Counting up Down Under: AV and Australia
David Meredith |
When I voted in last year's general election I recalled that the previous time I voted in Britain was in 1970 (when Harold Wilson lost unexpectedly). In the interim I had voted dozens of times - but in Australia where I lived and worked from 1973 to 2007 (when Kevin Rudd won rather expectedly). Having experienced both, I reflected on the contrast between the British first-past-the-post system and Australia's AV.
Australians seem to like AV (certainly it's not difficult) and have been using it in federal and state elections for over 90 years. What is its attraction? In a word, I think they find it empowering. Because you are making your judgement of every candidate by placing them in order of preference there is a greater feeling of participation than in a FPTP system. Your vote counts - placing a candidate you really don't like last, for example, certainly rams home the message. AV makes voting seem more worthwhile and induces a perception of fair play that appeals to Australians' sense of a 'fair go'. In short, AV makes voters feel more connected to the election process and therefore is invigorating for democracy.
Part of this greater sense of participation arises because nearly everyone who is eligible to vote does so. Unlike most parliamentary democracies, Australian elections have turnouts of around 95 per cent. Voting is compulsory (you are fined if you don't vote) and has been since 1924. This is unlikely to be adopted by the United Kingdom, but passes without comment in Australia.
Voting itself is also more exciting than in Britain. Early on the political parties learned the value of handing out 'how to vote' cards at every polling station. As long as you put a number against every candidate's name, you can place them in any order you choose. But if you want to follow the recommendations of a political party, take the card and follow the numbering suggested. There is always a throng of party activists outside the polling station with posters and leaflets, engaging with the voters as they turn up. This makes casting your vote a rather colourful, even festive, experience, and, as everybody votes, something of a community occasion.
What about political outcomes? Has this long period of AV in Australia produced a significantly different political landscape than FPTP in the UK? The answer seems to be No. Like Britain, Australia has single-member constituencies. The result has been a two-party structure similar to that in Britain. In fact, the electoral history of both countries has strikingly common elements. Both saw the emergence of a labour party in the early twentieth century which became the alternative to a more dominant conservative party. Both countries went in to the Great Depression with inexperienced labour governments which took a decade to recover from the experience. Labour became more popular in Australia and Britain during and immediately after the Second World War and in both cases the post-war labour administration introduced wide-ranging welfare-state measures. The Long Boom from the 1950s was overseen by conservatives, for 23 years in Australia's case, where the boom lasted longer. In both countries the choppy years of the late 1970s gave rise to economic rationalist policies in the 1980s, introduced by a Conservative government here and Labor governments (Bob Hawke, Paul Keating) in Australia. In fact, the Hawke-Keating government (1983-1996) was an inspiration for New Labour in Britain. And David Cameron and John Howard (1996-2007) have (politically) much in common.
Nor has the AV system in Australia produced less stable government than in Britain. Australian voters have not changed their government all that often. There has only been one hung federal parliament (the present one) and despite the necessity of facing the voters at least every three years, Australian political parties have tended to occupy government for slightly longer stretches than in the UK. Since the Second World War the Australian federal government has changed party six times as opposed to seven in the UK.
One claim for AV in Britain is that it will assist 'third parties', and that coalition government is more likely than under FPTP. This has not been Australia's experience. Third parties, such as the Communist Party of Australia (1920s-1950s) and the Australia Democrats (since the 1970s) tried hard to get into the House of Representatives, but failed. The Australian Democrats followed the CPA into political oblivion. There is one Green Party MP in the present federal parliament, an outcome widely regarded as a short-lived aberration, but possibly an indication of change to come. Otherwise, 'third parties' have never won House of Representatives seats. Independents also have been rather thin in the ranks of federal MPs, though a few, like Pauline Hanson in the 1990s and the four 'Independents' now, play a pivotal role for a while. The currently 'hung' federal parliament in Australia is not the result of 'minority parties' exploiting the balance of power, it was caused by an almost dead-heat between the ALP and the Liberal-Nationals.
But Australia is not Britain, despite its shared cultural background, and maybe AV here would produce different outcomes. After all, the Liberal Party (or Liberal Democrats) has always had some representation in the House of Commons and thus the effect of adopting AV may be more favourable to them than the experience of 'third parties' Down Under. It does not seem like a foregone conclusion, however.
What is more certain, from reflecting on my participation in both systems, is that a Yes vote on 5 May would definitely be a shot in the arm for UK politics. It might not change the political landscape very much, and it probably won't make politicians behave any better than they usually do (in either country), but it would be a powerful force for combating feelings of voter powerlessness which give rise to cynicism, and would invigorate the political process at the voter level. Some politicians in Britain understandably feel apprehensive about adopting AV here, but there is no reason for voters to feel anything but positively about a system which respects their judgement and makes their voice clearly heard. Power to the people!
Please note: Views expressed are those of the author.About the author
