Comments on: Should we have more federal MPs?

By: GhostWhoVotes

GhostWhoVotes — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 01:41:06 +0000

I have calculated how the 2007 Senate election would have occurred with 3 Senators in the ACT.

ACT Senate – 3 Senators

2007

Quota: 56331

ALP Votes: 92018 % Votes: 40.84% Quotas: 1.6335
LP Votes: 77058 % Votes: 34.20% Quotas: 1.3680
GRN Votes: 48384 % Votes: 21.47% Quotas: 0.8589
LDP Votes: 545 % Votes: 00.24% Quotas: 0.0097
OTH Votes: 7336 % Votes: 03.26% Quotas: 0.1302

If you assume all votes are above-the-line, then after preferences are distributed the Greens have 0.9891 of a quota (The LDP preferenced Labor). Therefore the Liberal preferences would have then come into play, electing a Greens Senator, which would be likely to continue in the event of 3 Senator (and hence competitive) elections.

The only way that the result could change would be if the Labor Party could gain 50% of the vote, electing a second Labor Senator at the all but guaranteed expense of the Greens, or if the Liberals switched preferences. Unless either of those events occur, the final result would always be 1 Labor, 1 Liberal and 1 Green.

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 07:27:40 +0000

I think it would be reasonable, but it has no bearing on the numbers in the House of Representatives.

In the case of the ACT, it would ensure that one of the three seats would be a safe Liberal seat and the other would be a contest between the Greens and the ALP.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 05:26:51 +0000

Another issue with Senate expansion is whether or not to add a extra Senator each for the NT and the ACT. This would mean that the NT had a Senate position that had some marginality and the ACT had a real chance at electing a Green.

By: Nadia Montague

Nadia Montague — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:31:45 +0000

I absolutely agree. I’m uncertain though, whether Rudd would do it. I think it would be an unpopular move with the general public. They would not see it as representation, but media would probably take the angle of more politician’s wages and “over-governance”. I absolutely agree with Simon Copland.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 18:06:31 +0000

Ben: I’ll grant you that much, but I think now that we have party discipline so entrenched (as opposed to the UK which has had a larger parliament all along), I think that would be unlikely to change. The NT isn’t a bad example of this; electorates so small that they can meet every one of their constituents personally, and yet only very slightly less strict party discipline than the rest of the country.

By: David Walsh

David Walsh — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:46:42 +0000

1984 was NOT a double disolution. The elections either side of it were (1983 and 1987).

If 1984 was DD, Peter Garrett would have easily been elected an NDP senator.

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:52:36 +0000

Yeah, but 1949 wasn’t a double dissolution. Before 1949 each state elected 3 senators at each half-senate election, and after it became 5, so at the 1949 election each state elected 7 senators.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:44:51 +0000

1984 was a double dissolution and 12 Senators were up for election.

Would it be possible for the extra Senators to be introduced in two lots at consecutive Senate elections (with the corresponding two lots of House increases)?

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:43:34 +0000

Felix, I think fixed four-year terms are wrapped up together because fixed terms are more popular than four-year terms, so they are wrapped up in a single reform agenda, but it’s true that it is very easy to fix terms without constitutional change.

Rebecca, it is true that we have tight party discipline, but my point is the smaller the electorates and the more MPs in Parliament, the harder it is for the whips to control their backbench. Look at the British Labour Party.

Neil, I guess they would do the same thing as in 1984. Elect 8 senators at the first election, and then the last-elected of that bunch only gets a three-year term to join the 6 elected at the last election.

By: Neil Cotter

Neil Cotter — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:37:50 +0000

How would the increased number of Senators be incorporated into the Senate? If there was a half-Senate election to elect 7 per state giving a total of 13 until the following election that would be problematic until the following election gave the full number required.

If, as in 1984, they elect a supernumerary Senator ie 8 instead of 7 bringing the total up to 14 per state, that further diminishes the value of the six, but as I don’t really support half elections anyway I guess that doesn’t overly bother me. A full Senate election would however still be preferable.