Newsletter from the NSW Branch of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia

In this issue (available here):

• Editorial
• Committee meeting held 12 September 2011
• Countback (as we know it) is a failure, by Stephen Lesslie
• Submission to Warringah Council
• Future meetings

Here is an excerpt of the third article as it is of more general interest.

Countback (as we know it) is a failure
by Stephen Lesslie

In the ACT and Tasmania the procedure for countback is that the quota of votes that elected the candidate who has resigned (or died) is re-examined and distributed amongst those candidates who wish to be considered for the position. All other votes cast at the general election are ignored.
The theory is that the resigning member is replaced by candidate preferred by the majority of the original member’s supporters. Where a resigning member has a quota in his or her own right all the votes to determine the new member are second or later preferences.

If two candidates from the same party are vying for the same, perhaps the last available position, and with the Robson rotation now in place in the ACT and Tasmania this often happens, then the votes gained by the unsuccessful candidate will have no influence on the outcome of any subsequent countback election. In fact the better they do the worse their prospects will be if a countback election takes place.

In many cases the choice of a successor to a resigning member is made by voters who have only a marginal interest in the identity of the candidate to succeed. Voters who have expressed a strong preference for particular candidates are ignored.

Candidates are also given the option of whether to contest a countback election and this has the potential to change the result.

* * *

The Solution

The current method of countback is the “lazy person” method of determining the result. It is quick and cheap. Only one bundle of votes needs to be examined. It is similar to the discredited “last bundle” method in counting a STV ballot. For important positions, such as representing your State or Territory, “quick and cheap” should not be a consideration.

The countback rules should be changed to:

1. If a member resigns or dies the original ballot is recounted as if that member had never contested the ballot.

2. Every candidate who contested the original ballot is obliged to contest the countback election.

Rule 1 enables genuine community support to be recognized and eliminates the potential for tactical voting. The Robson rotation now works as it is designed to, eliminating the donkey vote and preventing popular candidates from being buried at the bottom of party tickets.

Rule 2 prevents real, perceived or imaginary threats by fellow candidates against other candidates. No candidate who gets “accidentally” elected is obliged to take the seat and could resign before being sworn in. I would be surprised if many, or even any, ever did.

With modern computer technology this change would not be much more expensive than the current flawed system. Even with hand counting the count would be much faster as the ballot papers have already been substantially sorted and collated.