
This article aims to explain some of the differences between the two major voting systems. There are variations within each of them. Some combination of the Single Member District and Proportional Representation is even used as well, as for instance in New Zealand, where it was introduced in 1996.
There are some other considerations as well, e.g. how large should a multi-member district be with a Party List system? Would it make sense to have size variations of multi-member systems where there are large population density differences as in Australia? The principal objective is to achieve democratic fairness of representation. This is seriously missing in most Single Member District systems, especially those who use First-Past-The-Post like in the UK and almost all states of the US.
What exactly is the Hare-Clark system and where is it used? Second, what is the Party List system and where is that used?
Single transferable vote electoral system
Hare-Clark is one type of single transferable vote electoral system of proportional representation used for elections in Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory.
Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, Malta, and Scotland also use this system. In America, it is often referred to as “ranked-choice voting in multi-member seats”. In Australia, it is known as Hare-Clark. However, in almost all US states the First-Past-The-Post system is used for Single Member Seats. Ditto in most of the United Kingdom. In both countries, strong campaigns are actually in progress to achieve Multi-Member Electoral Districts. Currently their voting systems remain based on Single Member Districts resulting in two-party systems. In other words, they do not have proportional systems.
The name is derived in part from the name of English barrister Thomas Hare. It was not adopted in the UK, though, which continued to use the First-Past-The-Post system in Single Member Districts as originally also used in Australia. A modification was introduced by Andrew Inglish Clark in Tasmania, when Attorney-General for that state (in 1907). A provision was devised by him for eliminating the element of chance in the selection and distribution of quota-excesses or surplus transfer votes. The provision was the weighting-method.
Party List systems
The Party List system of Proportional Representation is essentially simpler and more widely used. A threshold entry is required as a minimum percentage of the total vote to gain a seat in Parliament. This varies, mostly from 3% to 5%. In most Party List systems, a voter will only support one party. There are usually many more than two parties participating. In many multi-party systems, voters may use their only one vote for a specific list candidate. In a few systems, voters may support more than one candidate within a party list.
There are “closed” and “open” party list systems, but in this short article this won’t be discussed in detail. There are no by-elections with Party List systems. If a member resigns he or she is replaced automatically by the next on the list who missed out in the most recent election. Most systems are closed in that the order of candidates is determined by the party. In other words, the party decides the ranking of their candidates. Voters primarily vote for a party and its platform rather than a particular candidate.
The adversarial Two-Party political culture in Australia is in need of replacement
Federal election results over the last 20 years demonstrate the obvious decline of the two-party dominance and the growth of other parties and Independents. It is amazing though that even recent public statements by well-known commentators still limit discussions to the English-speaking world. Former Labor Minister Professor Barry Jones, in a recent article in The Saturday Paper, presented a very well-researched article on “How voting systems change outcomes”, clearly concentrating on Australia, the UK and the US. Jones draws attention to several serious anomalies.
Journalist Nick Bryant wrote an article in the recent SMH Good Weekend “Democracy on the ballot”. He wrote: “Australia has imported a lot from the UK and the US, but our homegrown election system is the envy of the Western world.” This may apply to compulsory voting and sound administration, but not much else. The gross problems of the Single Member District system, although somewhat improved by the preferential voting system in 1919, is certainly not envied or copied elsewhere, to my knowledge. Consider the pork barrelling aspects, safe seats neglect, the favouring of two major parties, the adversarial, polarising nature of the political culture. Quite frankly, inward looking comment and criticism is actually blocking renewal.
The trend is clearly away from the two major party domination. That may well have to do with Australia becoming a much more diverse society. Surely the time has come for the political system to reflect our multi-culture society and improve its democratic quality. Rather than trying to “save the political system”, as journalist Niki Savva was writing about in a recent Sydney Morning Herald article, how about improving it? The Australian Constitution has referred this clearly to the Federal Parliament in several clauses, but the major parties have tended to serve their interests rather than the people and democracy.
The current discussion on what could be the outcome of the 2025 federal election still is a product of the current electoral system. We hear about a possible “minority ALP Government”. This is unthinkable in a Proportional System. The outcome is always a majority government, a policy program agreement normally achieved after the election between a number of parties. This can take some time, but the democratic values of the system are obvious. Perhaps we should go back to Donald Horne’s The Lucky Country (1964) and realise that our luck may have run out and we should look at the obvious and available alternatives.