Introduction

I believe most Australians would agree it is in this country’s interest that those persons elected to office are of the highest calibre possible. Recent events would suggest that this is not the case and, if this deficiency is not energetically remedied, it is possible that Australia could be permanently ruined or even taken over by a foreign power. A key prerequisite to having the best people in Parliament is that:

1. voters are fully informed about each candidate,
2. each candidate has the opportunity to inform voters of their attitude to matters deemed by the electorate to be important and their ideas as to how these issues might be effectively addressed,
3. voters give a lot of thought to the qualifications and character of candidates as well as to the various issues confronting their electorate (and country) and, as a consequence, cast a well-considered, judicious vote, and
4. the system of voting is not such that it favours a particular type of candidate, interest group or party.

Nullifying Influences

There are presently a number of influences that do not contribute to this ideal of having an informed voter casting a considered vote. These are as follows:

1. Compulsory Voting.  The reasoning underpinning compulsory voting is:
• If everyone votes, no one has grounds for complaint about the result.
• If voting is not compulsory, only those persons with extreme viewpoints would vote and this would result in persons with extreme political viewpoints being elected. If this were the case, there is the possibility that the country or municipalities would lurch from one extreme ideology to another; something that is not good for overall societal stability and good governance.
• When voting is not compulsory, far greater resources, in terms of money and personnel, are needed to inveigle people to vote. This favours those groups that are well organised and well funded. These groups or organisations may not necessarily be acting in the interests of the whole community but instead for some sectional or profit driven group. In the US, it is typical that elected representatives have to raise millions of dollars in order to stand a chance of being elected. In that process, they usually have to do deals with wealthy elites who are looking to influence the Government to pass laws which will benefit them, sometimes at the expense of the community and even national security.
2. Political Parties.  Political Parties are potentially an impediment to having the best possible person in Parliament as well as being a threat to democracy because:
   • Where party policies do not align with the interests and concerns of an electorate, in some Parties, these polices take precedence in which case, the elected representative will not properly represent the people who put them into office. 
   • Politics and intrigues within a Party can interfere with the selection of the best person to run as a candidate. 
     For these reasons, political parties may not actually be working in the best interests of the community nor the country; especially if influential members of that party have been captured by foreign or wealthy interests (like, for example, George Soros, Simon Homes a Court, the CCP, the Defence Industrial Complex and Pharmaceutical Industries… to name but a few!).
   • Political Parties weaken the protection against capricious Government intended by having an Upper and Lower House (called a bicameral system). The Upper House is intended to be a house of review and the electoral system was deliberately designed with the intention of the Upper House having a different political complexion to that of the Lower House. Unfortunately, what the framers of the Australian system of Government had not anticipated was the effect that political parties might have in nullifying the safeguard intended by having a bicameral system. If the a particular party is dominant in the Upper and Lower House, it is likely, especially in the case of Labor and the Greens, that the Upper House will not properly fulfil its function as the "House of Review".
3. Practical Difficulties faced by Truly Independent Candidates.  Candidates who are backed by wealthy individuals/organisations, Unions or Parties have a much better chance of being elected than those who are truly independent, ie,not beholden to any interest group or entity.  It is not practical, nor is it reasonable, to expect someone who has a "real" job to quit what they are doing and devote themselves to campaigning for some extended period of time so that they become known to the electorate, yet it is exactly this type of person the country would benefit from by them being in Parliament.
4. Above and Below the Line Ballot Layout. Australia has implemented a system where, for the Upper House, Parties and Groups appear above a line on the ballot paper whereas individual, independent candidates are listed separately below this line. (This is often referred to as "Above and Below the Line Voting") The order of preference of persons appearing above the line is determined by their political party. Voters have no choice in preferencing candidates who are listed above the line within a grouping and that means that Party intrigue could result in the best candidate within a Party not being elected. When a voter casts their vote they may number one or a few boxes above the line or they are expected to put a number in ascending order of magnitude, and serially numbered, against a large number of individual candidates listed below the line. Voting above the line is considerably easier than voting below the line. For example, in the NSW State Election of 2023, voters only had to put the number 1 in one of the boxes above the line but had to number candidates from 1 to 15 if voting below the line. Not only is voting below the line considerably more difficult and inconvenient than voting above the line, there is a far greater chance, when voting below the line, of casting an informal vote due to misnumbering. As a consequence of this system, it is most unlikely an independent candidate will ever be elected to the Upper House, yet it is in the Upper House, the "House of Review", where independent thought is most needed.
5. The Donkey and Uninterested Voter.  Often the difference between being elected or failing is a few percentage points.  The Donkey vote, determined to a large extent by the position candidates appear on a ballot, can therefore influence the election outcome.  Likewise the uninterested voter, who has attended a polling booth only because they are compelled to, will not make any sort of considered choice.  They are likely to be influenced at the last moment by a "How to Vote" flier or simply pick whomever they feel the whim to back on the day.  This is not good for our democracy in that it does not ensure the best people are elected to Parliament.
6. Presentation of Candidates on the Ballot. In the case of Federal elections for the Senate, candidates appear above or below the line depending on whether or not they belong to a Party. Above the line is for Parties with the Parties deciding the preference (distribution) of votes within their group of candidates. Voting below the line is for individual candidates and this is made more onerous than voting above the line. Being so, this arrangement places independent candidates at a significant disadvantage because it encourages voters, particularly the uninterested voter, to vote above the line. Under this arrangement it is virtually impossible for an independent candidate to become a Senator.

Suggested Reforms that would overcome these Nullifying Influences

So I believe we need to have the following reforms to our electoral process:

Fig 2. Example Ballot with Candidates in Randomised Order
Click to Enlarge

Fig 1. Ballot with Candidates in Order
Click to Enlarge

1. Ballots Should List Candidates in Random Order. Candidates should appear on the ballot in random order such that no two ballots are, as much as is possible, the same.  For example if there are 10 candidates on a ballot, the total number of permutations and combinations would be 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1=3,628,800 different orders of presentation of candidates. This would eliminate the effect of the "Donkey Voter" as well as the uninterested, apathetic voter.  Because Digital Printing Technology is, now, no more expensive than offset printing, printing names on ballots in a random sequence is both practical and economical. Some people have (rightly) opined that doing this would make counting of the ballots difficult. There are a number of ways this difficulty could be overcome. Fig 1 shows a ballot where candidates are listed in an orderly fashion with boxes for each candidate being a specific column. Fig 2 shows a ballot where the order of presentation of the candidates has been jumbled. In both cases, the candidate's box appears in the same column. This makes counting simple both for people and for tabulation machines should the latter be used. (On the matter of machines, I am very much opposed to voting on line or the use of machines for tabulation where the latter's detailed operation cannot be checked in real time by scrutineers as the machine performs its counting function. In both instances it is possible for a person knowledgeable in Computer Science to defraud the system in such a manner that detection of that fraud is almost impossible to detect. A further problem with on-line voting is that one cannot be absolutely sure the person casting the vote is indeed the person on the voting roll nor that that person has not been induced or coerced to vote in a certain way. There is no substitute for in-person secret voting at a properly run polling station on the day of the election.)
2. No Above and Below the Line Voting for the Senate or Upper House. There should not be an above and below the line system of voting for the Senate and, for that matter, any other Government election held in Australia. Under this proposed arrangement where there is no "above and below" the line voting, it would still be possible to group candidates by their Parties and for each Party to suggest rather than dictate the order of preference to voters but the actual preference has to be made by the voter filling in numbers. In the case of the Upper House elections, there are a set number of positions for which the candidates are vying. In the case of the Senate, for a State, there are presently 6 vacancies at normal elections, ie, not a double dissolution. In this instance, a voter would be expected to put a 1 next to each of the 6 candidates they wish to elect to the 6 Senatorial vacancies. They could put a 2 next to other candidates if they wished to express a second preference. This would level the field for independent candidates and allow voters to have more control over who is actually elected by way of precisely specifying the preferences they wish to allocate without being unduly inconvenienced.
3. Pre-poll should be Abolished.  In order for voters to be fully informed, it is necessary that they be exposed to a full campaign.  Pre-poll is destructive to this ideal and therefore should not be allowed.  As it is, the present two weeks of pre-poll:
• adds markedly to the cost of an election,
• favours large political Parties, Unions or wealthy organisations/individuals because it is necessary to man polling booths for the purposes of handing out how to vote leaflets, for however long the pre-poll period runs, and
• presents a significant security issue in that it is very difficult to be sure the ballots have been held securely; especially if there is corruption within the Electoral Commission or officials are threatened or coerced.
4. Create Website for Voters to Learn about Candidates and Candidates to make themselves known to their Electorate. To assist voters learning as much as possible about every person running for office, there should be a web-page, operated by the relevant Electoral Commission, upon which every candidate is listed.  When a voter clicks on a candidate, they are taken to that candidate’s web-page where the candidate may say and show anything they wish in order to convince the voter they are worthy of their vote.  This electoral commission website could also create a "registration ticket" with a barcode for those voters that use this facility. This piece of paper would then entitle the voter to join an express lane at the polling booths because the barcode could be quickly scanned to register them as attending the polling booth. For added security, this system could also incorporate a picture of the voter which would be used by the person handing out the ballot papers, to further ensure that the holder of the letter was indeed the eligible voter. If the system of voter registration was networked, it would be possible to quickly determine if someone was trying to vote twice.  The creation of this ticket providing expedited registration would be a further inducement for voters to visit the webpage.
5. Provide the means by which Voters can create their own How-To-Vote Pamphlet.  When visiting the electoral commission web-page, and once the voter had reviewed the qualifications, life-experience, achievements and policies of candidates, by clicking on something similar to a PayPal icon, the voter could go to a secure site where it would be possible to anonymously produce a "How-To-Vote" pamphlet which they can then take to the polling booth on election day. This facility might also be helpful in reducing informal votes because, should the voter make an error in constructing the “How-To-Vote” pamphlet, the software could bring that error to their attention.
6. Forbid handing out How-To-Vote Cards/Pamphlets at Polling Booths.  It should be forbidden to give out "How-To-Vote" cards/pamphlets at polling booths.  This would have two broad benefits
• The first is that it would induce people to go to the electoral commission website which presented the candidates in order for them to create their own “How-To-Vote” leaflet.
• The second is that if a person can be convinced how to vote a minute before they go to cast their vote, they have not given the serous matter of candidate selection sufficient thought.

Should a voter be uninterested in determining who the best candidates are, without a “How-To-Vote” leaflet thrust into their hand at the last minute, the presentation of candidates in random order would nullify the effect of these voters who were then, without this leaflet, simply ticking random boxes.  The effect of uninterested voters is thus cancelled out.  Just like pre-poll, the handing out of "How-To-Vote" cards at polling stations favours large parties, unions and those candidates backed by wealthy individuals.  This is not good for democracy and will not necessarily ensure the best person, from the electorate's perspective, is elected to Parliament.

How to Effect these Reforms and ensure they are Enduring

The challenge therefore is how to effect these reforms.  I think it unlikely those presently in power would be enthusiastic about these ideas.  After all, many are the beneficiaries of the present system.  Even the supposedly neutral and apolitical electoral commissions would not be happy about these reforms because, with pre-poll, for example, the cost, size and complexity of elections in Australia have grown. With this has grown the size of permanent and temporary electoral staff and the wages they command. I think, if these ideas are to become a reality, it would be by way of a "people's movement" pressuring politicians to agree to these changes or that the public only elect representatives who would agree.

As a starting point, however, it may be possible to implement many, if not all of these reforms, at local Council level. This, in itself, might commence a movement to have the changes implemented at Territory, State and Federal level.

Incorporate these reforms into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia

Once these changes are agreed, they should be the subject of a Referendum and be incorporated into the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia with a stipulation that these reforms must apply to all levels of government at Federal, State and Territory. This would also include elections for local Government. The reason this is necessary, rather than these reforms simply being enacted by conventional Acts of Parliament at Federal, State and Territory level, is that there is the possibility, sometime in the future, politicians would pass amendments to some or all of these Acts so that the arrangements would once again favour the election of people who are supported by Parties, the wealthy and interest groups; entities which will always put their interests ahead of those of Australia and its citizens.

- End of Paper -