With thanks to Geoff Pryor of the Canberra Times

Nothing more needs to be said…

Previously (May 06) in the context of the recent British Election and the first past the post (FPTP) election process employed in the UK I made some comments in relation to possible electoral system reform in Australia.  In the event my remarks concerning the potential for FPTP to result in some success for other than the two major political parties – Labour and the Conservatives – were not reflected in the election outcome, which saw the Conservatives win a majority of seats and thus the power to govern in their own right.

In my defence I was not the only observer surprised by the result, with all the major UK polling organizations embarrassed by the gap between their predictions and the ultimate reality.

The concept of smaller parties profiting by the vagaries of FPTP was not entirely rejected by the UK results, however, if we consider the success of the Scottish National Party (SNP).  Garnering only 4.7% of the national vote, SNP won 95% of the seats it contested (56 of 59), all in Scotland.  Before it is said “yes, but that is just Scotland nationalism” it should be understood that this result was based on a minority of the votes cast in those 59 electorates, albeit by a very small margin.

Further, with a swing to it of just 3.0% the SNP increased its representation from six to 56 seats.  It did so by concentrating its focus and resources in specifically targeted electorates, an obvious strategy given that its rationale is to pursue policies of direct and specific interest to the voters in those electorates.  This strategy was in no way encumbered by the FPTP voting system; indeed 23 of the SNP’s seats (over 40%) were secured by less than a majority of the votes cast, with several recording successful votes in the mid thirty percent.

The opposite of the SNP strategy was that adopted by the Liberal Democrats (erstwhile coalition partners of the Conservatives) and the UK Independence Party (UKIP) both of which contested all 650 seats, thus spreading both focus and resources over the entire electorate.  Both attracted a significant volume of votes but were singularly unsuccessful in securing seats.  The lesson for these parties is clear – for as long as FPTP is the basis of the UK system they must keenly target seats and not diffuse their resources (and message) over numerous seats which they cannot hope to win.

Which brings us to the major associated outcome of the UK election – widespread criticism of the obvious inequities of the FPTP system.  Looking at the major political parties the bias in favour of the majors is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Conservatives require only an average vote of 34,244 to secure a seat; Labour requires 40,277; the Liberal Democrats require 301,986; and the UKIP and the Greens, with one seat each, require votes in the millions.  To complete the picture, SNP requires only 25,972 votes to secure a seat.

Coupled with the fact that in the UK 2015 FPTP election the Conservatives gained 24 seats on an increase in its vote of less than one per cent, while Labour increased its vote by 1.5% but lost 26 seats, this should suggest that, whatever might be the future of electoral reform in Australia, FPTP will not be  part of any change.

Currently, there is a good deal of debate in this country surrounding the appropriateness/adequacy/fairness (pick your preferred descriptor) of the various electoral systems that operate in both the Federal and State jurisdictions.  Much of this has been prompted by the claimed obstruction of the incumbent Federal Government’s policy mandate by “feral” Senators who have been elected not as a result of the public’s democratic preference but rather as an outcome of “behind closed doors” preference swaps orchestrated by professional electoral system gamers.

Some observers, frequently not without a party political axe to grind, contend that this unintended representational outcome would, at least to some extent, be overcome by the introduction of a first-pass-the-post (FPTP) voting system under which the candidate having the most votes after the first count of ballot papers would be declared the winner.

To a considerable extent this position was prompted by the experience of the recent Queenland State election where after the first count the then LNP Government led on FPTP terms in 51 of the 89 seats but after the distribution of preferences lost sufficient of those first preference leads to other candidates to lose the ability to form government, which enabled the ALP to do so, albeit with the support of an Independent.

Many LNP supporters considerd this unfair and suggested that an FPTP system would have better reflected the will of the voters.

With respect, this is nonsense.  Consider for a moment the situation where in a particular electorate there are five candidates contesting a tight contest.  One of the candidates receives 22% of the vote with the other four sharing the remaining 78% in roughly equal proportion but with no one candidate receiving more than 20%.  It should be obvious that there is nothing fair about the declared successful candidate being elected with 22% of the vote when fully 78% of the elctorate was against that outcome!

There is a another possible outcome under FPTP that suggests its suporters should be careful about what they wish for.  In making this point I am indebted to Prof Patrick Dunleavy, of the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra and Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economica and Political Science  (see UK election spells the end for the biggest ‘law’ in political science) and also to The Conversation (see  https://theconversation.com/au) where his article was published.

In his article Prof Dunleavy suggests that in a number of western democracies FPTP voting systems are increasingly producing multi-party outcomes; that in very few electorates in tomorrow’s UK election will the successful candidate secure more than 50% of the votes cast; and that this progressive move way from the electoral dominance of the two major parties in favour of smaller parties (in the UK the Scottish National Party, the UK Independence Party and the Greens) may well persuade the incoming Government to consider elctoral reform that could incorporate some form of proportional representation.

Proponents of FPTP in Australia, beware!

I will review the UK election outcomes and consider whether Prof Dunleavy’s predictions prove to be correct and what that might mean for those promoting electoral reform in Australia.

The sudden and accidental death of Phillip Hughes after being hit by a cricket ball is desperately sad, a tragedy for the young man and his family.  These are not the sorts of outcomes that are expected from a game of cricket, no matter what level of competition.

As many have said Mr Hughes’ death certainly puts into perspective the importance or otherwise of success in sporting endeavour. The famous comment by Liverpool Football Club Manager, Bill Shankly that –

Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that”

rings very hollow when placed against the events at the SCG on Tuesday of this week.

This is no time, however, for the sort of woolly thinking that has led to the relatively widespread contention that this tragedy should result in the cancellation of the First Test against the Indian cricket team scheduled to commence next week.  While the shock and almost despair of the first-class cricketing fraternity is understandable, what is to be served by such a decision?

More importantly, this train of thought suggests an absence of consideration of what would be the view of Mr Hughes himself, were he in a position to comment.  Surely, as one of Australia’s finest with a strong regard for the game (witness his determination to return to Test cricket, having previously been dropped from the team no fewer than three times) he would see the central importance of moving forward.

Additionally, if the cancellation of the First Test is in some way intended to be a mark of respect for Mr Hughes does this not at least infer that it will be alright to recommence Test cricket a little later, after his death has been somewhat forgotten. When might that be?  How quickly might we forget?

I would argue that the next week’s Test should be held as a celebration of the life of Phillip Hughes to ensure that he is remembered not just next week but during every future First Test of the summer.

There is of course the question of whether or not those likely to be selected to play in the First Test Australian team feel that they are able to do so.  This will depend on individual circumstances and the degree to which each individual has been affected by the tragedy.  This should be managed by Cricket Australia making clear to each individual selected that the decision to play or not is a matter for each person and whatever each decides will not be a factor in future selection prospects.