green (17 February 2016). "Would Electoral Reform Deliver the Coalition a Senate Majority at a Double Dissolution?". Blogs.abc.net.au. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
- ^ Antony Green (23 September 2015). "The Origin of Senate Group Ticket Voting, and it didn't come from the Major Parties". Blogs.abc.net.au. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
- ^ Antony Green (24 June 2015). "The Likely Political Consequences of Proposed Changes to the Senate's Electoral System". Blogs.abc.net.au. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
- ^ Antony Green (10 June 2015). "By Accident Rather than Design – a Brief History of the Senate's Electoral System". Blogs.abc.net.au. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
- ^ Antony Green. "All Senate reform articles". Blogs.abc.net.au. Retrieved 3 December 2016.
- ^ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/lucy-gichuhi-faces-senate-dumping
- ^ "Liberal senator Lucy Gichuhi relegated to unwinnable spot on SA preselection ticket". The Australian. 1 July 2018. Retrieved 17 August 2018.
- ^ Jane Norman (15 May 2018). "Lucy Gichuhi's political career facing abrupt end as Liberals fail to embrace newest member". ABC News (Australia).
- ^ "Variants of the Gregory Fractional Transfer". Proportional Representation Society of Australia. 6 December 2018. Retrieved 5 October 2019.
- ^ a b "Antony Green's Election Blog: Distortions in the Queensland Senate Count". Blogs.abc.net.au. 16 September 2010. Retrieved 29 December 2010.
- ^ Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) s 273
Further reading[edit]
- Brett, Judith (2019). From Secret Ballot to Democracy Sausage: How Australia Got Compulsory Voting. Text Publishing Co. ISBN 9781925603842.
External links[edit]
| Library resources about Electoral system of Australia |
|
- The Parliament of Australia
- The Australian Electoral Commission
- Adam Carr's Australian Election Archive
- Proportional Representation Society of Australia
