If you are familiar with my column, you will no doubt be reading this anticipating some sort of issue-related piece with commentary about the importance of representation, advocacy and regional equity, in light of the federal election being called - finally.
Create a free account to read this article
or signup to continue reading
Well, sorry to disappoint.
No rants here. At least, not on purpose.
I actually want to talk about preferencing, but first a brief history lesson (I love it when I get to use my history degree!).
The Australian democratic process abandoned first-past-the-post voting way back in 1918 when it moved to preferential voting in the House of Representatives.
This move was largely aimed at addressing vote-splitting among non-Labor parties because the rise of the Country Party threatened to split the conservative vote.
This had the potential to gift Labor candidates victories.
Unsurprisingly, this change was a strategic move made by the conservative Nationalist Party under PM Billy Hughes to reign in the impact of the Country Party's rising popularity and to maintain a balance of power for conservatives in government.
Their plan allowed voters to rank candidates in order of preference, and in doing so, ensured that votes for similar parties could flow to each other.
Of course, this ultimately benefitted major party representation, reasserting their dominance, because it meant that votes for minor parties or independents would likely flow to major parties through preferences.
George Orwell, and Machiavelli before him, tells us power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but I promised not to rant this week, so I will leave that thought to take seed in your brains on its own.
Fast forward to today, and we are all living in anticipation of the May 3 federal election.
However one of the most common questions non major-party representatives seem to field is "what are you doing with your preferences?"
There seems to be a common misapprehension in our community as to what this really means, when terms like "preference deals" are bandied about the water cooler.
Let's start with the misperception: what do people seem to think "preferences" means?
From the conversations that I've had online and in person regarding politics and the upcoming election, it appears to be commonplace to think that it's actually the candidate who decides which other wannabe pollie receives their second preferences on the ballot.
I cannot stress this enough: this is not the case.
Your vote is intensely personal, and entirely yours to give. You don't get to just say who you'd like to have represent you as your first preference - you get to number ALL the candidates on the ballot in order of your preferences. In fact, if you don't, your vote won't count at all.
So, if a preference deal isn't about two candidates promising to pass on their first preference votes to each other in the event one of them is knocked out of the running, negotiated in the kitchen of a busy hotel during a major function la West Wing, then what is it?
A preference deal is usually struck between major parties - with a view to sideline independents - to recommend voters allocate their preferences on the "how-to-vote" cards they distribute at polling stations during pre-poll and election day.
This can have a significant influence on voters' decisions regarding their preferences, although the final decision, of course, remains with the voter.
The irony here is strong, given that the community concern regarding preferences is usually connected to those comparatively "unfamiliar" individuals in minor parties or independents, despite the fact that it's the major parties that are more commonly trying to tell voters how to number the ballot boxes.
Independent candidates tend to prefer to maintain that semblance of "independence" by encouraging voters to vote based on what they think is best, but to remember to number every box. Weird.
READ MORE:
Despite my natural inclination to point out that independent candidates are less likely to engage in preference deals that prioritise national party strategy over voter interests, which can only be a good thing for Australian electorates, particularly in regional and rural areas, I shall hold my tongue.
So next time you're talking about politics and preferences come up in argument against an independent candidate, set them straight.
Only YOU are in control of your vote preferences. Make them count.
- Zoë Wundenberg is a careers consultant and un/employment advocate at impressability.com.au, and a regular columnist for ACM. She is a volunteer with the Voices of Farrer.
