Malcolm Barker: The ‘biscuit vote’ – a taste of AV the Aussie way

Imagining them to be candidates on the ballot paper, you could if you wished plump for an individual, say Tim Tam, and place a “1” in the box against that name. You could also rate the other candidates in order of preference, perhaps making Mint Slice your second choice and Caramel Crown your third.

In the event of no candidate achieving more than 50 per cent of the vote, and Tim Tam coming bottom of the poll, your vote would be transferred to your second choice, Mint Slice.

With a poll on alternative voting due in Britain on May 5, it was interesting to see this system in action.

Australia has nine governments, mostly with upper and lower houses, so there are plenty of elections, and New South Wales chose a new government on March 26.

Labor (originally Labour but now definitely non-u} lost power in the lower house, the Legislative Assembly, in a crushing defeat, enabling Barry O’Farrell, leader of the longstanding Liberal/Nationalist coalition, to take over as Premier (states have premiers, the federal government a prime minister).

The “biscuit vote” system seemed to work well, with provisional overnight declarations in all except half-a-dozen constituencies where postal votes were being counted to decide the issue.

It was only after a careful scrutiny of the result that a remarkable fact emerged. Not one of the 93 seats was won by a candidate who failed to finish first on primary votes. In effect, New South Wales had reverted to first past the post.

This happened because in 1980 the then Labor Premier, Neville Wran, changed the rules. Until then it had been necessary to place the candidates on the ballot paper in order of preference. Mr Wran did away with that. Now it is perfectly acceptable to vote for a single candidate.

At each election since then, more and more voters have taken this option. The consequence for Labor has been grievous, and it is now reduced to a rump of only 20 seats in the biggest swing against any Australian government since 1945.

The situation is different in the upper house, the Legislative Council. Here, under a system of proportional representation, in addition to block voting for groups, electors had the option of support “below the line” for individual candidates, of whom there were some 400.

This produced a ballot paper so unwieldy that at one polling booth in Sydney an official used a broom handle to stuff them in the ballot boxes. Elsewhere the use of rulers was the norm. Also, the count was so complex that the final result was not available until April 12, some 17 days after polling.

Electors opting to choose individual candidates were obliged to list 15 in numerical order. They had a wonderful variety of causes seeking their support, including the No Parking Meter Party and the Lower Excise Fuel and Beer Party. Since 1984 places on the ballot papers have been determined by a draw.

Previously, when candidates appeared in alphabetical order, there were frequent instances of “donkey voting”, with voters simply numbering down from the top. Aarons and Abbots tended to do well at elections. Even now a place towards the top of the list is believed to confer an advantage.

The Australians introduced alternative voting in 1918, not because it might produce fairer results, but to keep Labor out. A Country Party (now the Nationals) had been formed, representing small farmers, and it did sufficiently well at the polls in attracting votes from the Liberals in rural areas to allow Labor candidates to get in on minority votes.

The Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, rightly believed that Country Party voters would make Liberals their first preference and vice-versa, thus ensuring the defeat of any interloper.

The March 26 poll produced a “hung” upper chamber. Its 42 members comprise 19 Coalition, 14 Labor, five Greens and two each for Christian Democrats and Shooters And Fishers. If he is to get his legislation through, Premier O’Farrell will have to look to minority parties, a situation one commentator has branded “a travesty of democracy”.

The Shooters And Fishers would make unpalatable allies. The price for their support was the right to shoot in the state’s National Parks, and the introduction of gun-classes in schools. Mr O’Farrell is now said to prefer a deal with the Greens, although he has previously likened negotiating with them to dealing with the devil.

Much interest, and a good deal of alarm, was caused by the possibility of Pauline Hanson, the founder of the ultra-right One Nation party, squeaking into the last upper house seat.

At one stage the computer program that predicts results for the national broadcaster, ABC, had her out in front, which prompted the poor man in charge to declare that he did not believe it.

When the final result was announced he was proved right, but only just. Despite being made first choice by less than two per cent of the voters, Pauline Hanson had come close to a victory that would have driven many Australians to another kind of biscuit – a Digestive.

Malcolm Barker, a former editor of the Yorkshire Evening Post, is currently in New South Wales, Australia.