A handful of minor parties could hold the balance of power in the Senate from July next year, with sports and motoring enthusiasts set to benefit from representation in the Upper House.
Around 30 micro parties formed a preference swap deal that could see as many as 8 seats held by non-major parties.
Dr Nick Economou, a political expert from Monash University, says despite its criticisms the current system is "not undemocratic".
SBS: How does the Senate preferential voting system work?
Dr Nick Economou: At the moment there's great controversy because it looks like candidates with a very small primary vote are on the verge, or appear to be on the verge, of winning seats. What we have to remember is that the Senate voting system operates a bit like the Lower House voting system but with two very important qualifications. One, the Senate system uses a multi-member system, the Lower House uses a single member system and two; to win a seat in the lower house you need to get 50 per cent plus one of the vote but to win a Senate seat you need 14.4 per cent.
Now what's happening in the Senate count is that some 25 per cent of the vote cast in each state has gone to parties and candidates other than the four main parties; other than Labor, Liberal, National and Green. So whilst you've got a huge number of minor parties with small primary votes, the accumulated effect of this is to suggest that there's well in excess of 14.4 per cent of the vote sitting out there. Once those candidates are eliminated from the count and their preferences are distributed, and given that they all direct preferences to each other, eventually one of these minor party candidates is going to get a vote in excess of 14.4 per cent after the distribution of preference and that candidate will get elected.
Is it undemocratic to have representatives in the Senate that only a tiny fraction of the population actually voted for?
I can see that it looks odd in the sense that you've got micro-party candidates with very small primary votes. But the same process that is used to elect them is used to elect the second and third persons on the Labor and Liberal Party ticket. The majority of Australians will vote above the black line when they vote in the Senate, so the chances are the second-placed and the third-placed Liberal candidate and the second-placed Labor and the third-placed Labor candidate will get a primary vote of .01 per cent but after the distribution of surplus and preferences those people eventually end up getting the 14 .4 per cent. That’s the long answer. The short answer is; no, it's not undemocratic at all.
There have been calls to reform the system, should this at least be considered?
I'd be the last person say that people should never reform anything. Clearly, issues about the way in which preferences are directed will come up. There are a range of possible reforms, optional preferential reform perhaps or establishing quotas or thresholds that minor parties have to reach before they can get elected but any such change would require a passage of legislation through the parliament that would require both Labor and Liberal or perhaps Labor, Liberal and Greens all working together to try and make decisions and changes to the electoral act to freeze out others. Now, that looks a bit like a political cartel operating, and I think that's a bad look so I'm wondering if any of the major parties would be so inclined to work together to freeze out minor party candidates to that extent.
I'd be the last person say that people should never reform anything. Clearly, issues about the way in which preferences are directed will come up. There are a range of possible reforms, optional preferential reform perhaps or establishing quotas or thresholds that minor parties have to reach before they can get elected but any such change would require a passage of legislation through the parliament that would require both Labor and Liberal or perhaps Labor, Liberal and Greens all working together to try and make decisions and changes to the electoral act to freeze out others. Now, that looks a bit like a political cartel operating, and I think that's a bad look so I'm wondering if any of the major parties would be so inclined to work together to freeze out minor party candidates to that extent.
What kind of implications could this have for Tony Abbott when the new Senate comes into play next year?
I think that Tony Abbott has got a bigger problem with the Senate from now until July next year, because he'll be facing a Senate that's dominated by Labor and the Greens. I think the situation looks much better for Mr Abbott's government after the 1st of July. Whilst it's true his party won't control the Senate, I think there are enough like-minded socially conservative fellow travellers to allow the Abbott government to negotiate to get its legislation through. Although it will be interesting to see what some of these Senators will be requiring by way of a quid-pro-quo agreement. So it's difficult for Mr Abbott, but the irony is that it's more difficult for him now than I think it will be after the first of July next year.
HAVE YOUR SAY
Should the Senate voting system be considered for reform? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
Should the Senate voting system be considered for reform? Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.
