Minutes/Policy Development Committee/Senate Elections WG/2014-03-26

Agenda

 * Introduction
 * Mark's ideas
 * Brendan's ideas
 * Andrew's ideas
 * Mozart's ideas

Attendance

 * Andrew Downing (Chair)
 * Mozart Olbrycht-Palmer
 * Bill McLean
 * Brendan Molloy
 * Mark Gibbons

Introduction

 * Working pad at http://pad.pirateparty.org.au/p/SenateElectionsWG

Brendan's ideas

 * Instituting multiple rows
 * At the moment there are just columns all the way down
 * Instead, have columns that can be split into rows where it makes sense to do so.
 * A group per row would be the outcome
 * Mozart attempting to explain his understanding of the proposal:
 * At the moment the ballot has groups, most groups have two candidates.
 * Some groups will have the full six, but the vast majority will be two (as two is the minimum for a group).
 * They're laid out in columns, one group per column, side by side, so we end up with long ballots.
 * This would presumably reduce the width.
 * Unclear on the exact layout being proposed.
 * What is the purpose of the group?
 * The group is to show which candidates parties are fielding (and which candidates/parties have chosen to group together.
 * Why the limit six candidates?
 * There are only six Senate seats elected per Senate election.
 * There is a need to ensure that candidates can remain grouped so they are easily findable by voters.
 * Robson Rotation
 * Should this apply within a group?
 * There would be far too many permutations — likely more permutations than ballots.
 * We want to avoid having a randomised donkey vote; ideally we want the donkey vote to be flat and therefore not influence the outcome.
 * Suggestion that the first box on the ballot be "I don't want to vote."
 * If voters fill left to right as per standard donkey vote, this would be the first box they fill and therefore their vote would not influence the outcome.
 * It gives people the option to legally say they don't want to vote.
 * It would also provide a measurable donkey vote.
 * Mandatory voting, without requiring a mandatory vote — "optional mandatory voting"
 * Allows people to send a democratic message of general dissatisfaction with all candidates.
 * If they number all the boxes, including this box, what did they mean?
 * It wouldn't matter, it's a spoiled ballot. Same rules that already apply to invalid votes would apply.
 * Put the box at the very top, away from everything else?
 * This would not solve the donkey vote issue
 * It could be clearly identified, but it needs to be in line
 * Donkey votes are cast by numbering consecutively (1 to n) in a linear fashion, not a random vote.
 * People are likely to ignore the box if it's at the top, no matter how much more convenient it would be.
 * First box on the ballot is easy enough to find.
 * It doesn't matter where this box goes, the first box on the ballot will be easy to find.
 * In order to invalidate donkey votes, the first box must be in line.
 * If people number consecutively, they will start at the left.
 * Make it the left-most box, and by itself in its own group.
 * Schulze STV
 * Schulze STV requires all boxes on the ballot be filled.
 * STV is about finding majority supported polar opposites.
 * Condorcet is about the compromise candidate.
 * Schulze STV is in draft; we might be better off with CPO-STV — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPO-STV
 * Brendan thinks this would be the method to recommend.
 * Brendan would like to write a test case to see how well it works.
 * Write the submission assuming we will recommend it, and then remove it if it's no good.
 * Summary: CPO-STV, grouped candidates, and first group always "I do not want to vote," with potential for rotated/randomised/limited iterations of ballots.

Mark's ideas

 * Minor parties enter the Senate in three ways:
 * Inertia and name recognition (e.g. Greens)
 * Access to money (e.g. Palmer)
 * Though group voting tickets (GVTs)
 * As long as we're not trying to narrow the ability to be elected down to parties with money or inertia, there shouldn't be issues.
 * Concern over abolishing GVTs.
 * It hasn't yet been discussed, because it's a major issues.
 * If you say only well-funded micros can be elected, Australia will be set on a permanent creep to the political right.
 * Disagreement — GVTs could equally be a mechanism for the creep to the right.
 * Without GVTs there would arguably be less preference dealing and exploitation, and less preference funnel parties.
 * Brendan: I think we've gotten to a point where the are just too many candidates you don't want to give your preferences to.
 * Mark: Because our system gives them a remote chance to win.
 * Brendan: By being dodgy. By having so many parties that they are mathematically able to accrue a quota.
 * Mark: But your alternative is completely closed; it would be solely determined by money.
 * Brendan: We're talking about how to make representative democracy work better. The Greens do not exist because of GVTs, and they still don't have money. Their first preference vote has dropped because people don't want to vote for them.
 * Mark: You need a proportional Senate without states. Then you'd have a somewhat open system that wasn't purely a playground for the rich.
 * Brendan: Not really. The voting system does not lend itself to a two-party mentality, the population does. Fix the cause, not the symptom. We shouldn't be advocating the use of GVTs to let random micro parties make deals to get elected; that's not democracy. Doing deals is what gets Palmer a quota. He didn't get any seats on his own, even with infinite money. Without a GVT in Tasmania, PUP got no seats.
 * Mark: He got 4–5% though.
 * Brendan: With the amount of money he has, that's not a good result. Other countries have multiparty democracies without preferences. The GVT is anomalous and does not lead to "the voters wishes" being fulfilled.
 * Mark: But they don't have quotas of 14% as a precondition to win any seats.
 * Brendan: It would still be preferential; people would have to fill in a minimum number of boxes (e.g. 10), so votes would have to go somewhere.
 * Andrew: What if GVTs were abolished, but primary vote threshold for funding was reduced so that small parties that got any significant attention could have their voices amplified?
 * Brendan: Unfortunately the trend is in the other direction, Queensland raised it from 4% to 10% recently.
 * Andrew: Trends aside, would we recommend lowering the funding threshold?
 * Generally favourable opinion towards this.
 * Limits on advertising spending.
 * Mandatory TV time for all registered parties on the national broadcaster (like other countries).
 * Abolition of state quotas
 * This is a constitutional issue, so should be discussed in the Constitutional Reform WG.
 * If state quotas were gone, you'd only need 1/76 of the vote [Note that this is actually incorrect, unless all Senators were elected at once. At present 40 Senators are elected every three years — six from each state, and two from each territory. Senators serve six year staggered terms, except the territories which serve three year terms. — Mozart].
 * We could argue for more Senators; double it so the quota is 7%.
 * Alternatively, all Senators to be elected every 3 years.
 * Or argue that the House of Reps becomes proportional, and the House of Review is constituency-based.
 * Would likely result in permanent minority governments.

Mozart's ideas

 * Oppose raising candidate fees — no evidence that it makes a difference, as every registered party still managed to run.
 * Policy is to recommend bringing the fees back down to $500 for House of Reps, $1,000 for Senate.
 * Wrong place to be looking at for reform.
 * If there's 56 parties, the TV time argument will never get up.
 * Double the members or require signatures?
 * The number of parties would likely drop without GVTs.
 * We need to make it clear that digital signups are necessary in this era, in case they were thinking of changing to paperwork as a deterrent.
 * Electronic voting
 * Recommend that digital voting machines are trialled.
 * No storage, just printing a guaranteed legible, ordered ballot
 * A receipt could be used to verify a vote was actually counted.
 * Open-source machines, so any nerd can tell you if something is wrong.
 * Some way for scrutineers to tell it's running the right code.
 * Long-term possibility of being able to print your ballot paper at home and then taking it to the polling station.
 * Would reduce queues and the number of voting machines needed.
 * Digital roll system — use tablets to tick names off, which is entered into a central system so that there are no duplicate votes.
 * Paper books as a fallback.
 * Party names
 * Enforcement of the rules regarding names seems lax.
 * Proposal of putting a logo on the paper instead of a name.
 * A 100 x 500 px box in which parties can put whatever they like.