There is a democratic tool at our disposal which is poorly understood and generally used ineffectively. That tool is Preferential Voting.

Strategic Preferential Voting can strengthen our democracy by ensuring we are better represented in parliament. We now need that more urgently than ever to temper the power of the major parties, to deliver better policies in the best interests of the people of Australia, in the interests of a sustainable future and global peace, and to reclaim our sovereignty in the new multipolar world order.

Voter dissatisfaction

The two major parties have driven the biggest transfer of wealth ever in our nation’s history in aid of militarism to defend the economic interests of another country and intended to push us into yet another war, one in which Australia will be a target. Integrity is a key issue in the electorate, after successive governments of both persuasions have shown they pander to both lobbyists and the Murdoch press, profess to support transparency and accountability but relentlessly prosecute whistleblowers to protect those responsible for wrongdoing, and unashamedly parade racist double standards in their attitude to the value of lives, double standards in the consideration and respect they accord to communities here and insouciant eagerness to strip away the fundamental rights of Australians as we saw in the recent criminalisation of speech law passed with virtually no debate.

Strengthening our democracy

For these and other reasons, many Australians would like to see an increase in the size of the Crossbench. The minor parties and Independents are far more likely to be responsive to their electorates whereas major party candidates are bound by decisions in which they may have no input.

Preferential Voting in the House of Representatives is critical in ensuring we have a better say. The Proportional Representation system used in the Senate is working well, with 21 of the 76 Senators on the Crossbench and only 25 Labor and 30 Coalition Senators.

If the House had a similar ratio of Crossbench v major Party MPs, there would be 42 Crossbench MPs, not the 16 we have.

This imbalance in the House is also evident in the discrepancy between the percentage of first preference votes for the Crossbench against the number elected: in the 2022 Federal Election, of Australia’s 14,659,042 voters, the first preference of 32% was a Crossbench candidate, with only 68% voting for the major parties, but we only have 16 of 151 MPs on the Crossbench. That’s 10.6%, not the 32% possible. Something is badly amiss in the House electoral process.

Strategic Preferential Voting

Strategic Preferential Voting can rectify the situation. We can easily elect 40+ Crossbench MPs by simply being smart with how we allocate our preferences. After placing your favoured crossbench candidate first, continue by preferencing all Crossbench candidates ahead of the ALP, with the LNP last. In 2022, this would have yielded 40+ Crossbench MPs.

Whilst we instinctively baulk at placing candidates we regard as unsavoury (or hold one or two positions with which we disagree) ahead of a major party candidate (whose personal views may be aligned with our own but who must always vote in line with their Party to be assured of a place on any future ballot in return), it is important we all do just that. Here is why:

a) the damaging policies and attitudes have emanated from and have been implemented by the major parties, not the Crossbench.

b) the way the Crossbench votes is not as predictable as you might think – take for example the recent oppressive Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Bill: in the House, only four Greens and seven Independents voted against, while in the Senate a small but eclectic group — 1 Liberal, 1 United Party, 1 Australia’s Voice, and 3 Independents — voted against; and

c) showing the major parties the level of our dissatisfaction with the dissonance between our concerns and their policies in this way may be the only way to force a serious rethink on their part.

In the upcoming federal election, preference all Crossbench candidates, putting who you think are the best first and worst last, but hold your nose if you have to and put them all ahead of the ALP with LNP last – last because the damage done by Labor will only become more extreme under an LNP Government and certainly one led by Peter Dutton.

Analysis of Preferential Voting pattern

There are three categories of Electorates in my full analysis:

• Electorates where the Crossbench cohort got more first Preference Votes than either the ALP or LNP.
• Electorates where the Crossbench cohort got the 2nd most first Preference Votes behind one major Party
• Electorates where the Crossbench cohort got less first Preference Votes than either major party, making a Crossbench win impossible.

Here I’ll deal only with Category 1 Electorates where the Crossbench cohort lost 9 of 24 seats they should have easily won.

The table above shows all 24 electorates where more first preference votes went to the Crossbench cohort, and the percentage of fewer votes the second place major party received.

These winners (green) and losers are interspersed throughout the table. There is no characteristic of a winning seat versus a losing seat – other than its voters’ allocation of their subsequent preferences.

There is a pattern where Crossbench versus major party vote totals were close, suggesting the major party should have won, but then we see the seats of Ryan, North Sydney and Curtin being won by the Crossbench, while in others of similar first preference vote allocation, the Crossbench lost. Why? Because those voters reverted to a major party too soon instead of putting them last.

I provide a lengthy breakdown of how the loss in Richmond occurred in this video: Richmond Strategic Voting.

This information and its impact is known by some of the best strategists — and Lobbyists — who advise major Parties to preference the other major party on their How to Vote leaflets to ensure the Crossbench is defeated. Here’s an example:

“the Zionist Federation of Australia and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry have written to the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition requesting that both major parties prefer each other..”

Note: the ZFA and ECAJ advocacy groups who promote political outcomes are tax-free charities that are not permitted to promote political outcomes.

It’s crucial to recognise the power of Preference flows, and that Strategic Preferential Voting can dramatically change the election outcome.

I suggest this metaphor of our electoral system as to why we must vote strategically.

We’ve got a colosseum with a lion, a tiger, and a group of gladiators. They’re about equally matched in capacity. The tiger and lion, if they win, will continue to kill. The gladiators can only win by being absolutely united but will then end the killing. Some of the gladiators are of dubious character but if they’re rejected by the other gladiators, they all lose, and lions or tigers will win. So, does one support all gladiators, or be eaten by the tigers and lions?

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.