John Lenders, Honour Awarded

John Lenders, Leader of the Government in the Victorian Legislative Council, was last night awarded Honorary Life Membership of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia, a non partisan organisation concerned with the promotion of democratic electoral reform in Australia .

In putting forward John Lender's citation for Honorary Life Membership the Executive gave recognition to John's commitment and contribution to electoral reform in Victoria and in particular the role he played in bringing about reform of the Victorian Legislative Council which was introduced following the State Government's re-election to office in 2002 in which it had won control of both houses.

John was actively engaged in the formation and implementation of the Labor Party's policy, from its conception to birth. As assistant and later State Secretary of the ALP going far back as 1985 when the ALP first adopted a policy of reform in preference to policy seeking abolition of the State upper-house. The Government's preferred model  when it was first introduced was for the State to be divided into five regions (two rural and three urban) with seven or nine members each.

Whilst the ALP had the opportunity to introduce electoral reform back in 1985 in the period between the State election and the Nunawading by-election it did not do so as it fell short of a constitutional majority to introduce other reforms such as restricting the rights of the upper-house to block supply.

In 2002 the Labor Government headed by Steve Bracks won control of both houses of the State Parliament and in doing so was in a position for the first time to implement Labor’s policy for reform to Victoria's State Constitution. As part of its commitment to the three independents who supported Steve Bracks election as Premier in 1999 the government set up a Constitutional Commission to consider in detail recommendations that were to be implemented. In the process of securing support and acceptance for the reforms the model was changed to eight regions each with five members elected. The reforms included removal of the power to block supply and entrenched into the constitution the method of election which can only be changed by referendum or with the support of 60% of both houses. John Lenders was pivitol in oveseeing this process. Without John Lender's imput and committement to reform it is unlikely Victoria would have a democraticly representative upper-house.

A motion to support Johns lenders being granted Honorary Life Membership was supported unanimously by the Society.

In discussion that followed concern was raised about the adoption of the Australian Senate rules in the counting of the vote in particular the method of calculating the Surplus transfer value and the segmentation and distribution of preference votes form candidates excluded in the count. John lenders recognised and supported the need for further reform. At the time of adopting the constitutional changes that were put in place in the lead-up to the 2006 State election it was felt important that the election be consistent with the Senate rules for its introduction.

John Lenders indicated his support for further voting reform that included a weighted surplus transfer value, which was adopted by the Western Australia State Parliament, and the idea of a iterative counting system which would be necessary with the adoption of optional preferential voting.

Whilst these changes will not be in place in time for the November State Election they will be considered by the Electoral Matters Commitee in the new Parliament.

Senate counting system delivers a bonus 14,000 votes to the LNP in NSW

Preliminary analysis of the 2010 NSW Senate results using information published by ABC electoral Analyst, Antony Green, has indicated that the method of counting the vote used by the Australian Electoral Commission has inflated the value of the Liberal/National Party Ticket vote by over 14,000 votes disproportionately to their support.

The method used in calculation of a candidates Surplus Transfer Value is derived by dividing the surplus of votes by the total number of ballot papers and not the value of the vote.   This has the effect of increasing the LNP ticket vote and devaluing full valued primary votes of minor party candidates.

The Australian parliament and the AEC are aware of the flaw in the way the Senate vote is counted but to date has failed to act to correct the mistakes.

The problem with the Senate system is that it was designed to facilitate a manual counting process. The method used to calculate the surplus transfer value is seriously flawed as a result.
 
In analysis of the 2007 Victorian Senate Election Labor Party Senate candidate David Feeney could have been not elected as a result of a 7,000 bonus votes that would have been generated by the system currently in use.  The analysis is based on a realistic hypothetical of One Nation preferencing the Liberal Party ahead of the ALP and ahead of the Greens.  

In fact if you apply the 2010 Party Ticket preferences to the 2007 results David Feeney would not have been elected.The Greens candidate Di Natali would have been elected on the back of One Nation, Family First and DLP preferences, even though they opposed the greens election. Their vote was reduced in value inflating the value of the LNP ticket vote. The same situation has occurred in NSW where the system has delivered a 14,000 "unfair" vote bonus to the LNP ticket.

The potential for the system to elect the wrong person was confirmed independently by Antony Green in his submission to the Australian parliament's Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters in 2008.

Western Australia was aware of the flaw in the Senate counting rules and has legislated to correct it, Victoria's parliament has yet to address this situation which could effect the outcome of the Victorian State election to be held in November this year.

If we are to restore confidence in the way the Senate vote is counted then we MUST ensure that the system is an accurate reflection of the voters expressed intention and is fully proportional not semi proportional.

If we can not make the necessary changes and fix the system then we should abandon preferential proportional representation and adopt a party list system.

Below is the calculations that demonstrate how the Senate system works

One Nation, Family First and Democratic Labor Party to elect Victoria’s First Green Senator

Analysis of the 2010 registered Victorian Senate How to Vote preference allocation indicates that the Greens (based on the 2007 Senate Election results) will elect Three Liberal, Two ALP and One Greens Senator.

Electoral Analyst Anthony van der Craats, said that One Nation, Family First and the Democratic Labor Party unwittingly will contribute to the election of a Green Senator even though all three have preferenced the ALP before the Greens. In 2007, using the same votes, the Liberal party and the ALP both elected three Senators.

The reason why the Greens candidate is elected is due primarily to the distortion in the way in which the Senate vote is counted.

The Australian Electoral Commission, when calculating the surplus transfer value, divides a candidate’s surplus value by the number of ballot papers as opposed to the value of the vote. This has the effect of increasing the Liberal Party ticket vote which is then distributed to the Greens at an inflated value giving the Greens a bonus 7,000 votes derived from One Nation, Family First and Democratic Labor Party supporters.

By way of analogy Mr van der Craats said

If we calculated the dividend of shares based on the number for shareholders as opposed to the value of shares our financial system would collapse overnight. It would not be accepted for counting money however this is how Australian Senate votes are counted.

The system is not proportional to the value of the vote. If we are to have a fair and accurate election system then the method of calculating the surplus value and distributing preferences needs to be changed and the system fixed

The Australian Senate system is semi-proportional only.

The identified flaw in the system was outlined to the Australian Parliament "Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters" (JSCEM) in a submission made in 2008. The JSEM failed to act to correct the system.

Mr. van der Craats's analysis has been independently confirmed by ABC Electoral Analyst Antony Green.