In the wake of the recent election, we have heard several calls for electoral reform. These calls have been put forth because of the interesting minority groups who have landed a seat in the senate. Personally, a couple of “normal” people might just help put some sanity into our political system. Anyway, I digress.

What puzzles me most about these calls for electoral reform is that I have not heard a direct reference to overhauling the system as it pertains to the House of Representatives. This is by far the greatest need.

Anyone who has stumbled through our previous writings will be aware of our total dislike for the preferential system of voting that we have in this country. I object to it because it is a total sham that makes a mockery of the whole process of democracy.

In essence, people are duped into voting under the guise of democracy. However, if you are not diligent to number all boxes, the candidates end up deciding where your preferences will go. Even when you number all the boxes, the candidates end up deciding where your preferences will go. There is no “opt-out” section. For example, in this year’s ballet there were several candidates and parties that I would not desire a single vote of mine to support, but I have no option to make this view known.

Then there is the major objection – preferential voting skews the result!

At this point, I want to make it clear that I am not out to discuss the pros and cons of a particular Party or Candidate. This is purely an exercise in number crunching to show how Preferential Voting skews results.

Many in this country celebrated the demise of One Nation. People from the two major Parties openly gloated when One Nation not only failed to win the 12 seats they projected, but were wiped from the political landscape. As we have noted previously, on first past the post, One Nation would have claimed 15 seats.

That is history. So let us talk about the “now” and the fallout from the last election. What I want to illustrate is the fact that the election results are skewed by Preferential Voting. As you read, please keep the question, “How different would our nation be?” floating in the back of your mind.

 I live in the seat of Indi. In our seat, the sitting Liberal member lost her seat to the Independent by 437 votes. This is supposedly the “democratic” result. My question is this, “How does someone who was 12000 votes in front on the Primary vote lose their seat by 437 votes?”

In Indi, the sitting member of Parliament had a 13% margin after Primary votes – 12000 votes – and they lost! Interesting concept of democracy, is it not?

As a consequence of my living in this area, I may be open to charges of “bias”, so in the interest of fairness we will look at some other results.

Clive Palmer wants to win the seat of Fairfax and become Prime Minister. That seat has gone to a recount as Mr Palmer won the seat by only 36 votes after preferences were counted. Once more, a skewed result! After the Primary count, the Liberal candidate had 41.3% to Mr Palmer’s 26.5%. In other words, the Liberal candidate enjoyed an approximate lead of 15% – 12000 votes – and he looks like losing. Again, how do you lead by 12000 votes and lose? Let me also ask this question, “Would you prefer a decision based on 12000 votes or on 36?”

Let us now consider the seat of Barton. This seat is a close contest indeed. Yet, what we see is that the waters are once more muddied. In this seat, the Liberal candidate leads, after preferences, by 489 votes. After the Primary vote, he led by 1525 votes. In this case, it does not look like the result will be altered, but, as stated, it muddies the water. The result is made to be a closer contest than it is in reality.

Then there is the seat of McKewen. In this seat, the Labor candidate is 345 votes in front with the counting of preferences. Yet, after the Primary count, the Liberal candidate was 2751 votes in front.

In showing these figures, I will be accused of being Pro-Liberal and so on. That is not the case at all. These results are from the closest seats at this election and simply illustrate how Preferential Voting skews the result.

In an attempt to put this in perspective, let me give an analogy. Like an election, we have a horse race that “stops the nation”. It is called the Melbourne cup.[1] Image that this prestigious race has been run. There is a clear winner. This horse won by lengths, not just a nose. Yet, as you scan the crowd, no one is excited or jubilant. You quietly ask yourself “Why?”

In hope of an answer, you ask a passerby, “Why are the winners not happy?” “Winners! Winners?” comes the reply. “There are no winners yet. The jockeys must get together and vote on who they think should have won the race.” Puzzled, you thank the stranger and move on. Then you hear the announcement that “such and such” has won the Melbourne Cup. You are even more bewildered now as you can clearly recall that the horse announced as the winner was obviously an “also ran” that finished well back in the pack.

Let me ask, “Who would settle for such circumstances?” Let’s extend the analogy – the Stawell Gift; the Olympics; World Titles; Little Athletics; or your child’s school sports. If your child crossed the line first in his school sports and was then placed second last, I am fairly certain that your course of action would be to remonstrate with the officials and not to console your child with a dissertation on the ‘democratic process’. Where would we settle for anything close to this? Yet, that is exactly what we do every time we go to an election.

In order to make this point as clear as possible, I would like to return to the topic of Pauline Hanson and the seat of Blair.[2] In 1998, Pauline Hanson lost this seat and the vitriol began. Then again, did she lose?

After primary votes, Pauline Hanson was, in round figures, 7000 votes in front of the Labor candidate and 10,000 in front of the Liberal candidate. From my perspective, this is a clear win. Now let me ask you, “Who won the seat?” If you were to say, as logic would predict, that the Labor candidate in second position won, you would be dead wrong! The winner was the Liberal candidate who placed third, near on 10,000 votes behind. Pauline Hanson lost to this person on preferences by 4632 votes.

Think this through. The bronze medallist ended up with the Gold Medal and the person who crossed the line first was given that heartless dissertation on “democratic process.”

If we are to have electoral reform, let it begin with the removal of this ridiculous Preferential Voting system that skews results and ultimately denies the democratic principles it claims to uphold.