The Electoral Reform Society of SA wrote to Family First, and in response was told on February 15 that the Family First electoral reform policy was due for release shortly. However as yet there is nothing on the Family First website.

While there is no policy to assess, the Society remains impressed by Andrew Evan’s Address-in-Reply contribution in State Parliament on 8 May 2006. This is one of the best speeches given in support of introducing Hare-Clark for the House of Assembly -

If the parliament is considering reforms to the upper house, it should also consider reforming the lower house. We must be open to examining the parliamentary system of other jurisdictions and adopt best practice in our state. In South Australia it is unfortunate that most elections leave many people unrepresented in respect of the House of Assembly. Only some votes help to elect candidates, and others have no effect and are, essentially, wasted. This result can mean that parties supported by only a minority of voters overall can win a majority of seats. As it stands, if an elector votes Liberal in an electorate where a Labor candidate wins, or alternatively, if an elector votes Labor and a Liberal candidate wins, their votes is, in essence, irrelevant. The House of Assembly should reflect the votes of each constituent, which at present is obviously not the case.

The introduction of proportional presentation is, in my opinion, the best way to maximise the effectiveness of all votes that are cast, resulting in the election of parliaments that most closely reflect the wishes of the electorate at large. The Hare-Clark system of voting has been used in Tasmania for more than a century. It is a single, transferable method of proportional voting, where a ballot paper moves between the candidates as determined by the elector’s preferences. It was named after English lawyers Sir Thomas Hare, who developed a proportional representation system in 1859, and Andrew Inglis Clark, who was the attorney-general between 1887 and 1892, and again between 1894 and 1897. Clarke modified Hare’s system and was responsible for its introduction in Tasmania.

Under the Hare-Clark system, parties, groups and independents are elected to the House of Assembly in proportion to their support in the electorate. The composition of the house closely reflects the proportion of primary votes on a state-wide basis. There are many reasons to adopt the Hare-Clark voting system in our state parliament’s lower house. For example, voting in the system is simple: you vote only for the number of seats that need to be filled. You are always given a choice of party candidates. It does not ensure safe seats for candidates. It always provides an opposition. In single member electorates, where one issue can dominate, most of, if not all, the seats can be won by one party. This is very unlikely to occur under Hare-Clark. Up to 95 per cent of votes are used to elect candidates. It allows voters to be represented by the party’s candidate of their choice. It gives each party, or group, representation corresponding to its voting strength.

A party may lose sitting members, but they may be replaced by members of the same party chosen by the people, with party numbers remaining intact. With Hare-Clark, a party can advertise its policies, and then the voters exercise choice as to the best candidate within the electorate to carry out that policy. It is no wonder that it has been referred to as the most democratic system of voting used in the world today.

ASSESSMENT 0/10 (or 8/10 if based on Andrew Evans’ speech).