On 9 November the people of Douglas Shire will vote for a mayor and four councillors under a flawed electoral system – called first past the post.

Voters will be required to put four crosses against the four candidates (of the 15 standing) who they want to be elected. They will not be able to indicate preferences.
Similarly for mayor – one cross against the candidate of the three standing that they want to be mayor.

The system is designed to be simple, but not designed to reflect the true views of the people.

Take the vote for councillors. If the vote is divided fairly evenly, it will mean between 6 and 7 per cent for each candidate. It will mean a candidate could get elected with as little a 7 per cent of the vote. If the vote is unevenly divided among, a different sort of warping of democracy occurs.

Take this example. A leading business person might get a large chunk of the vote resulting in the other pro-business candidates getting very few voters. Similarly a leading Green might get a large chunk of the vote resulting in very few votes for the remaining Greens. So only one business person gets elected and only one Green, leaving the way for, say, a Raving Lunatic Party candidate and a Palmer River Gold Nugget Party candidate to pick up the remaining seats with very little support – in an electorate, say, which is overwhelmingly either business or Green.

The system should be preferential. If you get 20.1 per cent of the first preference you should get a seat and any extra should be spilled in preferences, not wasted as in the present warped system. If four candidates do not get 20.1 per cent, the candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated and their preferences counted. That process is repeated until you have four candidates with 20.1 per cent. Sounds complicated but it is fairer. With a preferential system the four candidates most preferred by the electorate would be elected – as democracy should demand. With a first-past-the-post system, election is more by luck than genuine support.

The system is also warped in the mayoral stakes. What if the vote is split evenly? It might mean a candidate winning with, say, 40 per cent of the vote, even if the other 60 would much prefer the second-running candidate. This could happen with, say, a Green getting 40 per cent; a pro-tourism candidate getting 31 per cent and a pro-business candidate getting 29 per cent. The real will of the people – for a tourism-business mayoral candidate would be defeated.

It could work the other way, for example, with a Labor and Green candidate getting the 31 and 29 and the Let’s Put a Macca’s in the Middle of Macrossan Street Party getting the 40.

The State Government should revise this anti-democratic system before the next local elections. We are not fools. We know how to number our preferences. Also, you should be able to stand for both mayor and councillor. As it is, we will waste two of the three candidates who are standing for mayor and who might have made excellent councillors. It would be a simple matter to count the preferences of the successful mayoral candidate in the council election – provided, of course, you had a sensible preferential system.

crispin.hull@rubyreef.com.au