It is often said that adaptation is the key to biological survival and evolution. Many sporting codes have clearly taken that advice to heart. Traditional five day test cricket survives, but has mutated into both 50 and 20 over games to enhance the game’s appeal to the new generation with their shorter attention span. Golf’s current fissure between the established PGA tour and its rival LIV brand stems from a wish from some to revive the game’s appeal through different more 'activated' and 'entertaining' formats.
The world of tennis is not immune. Tournament organisers at the US Open have announced that from this year the format of their Mixed Doubles championship will be radically altered: out with the best of three sets and matches over the fortnight and in with a new format. 16 teams only. Eight of the 16-team field will be selected based on their combined singles ranking, while eight will be wild-card entries. There will also be a different scoring system, which includes sets played to four games (barring the final), no-ad scoring (e.g. the point after deuce wins the game) and a deciding 10-point tie-break in the place of a third set. Microwave tennis for future generations.
Political systems also adapt. Think about voting systems. In Australia, ‘first past the post’ voting was the nation’s original method of voting. Simple. The candidate with the most votes in an electoral contest won, even if their percentage was less than 50%. England still uses this system. Voters need only mark their preference for one candidate.
In Australia in 1919, preferential voting was introduced. This method requires voters to accurately number their preferences for every candidate in an electoral contest. The claimed advantage of this system is that no votes are ‘wasted’. If two conservative candidates stand in the same contest, first past the post voting sees votes split between the two candidates- the conservative vote may top 60%, but a progressive candidate with 40% of the vote wins. This phenomenon was seen in last year’s general election in England where this vote ‘wastage’ occurred on the Right between the Conservative and British Reform parties.
Under a preferential system if no candidate obtains 50% of the primary (No.1) vote, the preferences of every vote are distributed until a candidate reaches this necessary figure plus one vote. This process begins with the second preference votes of the candidate with the fewest votes being distributed to other candidates until the magic figure is reached.
This is why the distribution of preferences decides Australian elections. In a tight contest a Labor candidate may obtain victory from gaining the lion’s share of Green preferences. Similarly, a Liberal candidate may win a seat on the back of preferences from a National Party candidates. The rationale behind the preferential system is that the electors choose the candidate most ‘preferred’ by the electorate. Preferential voting also encourages the stability of majority government in the lower house, given the major parties are the beneficiaries of preferential voting.
Australia further adapted its voting system for its Senate in 1949. Proportional voting was introduced. Senate seats for each State are allocated on the basis of the proportion of votes received by a party- a quota of votes -approximately 16%-is required to win one Senate seat. When all of the House of Representatives is elected for three years, half the Senate is elected as Senators serve a six year term . Every State has 12 Senators, so 6 are elected every three years. Proportional voting typically sees the major parties winning 4 of the 6 seats and minor parties and Independents winning the 5th and 6th seat.
Proportional voting guarantees that neither of the major parties will have a majority in the Senate with the ‘balance of power’ being held by a coalition of minor party Senators and Independents. This is the ‘Weimar’ dilemma that is still played out in many European countries- witness the recent German election-where proportional voting is used to elect their peoples’ chambers. Inevitably, no one party has a majority of seats leading to the formation of many coalition governments which are often unstable.
Australia’s voting system promotes schizoid viewpoints about its efficacy. Some argue Australia has the ‘best of both worlds’ with stable lower House governments and an Upper House that guarantees a government is subject to sufficient scrutiny. Americans may crave such a system after its recent elections delivered President Trump a ‘rubber stamp’ Congress. Others argue that the wishes and mandate of the people’s government are held hostage by the whims of Senate minority groups thus frustrating the aims of representative government.
As every Australian election approaches there are also calls for further adaptations to our electoral and political system. Most common is the request that the three year term of our Federal government be extended to four years. This would require a constitutional referendum, which would have as much chance of succeeding as JD Vance being elected President of the European Union. So for the ‘forethreeable’ future, three years it shall be.
An even more fundamental consideration for change is of especial relevance in Australia in 2025. In the year when Novak Djokovic is chasing his 100th title, this year’s Federal election will mark the centenary of Australia introducing compulsory voting. In this regard, Australian democracy is the exception, not the rule. Not one of England, America, Canada, Germany, France or New Zealand compel their citizens to vote. Greece, Austria, Belgium and Argentina, along with Australia are amongst the minority of countries that do.
Has the time come to reconsider the legal imperative to vote?
Opinions differ wildly on the value of compulsory voting.
For its supporters, it is the ultimate civic duty. If citizens are to be the beneficiaries of government’s policy, they must be required to turn their mind to democracy at regular intervals. If all citizens over 18 are enfranchised they must consider their democracy. It is argued that compulsory voting ensures that a nation’s government has regard to all citizens. Without compulsory voting, it is argued that the most disadvantaged are disenfranchised and governments only govern for the educated and prosperous who vote for them.
For its opponents, compulsory voting is the antithetical policy of a liberal democracy. If our society rests on the freedom of individuals, how can the State compel its citizens to vote? If citizens are compelled to vote by threat of a fine, what type of informed choice are citizens making?
Opponents of compulsory voting would argue it is better to have 60-70% of an electorate exercising a willing and intelligent choice than having electoral results determined by the votes of the unmotivated and uninformed. It is also argued that compulsory voting makes parliamentary members lazy, knowing that all must vote, rather than having members who are forced to “work for their votes.”
Of course, compulsory voting does not deliver votes from 100% of eligible voters. In Australia, it is estimated that 3-4% of eligible voters do not bother to enrol. Add the 3-4% of voters who deliberately record an informal vote and the 3-4% who record a donkey vote and we have, at best, 88-90% of the electorate voting.
My opinion on the worth of compulsory voting oscillates. Presently, I am not wholly convinced of its efficacy, remembering the quip, “Don’t vote, it only encourages them.” I recently wrote how Australians will endure an election campaign where, “Both major parties are likely to engage in a ‘race to the bottom’ offering financial handouts in marginal electorates that the country cannot afford.”
It has already started. Before we have an official election date, both the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have promised to spend billions of dollars supporting Australia’s health system. There goes the chance of repairing the deficit. This is the current political zeitgeist: our leaders believe the only way to have a jaded electorate support them is through cynical promises of spending more taxpayers’ money. In a nation with compulsory voting, what our leaders believe is politically compelling for the electorate is often the lowest common denominator.
There is no doubt that the dismal record of constitutional change in Australia-only 8/45 referendums being successful since 1901-has much to do with compulsory voting. With barely 20% of voters having an adequate knowledge of the Constitution, compelling people to vote to change a document which has no meaning to them is a recipe for failure.
To vote or not to vote- that is the question! Well, not in Australia. We must. As we approach the centenary of our experience of compulsory voting, it is important and fair to ask the question: if we get the politicians we deserve, do we have the voting system we need?
Comments