PREFERENTIAL VOTING

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 142, 16 June 1923, Page 13

PREFERENTIAL VOTING

AT COMMONWEALTH SENATE ELECTIONS

METHOD DECLARED TO BE WRONG 1I«[ PRINCIPLE

The method by which the Commonwealth Senate electiion was decided has been severely criticised in Australian papers during the jpast few weeks. It is declared to be inaquitable and cumbersome, and inevitably causes much delay in the announcement of the result of the poll. The Melbourne " Age '.' states that with the object of • convincing the Federal electoral- author ities that the present system was wholly unsatisfactory and did not give a fair indio ation of the wishes of the electors, Mr. H. Schwieger, secretary of the Royal Agri cultural Society, recently conducted a series of interesting experiments. He fu und that while many thousands of fourth, fifth, sixth, and later preferences wu re permitted U> assist ii: the election of th a three Labour representatives, approxil [lately 200,000 direct anti-Labour votes ii i Victoria were absolutely disregarded. Some time ago Mr. Schwiegur conducted a ballot of wheat growers for the election of tlio Victorian Wheat Commission. This was carried out under the Senate preferential system, and being coin inced that the system was inequitable ha set out to prove it. In one set of 100 lballot papers it was found that, while Messrs. Barker, Barnes, and Findley were elected to the three vacancies, \)/ith Mr. Swinburna runner-up on each occasion, Messrs. Andrews, Merrett, and White all received an absolute majority of direct votes, the numbers being 53, 53, and 52 respectively. Mr. Schwi eger claims that his system has the fujrther advantage that the results can be .announced in a much shorter period than now obtains under the present system. At the last olection a very large staff was engaged for a period of between two and three weeks, but under the na w system the result could be announce itf in one day after recoipt of the final returns.

One set of balli(». papers prepare"! 'by Mr. Schwieger gavie the following result:

The candidates who were successful when the Senate a ystem was used for recording the ballot were credited with the following preferera ces:—

In the Senate election which was recently conducted 108,000 voters who gave Mr. Swinburne their first preference votes were absolutely disfranchised so far as the ren* lining two v*tes were concerned. Those who marked their papers Bolton 2, Plain 1, Swinburne 3, or Bolton 1, Plu, in 2, Swinburne 3, had their three votea recorded, but the Nationalist voters i i'ho marked their ballot papers Bolton 3, Plain 2, Swinburne 1, ov Bolton 2, Pla -in 3, and Swinburne 1 were only allowo 1 one vote for the three seats. The basic principle underlying Mr. Schwieger's schume is that the average votov marks i;] ie three- candidates he desires to support 1, 2,-and 3, according to the purfev ticket, always without any idea of priD! erencc, and consequently it is contendod £ hat all three votes should bo regarded as of equal value. He believes that as a. matter oE fact more care is exercised by the average voter as to the actual prof er'ence beyond the first three candidate*:.

In a second t ?et of papers which Mr. Sclnvieger preg-ared, and which were marked by ten. different persons, it was found that whnn the ballot was recorded according to the Senate system Messrs. Barker, Swinburne, and Plain were elected in 1 that ordtsr, aiv! yet by his system the successful candidates would have been Swinburne (66), Merrett (63), and Barnes

" My object :in conducting the experiments," said SiCr. Schwieger, " was not to further the i nterests of any particular political party. It was to indicate thai the presont system did not give a fair index of the cliasires of the voters. At a previous Senate election the Labour Tarty attempted to advance its interests by dividing tb o State into three portions, and urp,><!<l tho voters in each section to givo -.their first preference votes to a different <;andidate. This really resulted in the defeat of all the Labour Senate Candida tes at that particular election. But uncl er the system that is now recommended g ach candidate will receivo the full benefit of the direct vote recorded in his flavour.

Briefly statia:l, Mr. Scjjwicgcr's system provides that ouch candidate is credited with tho number of direct, or first, second, and thi;nd preference votes, and that if no camlidate receives an absolute majority of ttie votes thus recorded the fourth prefensneo of every voter should be examined and added to the aggregate of direct votes. In the event of no candidate eve»t then receiving an absolute majority, ibhe fifth preference o£ each candidate should be similarly treated. With ten can didates in the field this would then in< licate the degree of popularity of the candidates, and those receiving the hi ghest aggregate of votes should be entil.led to election: The feature of the syj item, it is claimed, is the simplicity of the forms that have been devised for securing aggregate and prompt returnr- from the returning officers and divisional returning officers throughout the State.

'reference. Amirews. 5 Merretl it.;i Whit First .•;.' 25 Second 15 Third / 13 4 26 23 3 27 22 ■ 53 53 52

reference. J3 arber. I First f 26 Second 3 Third — Fourth „. 12 Fifth 10 Sixth *. —' Seventh „ — Eighth — Ninth „ — Barnes. . 3 17 1 12 13 7 Fine dley. 4 2 19 7 3 10 3 3 F,l R7, S1