by John Pyke, Queensland candidate for the Constitutional Convention
[For this election, the rules are specified in section 101 of the Constitutional Convention (Election) Act 1997 (C'th). If you want to read what it says, it's available from AustLII or ScalePlus. All references to sub-sections below are to sub-sections of section 101.]
The basic idea of proportional representation (PR) is that the number of candidates elected from a party's ticket should be, as nearly as possible, proportional to the number of votes the party has received. To do this, a quota is calculated. The formula for the quota is a generalisation of what happens when only one candidate is to be elected - there the winner needs to get 50% of the votes (after distribution of preferences, if necessary) which is 100 divided, not by the number of candidates to be elected, but by one more, that is by two. So when X are to be elected the quota is set, not at 100/X percent, but at 100/(X+1) percent. (The quota is then rounded up to the next whole vote, but I'll ignore that in what follows.) So in Queensland, where 13 delegates are to be elected, the quota is 1/14 of all the votes, or (100/14) percent, or 7.14%.
[Imagine there were only 14 candidates - after surpluses and preferences are juggled around (see below) there will be 13 candidates with a little over 1/14 of the vote, and the one loser must have less than 1/14. With more than 14 candidates, the contest in the end will usually come down to a fight between the 13th and 14th, and again (assuming that all voters distribute preferences fully) the one elected 13th will get over a quota, and the one not elected will have less than a quota.]
When an election is contested not merely by individuals but by "tickets" of people with much the same policies, the people at the head of the tickets are likely to get much more than one quota. So if the top person for ticket T gets 4-point-something quotas it seems reasonable that 4 people from that ticket should be elected. The way this is done is to treat the elected person as holding on to one quota and passing on the other 3-point something - the "surplus" - according to the voter's next preferences, which will normally mean straight on down the ticket. Without computerised counting this is done by separating out a pile of ballot papers equal to the quota, tying them up tightly and labelling them as the papers that elected J Bloggs, and then distributing the others to the next-preferred candidates - a very fair but very long process.
However, this election is going to be computerised - see section 102 of the Act on AustLII or ScalePlus. So if, say, Michael Lavarch, gets 4.5 quotas then the computer can pass all of his votes on to the next-preferred candidates, but with the value of the vote reduced to 3.5/4.5, or 0.7777 of a vote. Effectively 0.2222 of each vote has elected Michael and the rest is still working as surplus. Assuming all the preferences flow straight down the ticket (and they will unless people are voting below the line), another 0.2222 will be "left behind" after electing Sally-Anne Atkinson, another 0.2222 for Sarina Russo, another 0.2222 for Paul Everingham, and Jackie Huggins will be credited with 0.1111 of all Michael's votes, which will give her only half a quota. Then she's going to hope that preferences come her way from other groups - or she's out!
It can happen that in an election by PR the distribution of surpluses is all that is needed. Supposing that the ARM gets 4.05 quotas, the Clem Jones team 3.05, the Paul Tully team 1.05, the Greens for a Just Republic 1.05 the No Republic-ACM team 3.1 and Glen Shiel's Constitutional Monarchists 1.05, and all of us independents total only 0.65 of a quota, [I hope this isn't how it will happen] then the 13 places will be filled by electing the top person from each team and cascading the surpluses down the teams with two or more quotas.
But it may also happen that the total of the whole quotas is well under 13 - then, after all the surpluses of the elected folk have been distributed, a distribution of preferences takes place just like in an election for only one member or delegate. The person now sitting on the lowest number of votes is eliminated and his/her next preferences distributed, then the next lowest, and so on. When this process pushes someone over a quota, s/he is declared elected and if s/he has a surplus that's distributed. [Sub-s (14)] This continues until the 13 places are filled. [Since marking of preferences is optional, there are extra rules to decide things when the total number of "live" votes runs low - see sub-ss (17) and (18).]
So if things are really complex, it may get to a situation, after 12 delegates have been elected, where all but three of the remaining candidates have been eliminated and the preferences of the 15th decide the final contest between the 13th and 14th - so if you'd done nothing to indicate who you preferred as between the 13th and 14th your vote would play no part in this final contest.
[Can You Trust Me? Of course I have an interest in persuading you to vote for me, but I also have had an interest extending over 25 years in the Proportional Representation system, and in explaining it. Because I understand it I was careful to register a sensible voting ticket, so that people could vote for me without wasting their vote. When I warn you below against voting for people who didn't put in sensible tickets, I'm serving my own interest but I'm also trying very hard to give you objective advice about the effect of your vote.]
This system is fine if the group/individual has registered a sensible voting ticket - but not all of them make much sense to me. Some factors to consider in deciding how to vote are:
Some candidates and one group didn't register tickets at all.
These are the "Young Queensland Voice" pair, and John D'Hooghe, Kyla Arentz, Alastair Barros, Frank O'Dea, James Wakefield, Colin Saltmere, Graeme Morris, Julie Wylie, James Bell, Bob Snowden and Tim Harrington. So if you vote for one of these, above the line, and he/she/they don't get elected your vote plays no further part.
You really should only vote for one of these above the line if s/he is (or the "Young Queensland"ers are) the only candidate(s) that you really care about, and you don't care that your vote will have no effect if the final contest is between two others. [And voting for these people, or anybody, below the line has problems, too: see the next main heading.]
Some tickets only allocate the minimum number of preferences (13) or a few more.
These include Australians for Constitutional Choice, Women for a Just Republic, Community Republicans, Saunders and O'Dwyer, Peter Janssen, Jock McIlwain, Nicholas Aroney, Dianne Hungerford, Margaret Hockey, Peter West, Peter Martin, Xuan Nguyen, Mike Evans, Len Harris, Bear Stanley, Max Dunstan, Noel Payne, Gilbert Joyce, Joie Dwyer, Russell Lenehan, Paul Hoolihan, Ken Horrigan, Neil Thorpe, Maurie Hee, Stephen le Page and Richard Carew.
Before voting above the line for any of these people, in particular, you ought to have a look at their tickets. Some of them give eventual preferences to a major team, some just go through like-minded independents, and some give preferences to a very odd selection of monarchists and republicans, based apparently on what they think of the individuals.
If you want to vote above the line for any of these people, be aware that, depending on just who is on the list of preferences, some of the votes for these tickets might or might not actually be effective in electing anyone, and whether the vote will have any effect on the fight for the 13th place will depend on just exactly who the final two candidates for that place are - and that's very hard to predict. So, If you wanted to make sure that in the last resort your vote finally goes to the ARM, or the Clem Jones or Paul Tully teams, to help them against the monarchists - or vice versa - then most of these tickets may not do what you want. You would do better to vote for an independent who has lodged a full ticket - like (unless you're a monarchist) me! Of course, I should make a similar point to the point I made as to the "no preferences" group - if the only candidates you care for at all are on the relevant ticket, then of course you'll have no problem in voting for it.
Some tickets give a strange distribution of preferences
The people who filed long tickets seem to have generally known what the voting system was about, so most of them are fairly consistent - republicans favour other republicans and monarchists favour other monarchists. However, two of these tickets, like many of the short ones, are somewhat strange:
We have given our preferences to Glen Sheil and Flo Bjelke-Petersen (Constitutional Monarchists) as they have assured us that in the event of a Republic being established they favour the election of a President. Other Republicans favour the appointment of a President. We believe that the most important issue is that the President is elected.
That's all very well, and you can perhaps understand them putting monarchists, who would settle for an elected President as a second-best option, ahead of the ARM who have been arguing (at least until recently) for an election by Parliament. But these two monarchists are also higher than most of the Paul Tully team and all of the Clem Jones team - republicans who favour popular election! If Sheil and Bjelke-Petersen have already been elected before this group's preferences are distributed, this will not matter. But if the Constitutional Monarchists get less than two quotas, it is possible that preferences from this group will elect Lady Flo ahead of the next republican in line for election! Be aware of this if you're thinking of voting for them.
If neither of the above applies to you I seriously recommend that you give voting below the line a big miss! If you care whether a monarchist or a republican fills the last place, then vote above the line for one of the monarchists or republicans who has filed a sensible, reasonably long, voting ticket - like me!
A summary of the ticket is as follows:
1. John Pyke (gosh, that's me!)
2. Ginni Hall, Aust Bill of Rights Group
3. Norman Johnson, Aust Indigenous People's Party
[the above two are running together as "Community Republicans"]
4. Richard Carew, Bill of Rights for Australia
5. Ross Garrad
6. Charles Mollison - his policy's a mixture of very good and weird, but he's a mate!
7-15. The Clem Jones team
16-18. Women for a Just Republic
19. Stan Stokes, of the long-established Republican Party of Australia
20-22. Australian Greens for a Just Republic
23-28. Queenslanders for a Republic (Paul Tully & Co, from Ipswich)
29-30. Saunders & O'Dwyer
31-43. The ARM
44-47. The ARM (North Queensland)
This is about the end of the seriously-electable people, but the following are also included just in case one of them is left in there fighting for the last place with a monarchist:
48. Alastair Barros
49. Paul Hoolihan (ARM, Central Queensland)
50. Bob Snowden
51. Dianne Hungerford
52. Kyla Arentz
53. Mike Evans
54. James Wakefield
55. Bear Stanley
56. Max Dunstan
57. Noel Payne
58. Chris Monsour
59. Graeme Morris
60. Ken Horrigan
61. Neil Thorpe
62. Maurie Hee
63-64. "Young Queensland's Voice"
65-75. The Elect the President team
76-88. "Alternative Three"
89-90. Australians for Constitutional Choice
91. Stephen le Page
92. Xuan Nguyen
I have not attempted to choose between the various monarchists. If two of them are left fighting for the last vacancy (which is as possible as anything else), then those who have voted for me will have no influence. If anyone is disappointed, I'm sorry - but I couldn't see much of a basis for choice.
Back to: Why You Should Vote for Me