Together they got just 37.5 per cent of the vote. Yet the four of them are now councillors on the new Douglas Shire Council.

The voting system was a sham. Fortunately, the mayoral election resulted in a clear absolute majority (58%) for Julia Leu and she can preside with confidence and legitimacy. But the four councillors elected from 15 candidates are a different proposition. We cannot be confident that their election reflects the democratic will of the people of Douglas Shire.

The highest vote getter was Abigail Noli with 10.8 per cent of the vote. The next best was on 9.7 per cent, then 9.2, and lastly new Councillor Terry Melchert takes his seat on the Council with just 7.8 per cent of the vote.

Now it may well be that these very same councillors would have been elected under a more robust system, but we cannot know it. Australia has prided itself on electoral systems that yield results that best reflect electoral opinion. That did not happen in Douglas Shire on Saturday.

The system used was what is called first past the post. Voters were asked to choose four candidates for four seats – no more, no less. Any expression of preference for four candidates over the rest would have counted for a valid vote: four X’s (yes, the system has a certain beery inebriation about it); four 1’s; numbers 1 to 4 or any mark whatever against four candidates. The marks were counted and the four candidates with the most marks against their name were elected.

The system is laid down by Queensland law. However, to avoid confusion with what voters are used to in Federal and State elections, the Queensland Local Government Electoral Act provides that voters must mark their preferences 1, 2, 3, 4. But the Act further provides that any other mark will do. Accordingly, the Electoral Commission printed voting instructions on ballot papers telling voters to mark their preferred candidates in order 1, 2, 3, 4. But those preferences were ignored, as the law requires. Each number in effect is treated as an X.

This system works well in single-member electorates where there are only two candidates and works passably in electorates where there are two candidates from major parties and some minor-party candidates or independents. It is utterly ineffective in multi-member electorates whether there are political parties or not.

Some hypotheticals will illustrate the point...

In Douglas Shire, let’s say two major parties each stood four candidates and there were 10,000 voters (in fact, there are 7,045 but let’s make the arithmetic easy). Each voter gets four votes (either marked as X’s or as numerals 1, 2, 3, 4 with the order ignored). Say the Labor candidates are voted for by 51 per cent of the voters and the LNP is supported by 49 per cent. Each Labor candidate would have 5100 votes and each LNP candidate 4900 votes. So all four Labor candidates would be elected and no LNP candidate would be elected – a patently undemocratic result.

Now let’s look at another hypothetical (which is close to what happened on Saturday). In this example, a whole lot of independent candidates stand. A lot of apathetic voters have no real idea about candidates’ policies, character, background and so on. Moreover, they cannot rely on party affiliation to help express their democratic will.

The vote shatters. The candidates (in this case 15) each got a roughly equal numbers of votes. Those elected got only a few more votes than those who missed out. Election was more a matter of luck than the considered preference of voters.

Saturday’s distribution of votes looks more like what one would get with a machine randomly allocating votes than a purposive selection. In an election with purpose, reason and judgment you would expect one or two stand-out candidates with, say, 20 per cent or so of the vote. That did not happen.

Instead, just a few hundred votes separated the fourth candidate who was elected and the next four candidates who were not. And bear in mind that is just a few hundred out of 22,000 because each of the 5250 people who voted got four votes.

Now, there is nothing wrong with close elections. But there is something seriously wrong if the votes awarded to each candidate do not accurately reflect the voters’ will, as happened on Saturday. In a local election, many voters would have a strong preference for one candidate, possibly two candidates, through so personal connection or connection through relatives and friends or business or community.

That candidate or two candidates would be marked first. The other two or three preferences would be just filled in to make up a valid vote. Yet, under this system, those other two or three voting marks get exactly equal weight as the first preference. It is completely undemocratic. We do not really know whether the elected candidates are those really preferred by the community.

The only way to find out would be to get the ballot papers (which are nearly all marked 1, 2, 3, 4) and count them preferentially, as in a state or federal election.
My guess is the result would be different, but it would more accurately reflect the electorate’s wishes. The first-past-the-post system for all-of-council local government elections in Queensland should be abolished and replaced with a preferential or optional preferential system as in every state, territory and federal election.

The preferential system was introduced in Australia because of its fairness. When the vote shatters among many candidates the system results in the election of candidate or candidates preferred by the majority, not those who often by mere luck get first past the post.

As it is in Douglas Shire we have four successful candidates not expressly preferred by 62.5 per cent of the electorate at best, or not wanted at all by 62.5 per cent of the electorate. It is entirely unacceptable in a mature democracy.

crispin.hull@rubyreef.com.au