[preferential voting] consider it, britain

This blog did run a post, in passing, on the last Australian election result, admittedly not hugely interesting to most readers and as I spoke yesterday, in conversation, of the system of Preferential Voting used downunder, it became apparent that Brits don't really understand how it operates.

The Brits know about First Past the Post and they are aware of Proportional Representation but this Preferential Voting seems a mystery.

The main problem with First Past the Post is that it encourages minority governments and makes small parties unimportant in the political landscape. So though the BNP, LPUK and UKIP may poll well, they are not going to take the seat, except in rare circumstances and therefore their only value is as a pressure group.

Preferential works as follows.

I've invented a card for a mythical constituency called Griddlesham and let's say that our voter doesn't like the major parties, voted them down the list and also placed the Monster Loonies last because they're too frivolous for our voter's tastes. I've left out the British smaller parties for the sake of the exercise _ I'm not the BBC, remember. Let's also not quibble over the names of the parties, whether they'd be on the card in reality or whether the names would be done that way or not.

So our man filled in his slip this way:

Right, so after the first round of votes have been counted, according to 1st preferences, the results are as follows:

Airley, W.M. ................8, 432
Barnes, G.S. .............. 18, 422
Farrier, N.L. ................2, 003
Long, G.K. .......................878
Roland, B.R. ........................2
Tennant, L.B. ..............3, 401
Vincent, T.L. ............. 19, 456
Informal ..........................682

TOTAL........................53, 276

Labour leads and now the lowest scoring candidate is dropped off the list and the papers of the 2 people who voted for the Loonies are now looked at for their 2nd preferences, which turned out to be for the Pensioners and the Free Parking, so the actual voting slips are placed on the piles of those parties' candidates, as if they were a 1st preference ... and the 2nd round begins.

After this, Free Parking is eliminated and all votes in the Free Parking candidate's pile are scrutinized for 2nd preferences and so it goes through the 3rd and subsequent rounds until, let's say, there are 3 candidates left:

Airley, W.M. ................8, 432
Barnes, G.S. ............... 21, 912
Vincent, T.L. ............. 22, 250
Informal ..........................682

Labour leads but now the LibDem will be eliminated and his preferences distributed. This is where it gets interesting. If the Lib Dems have a strong tradition of directing their preferences, then it will go the way the party wants but not all parties can control their supporters that much. Pundits in this hypothetical say that the Lib Dems will probably 65% direct preferences the Tories' way and 35% to Labour.

It happens that way and the final result is:

Barnes, G.S. ...............27, 393
Vincent, T.L. ............. 25, 201
Informal ..........................682

This was how the PM, John Howard lost his seat in the last Australian Federal Election. He was leading the vote but was pipped on preferences.

The good thing about Preferential is that the wishes of the smaller parties count for far more than in First Past the Post in that they have a direct bearing on the result and therefore need to be seriously considered in the run up to the election.

Not as fair as in Proportional Representation but fair to a goodish extent plus the results are usually known the same night plus it still returns one member per constituency, maintaining more directly representative government, as far as the electoral system goes at least.

The downside is its apparent complexity but it is not as complex in practice as it sounds and the result is usually known in each constituency within 4 to 12 hours. Some point to the unfairness - that if Howard had the most votes, he should have won. Against that, he did not have a majority - 50% plus 1 vote, whereas, under Preferential, those who did not vote for him on the first preference have their other preferences considered, once their candidate is eliminated.

So when the victor ends up with 50% plus 1, it is a majority of people who want him [or her].
.