One vote one value?
WA’s electoral system is disgracefully malapportioned. A vote cast in Eyre is worth four votes cast in Wanneroo. It is an affront to democracy that one elector has four times the say of another, based solely on where they live. The problem is caused by Section 6 of the Electoral Distribution Act 1947, which sets an arbitrary boundary around the “Metropolitan Area” and establishes 34 seats within and 23 without.
This area does not reflect geographical reality, and compounds the injustice. Antony Green illustrates:
The northern Mandurah suburb of Madora and the southern Rockingham suburb of Singleton are just a kilometre apart, yet the legislatively defined boundary for Perth determines that Madora is Country and Singleton as Metropolitan. As a result, votes in Madora have twice the weight of those in Singleton in the Legislative Assembly, and almost three times the weight in the Legislative Council.
Crikey psephologist Charles Richardson argued in a subscriber email on Wednesday:
A system that gave a consistent extra weighting to sparsely populated electorates would still be an affront to democracy, but at least it would have its own internal logic. But that’s not how WA works.
Indeed, this is what the Gallop Government’s (misnamed) One Vote One Value legislation sought to correct. It would replace the Metropolitan Area mechanism for drawing up electoral districts with a quota based on population and land area. Electorates over 100,000km2 would be weighted according to their area.
16J. Basis for division of the State into districts
(1) The Commissioners shall divide the State into districts in accordance with the principles that —
(a) if a district has an area of less than 100 000 square kilometres, the number of electors comprised in the district at the projection time must not be more than 10% greater, or more than 10% less, than the average district enrolment at the projection time; and
(b) if a district has an area of 100 000 square kilometres or more, the sum of —
(i) the number of electors comprised in the district at the projection time; and
(ii) the additional large district number,
must not be more than 10% greater, or more than 20% less, than the average district enrolment at the projection time.
(2) In subsection (1)(b) —
“additional large district number” means 0.5% of the number of square kilometres in the area of the district.
This is not a perfect democratic system, as some votes will still be worth more than others. However, it is a vast improvement on the current arrangements, because the formula for determining the boundaries is transparent and less arbitrary.
In my view, the ideal system would make no such concessions. Modern transport and communications (notwithstanding Telstra’s faults) render the distance objection less forceful than it has been in the past. I support MPs’ travel and postage entitlements being determined according to a formula that considers the geography of the electorate.
I also support other initiatives that would make life easier for country MPs. For example, Queensland’s parliamentary annex includes suites for country MPs to live in during sitting weeks. The schedule of sitting weeks could also be altered in consultation with country MPs to suit their preferred travel arrangements.
However, the compromise bill (scuttled by the Greens) would be a big step in the right direction.
So, that’s where I stand on Labor’s last attempt to introduce democracy to WA. What of Geoff Gallop’s apparent backflip?
The electoral reform previously proposed by the Government already contained exceptions for seats over 100,000km2, which includes Central Kimberley-Pilbara (600,038km2), Kimberley (239,125), and Murchison-Eyre (1,232,356km2), North West Coastal (151,465km2). These are all in the Mining and Pastoral Region, whose representation Gallop promised to protect.
The minor deviation, then, is to protect Kalgoorlie (67km2). However, a major redistribution could easily divide the Mining and Pastoral Region into five electorates of more equal size, which would end the Kalgoorlie anomaly. (When you look at this map, you’ll see how ridiculous the boundaries are. Kalgoorlie is the red speck in the lower middle.)
In other words, Gallop has not backed down at all (because the legislation was never truly “one vote one value” in the first place), but by appearing to have done so he might blunt the issue as a Coalition electoral weapon. And if it helps Labor win Kalgoorlie, then that’s a bonus.
I agree heartily with all your comments on “one vote one value”. It is plainly ridiculous that this legislation has survived unaltered until today.
It’s a blight on W.A. democracy.
Interestingly, I was talking to an (older) friend yesterday about how in the seventies the mark of all good lefties was their belief in a unicameral system of parliament.
The theory was that a handful of voters (from Tassie, WA, SA) could control the parliament against the will of the more populous rest of the country. It was considered anti-democratic.
This theory makes sense to me, but it was before PR was introduced, I’m fairly sure, and I myself still believe that we should have a Senate to ‘keep the bastards honest’ (though given October 9, it’s clear that voters aren’t concerned about that).
I think it’s a similar argument to that existing for one vote one value - while the initial malapportionment was, I believe, a pro-democracy response to the marginalisation of certain groups of electors and the interests’ of smaller, less economically stable, states, it was outweighed by the reality that if you lived in a populous state, your vote was worth a tenth of each elector in Tassie.
Similarly in 1v1v, a vote of someone in Waneroo is not worth that of a rural elector.
I think communications improvements have substantially minimised the [right?] of rural voters to the great jerrymander, but I believe the Senate still has a legitimate place in the electoral system.
However, given it no longer even functions as a state house, perhaps there is an argument to change the way that seats are distributed?
There is the other issue, too, with PR: arguably, using the old Brian Harradine experience as an example, a small block of voters still control the Parliament on some issues. However, I believe that the PR system is an importance check on tyranny of the majority and ensuring the voices of minority interests are at least heard. It’s a vexed question.
‘One vote one value’. Spoken like true democrats, which is why some of us believe that if you don’t let your own people vote in your own country, according to agreed minimum rules of an international constitutional club, then you shouldn’t expect to vote in such bodies like the UN. Of course it follows that democratically elected govts on a one vote one value in their own countries, get to bring those value votes to the UN on a proportional basis, with no country having a power of veto like the Security Council now.