Letter from Senator Bob Brown, Leader, Australian Greens, explaining the
history and benefits of STV
In October 2009, Tasmania, Australia's island state, will celebrate 100
years of what we proudly claim to be the world's fairest voting system, the
single transferable vote or STV.
In Australia, STV is commonly called Hare-Clark after English barrister
Thomas Hare (1806-91) and Tasmanian barrister Andrew Inglis Clark
(1848-1907). The Englishman Hare was the originator of the idea of using the
single transferable vote to provide proportional representation. Clark was
the Tasmanian Attorney-General during the late nineteenth century and a key
drafter of Australia's national constitution. He modified Hare's original
system and introduced it to local government elections in the 1890s and,
sadly, died before the 1909 statewide debut of STV in Tasmania.
A third notable proponent of STV was Catherine Helen Spence from Adelaide
who corresponded extensively with both Hare and Clarke and helped ensure
that in the constitution the way was open for STV voting for either house of
the national parliament.
STV is now favoured by all political parties, the press, and the wider
public in Tasmania. It delivers the nearest possible democratic ideal of one
person, one vote, one value.
In more recent decades, STV has been adopted by the legislature in the
Australian Capital Territory (Canberra) and by local government in many
mainland Australian cities. In 1949, it was also adopted for the powerful
national Senate (upper house) which can instigate legislation or block
legislation coming from the House of Representatives (Commons) in Canberra.
Using STV, 12 Senators are elected from each state to the Senate.
The beauty of STV is that, unlike the system of single member electorates
which Australia and Canada inherited from Britain's Westminster system,
everyone's vote has an equal weight. Every voter is likely to help elect a
representative of her or his own choice.
In single member electorates, the biggest vote-getter wins. However, there
is a calamitous downside: about half the voters wake up the morning after
the election to find that the candidate they voted for has lost.
Nearly half the voters end up represented by a person or party they voted
against! In left-orientated electorates, conservative candidates almost
never win. In right-orientated electorates, progressive candidates nearly
always lose. Millions of voters have their vote ignored.
With STV, left and right (and Green) voters nearly always elect one or more
representatives to take their views of affairs on to the floor of
parliament. Everyone's vote counts.
A typical STV electorate has seven rather than one elected representative.
The mathematics may seem complex, but the result is simple and satisfying.
Instead of one winner, there are seven. Nearly every voter has a member or
party of her or his own choice elected.
There are opponents of STV. They are usually from the entrenched older
parties which have for decades enjoyed the unwarranted bias of single member
electorates. They will claim that STV is very complicated. But every time
you see very complicated, you should read very fair.
STV is also very democratic, because it empowers every voter. It not only
allows the voter to choose a party, but, as each party puts forward a list
of candidates, the voter chooses persons from those lists. This ends the
dictatorship of parties and gives voters a much better choice: they get to
select their own candidates from a list of names put forward by each party.
Of course, this also means that each party has to offer the electorate an
array of personalities with different professions and skills, rather than
one preferred insider.
I am a Green Party Senator. Although one million people voted Green in
2007, not one Green was elected to the House of Representatives with its
outmoded single member electorates. But there are five Greens and two
independents amongst the 76 Senators in the upper house. This reflects
almost exactly how Australians voted. The Liberal, National and Labour
parties are also represented in proportion to their votes.
In New Zealand and continental Europe, various proportional voting systems
also reflect more closely the way people cast their votes. However, in my
view, STV is the best of these systems.
After 100 years, there is no way Tasmanians would give up STV. And after 60
years, there is no prospect of Australia going back to single member
electorates for the Senate. We are onto a good thing with STV, and we're
staying with it. In Australia, it is spreading. It is also the established
voting system for Ireland and Malta.
If British Columbia adopts STV, you can bet that it will lead to voter
satisfaction and, inevitably, other Canadian provinces will adopt STV in the
years ahead.
Senator Bob Brown, Leader, Australian Greens
history and benefits of STV
In October 2009, Tasmania, Australia's island state, will celebrate 100
years of what we proudly claim to be the world's fairest voting system, the
single transferable vote or STV.
In Australia, STV is commonly called Hare-Clark after English barrister
Thomas Hare (1806-91) and Tasmanian barrister Andrew Inglis Clark
(1848-1907). The Englishman Hare was the originator of the idea of using the
single transferable vote to provide proportional representation. Clark was
the Tasmanian Attorney-General during the late nineteenth century and a key
drafter of Australia's national constitution. He modified Hare's original
system and introduced it to local government elections in the 1890s and,
sadly, died before the 1909 statewide debut of STV in Tasmania.
A third notable proponent of STV was Catherine Helen Spence from Adelaide
who corresponded extensively with both Hare and Clarke and helped ensure
that in the constitution the way was open for STV voting for either house of
the national parliament.
STV is now favoured by all political parties, the press, and the wider
public in Tasmania. It delivers the nearest possible democratic ideal of one
person, one vote, one value.
In more recent decades, STV has been adopted by the legislature in the
Australian Capital Territory (Canberra) and by local government in many
mainland Australian cities. In 1949, it was also adopted for the powerful
national Senate (upper house) which can instigate legislation or block
legislation coming from the House of Representatives (Commons) in Canberra.
Using STV, 12 Senators are elected from each state to the Senate.
The beauty of STV is that, unlike the system of single member electorates
which Australia and Canada inherited from Britain's Westminster system,
everyone's vote has an equal weight. Every voter is likely to help elect a
representative of her or his own choice.
In single member electorates, the biggest vote-getter wins. However, there
is a calamitous downside: about half the voters wake up the morning after
the election to find that the candidate they voted for has lost.
Nearly half the voters end up represented by a person or party they voted
against! In left-orientated electorates, conservative candidates almost
never win. In right-orientated electorates, progressive candidates nearly
always lose. Millions of voters have their vote ignored.
With STV, left and right (and Green) voters nearly always elect one or more
representatives to take their views of affairs on to the floor of
parliament. Everyone's vote counts.
A typical STV electorate has seven rather than one elected representative.
The mathematics may seem complex, but the result is simple and satisfying.
Instead of one winner, there are seven. Nearly every voter has a member or
party of her or his own choice elected.
There are opponents of STV. They are usually from the entrenched older
parties which have for decades enjoyed the unwarranted bias of single member
electorates. They will claim that STV is very complicated. But every time
you see very complicated, you should read very fair.
STV is also very democratic, because it empowers every voter. It not only
allows the voter to choose a party, but, as each party puts forward a list
of candidates, the voter chooses persons from those lists. This ends the
dictatorship of parties and gives voters a much better choice: they get to
select their own candidates from a list of names put forward by each party.
Of course, this also means that each party has to offer the electorate an
array of personalities with different professions and skills, rather than
one preferred insider.
I am a Green Party Senator. Although one million people voted Green in
2007, not one Green was elected to the House of Representatives with its
outmoded single member electorates. But there are five Greens and two
independents amongst the 76 Senators in the upper house. This reflects
almost exactly how Australians voted. The Liberal, National and Labour
parties are also represented in proportion to their votes.
In New Zealand and continental Europe, various proportional voting systems
also reflect more closely the way people cast their votes. However, in my
view, STV is the best of these systems.
After 100 years, there is no way Tasmanians would give up STV. And after 60
years, there is no prospect of Australia going back to single member
electorates for the Senate. We are onto a good thing with STV, and we're
staying with it. In Australia, it is spreading. It is also the established
voting system for Ireland and Malta.
If British Columbia adopts STV, you can bet that it will lead to voter
satisfaction and, inevitably, other Canadian provinces will adopt STV in the
years ahead.
Senator Bob Brown, Leader, Australian Greens
