democracy - thegoodwills.com

Democracy Sausage – A Rare Treat

democracy-sausage-elections — Parliament House in Canberra, image Simon Yeo, https://www.flickr.com/photos/smjb/9223049760/

When you go to vote tomorrow, be thankful we live in a democracy where we have freedom (up to a point) to choose who leads us.

Think about the 52 nations which are not a democracy. They are run either by a dictator or an autocratic regime. Within the borders of these countries, the general population has no say at all. In almost all those nations there is no free and independent press. Troublesome journalists are murdered or, more commonly, jailed. The 2021 World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) shows that journalism is completely or partly blocked in 73% of the 180 countries ranked by the organisation. RSF keeps a running tally of journalists killed since January this year: (26 journalists and two media workers) and 461 journalists and 18 media workers who are in prison for doing their job.

Safe to say these scribes were just trying to get the word out from one of the 52 nations that don’t have a democracy. They include China, North Korea, Myanmar, Afghanistan, many Middle East Kingdoms and a host of African countries. The 2021 survey by The Economist’s Intelligence Unit says that only 6.6% of the world’s population lives in one of 21 “full democracies”.

Australia operates under the Westminster system of democracy, that is, we’re not a monarchy, but the British monarchy plays a role. Just how much of a role was demonstrated in 1975 when the Governor-General John Kerr sacked the sitting Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam.

Every Australian citizen aged 18 and over (with the exception of prisoners serving over 3 years and those of ‘unsound mind’) gets a vote (voting is compulsory in this democracy), and a rigid system of checks and balances aims to stamp out cheating.

The electoral roll closed last month, so these figures are current: 17.793 million eligible voters (96.8%) will go to the polls. If you were wondering, the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) estimates there are 564,240 Australian who are eligible to vote but are not on the roll.

Think about that for a moment.

The main advantage of compulsory voting is it allows certainty about the voter turnout and ensures there’s enough of everything to go around. It also means the Democracy Sausage* providers can estimate stock with minimum wastage.

Our election results are muddied by a confusing system of preferential voting. Rather than the first past the post system preferred by the US, UK, New Zealand, Canada and others, voters must number their choices by preference. If you don’t, or otherwise muck up the ballot paper, your vote will not be counted.

This farcical system forces rabid voters of the right and left to apportion part of their vote to a party they wouldn’t point the garden hose at if it were on fire. So rather than choosing the party/politician of your choice, voters must number other candidates in order of preference. When votes are counted, the distribution of preferences can be crucial in a tight contest.

The preferential voting system was introduced in the 1920s by Billy Hughes during the formation of the Country Party. Hughes saw it as a means of avoiding the two conservative parties splitting the vote (to the benefit of Labor).

This example collated by the ABC demonstrates how the preferential system can deliver unexpected outcomes:

“The Corangamite by-election on December 14, 1918 was the first Federal poll conducted under the new system. Previously, voting had been on a first past the post basis.

In a field of five, Labor led on primary votes. Future Labor Prime Minister James Scullin polled 42.5% of the vote. But a tight exchange of preferences between four competing conservative candidates saw Scullin’s vote rise to only 43.7% after preferences. The Victorian Farmers Union candidate came from 26.4% on primaries to win with 56.3% after preferences.”

(Ed and Scribe disagree on this point. Under the ‘first past the post’ system, a person can be elected even though the majority of voters didn’t vote for them Eg say there are five candidates in an electorate. Candidate A gets the most ‘first past the post’ votes with 37% Candidate B gets 35%, C, D and E the remainder. So ‘A’ wins, even though 63% of voters didn’t want that candidate and nearly as many preferred ‘B’. Under the preferential system, the winning candidate will be the one who gains the most first preference votes, combined with the second preferences of the unsuccessful candidates, meaning most people end up with their first or second preference as their representative. If this is clear as mud, you weren’t paying attention in Citizenship Education classes…)

If that seems wrong to you, that is the system we have inherited.

Consider the vote counts for the 2019 election. On a two-party preferred basis (after preferences are distributed), the Liberal National Coalition (LNP) received 7.34 million votes, a 51.33% majority against Labor’s 6.90 million votes (48.7%). It’s not often emphasised, but Australia’s Green party took just over 10% of the popular vote in 2019, amassing some 1.47 million votes. While the Greens still have only one Federal member, the party has nine seats in the Senate.

Australia’s best-known election analyst, Antony Green, said this about preferential voting, apropos the 2019 surprise result (polls had consistently said the LNP would lose):

“For all the talk of preferences deciding elections, in the end who wins depends more on whether Labor or the Coalition have the higher primary vote,” Green said.

“In the last two decades, Labor’s first preference support has trended down largely because of the growth in Green (party) support.”

Earlier this year Mr Green published a graph which illustrates the influence of preferences on election results.

The other factor which sways election results in this geographically vast and relatively under-populated land is electoral boundaries.

Our electorate, Maranoa, is impossibly large – almost 730,000 square kilometres – encompassing 17 Local Government Areas. The electorate is so large we have seen little of the Labor candidate, given that he lives in Barcaldine, about 1,000 kms North-West. The result is academic, apparently, with the seat being held by conservatives since 1943. Federal MP David Littleproud looks set for another term in Parliament, despite having to wrangle an electorate three times the size of Victoria.

Contrary to popular myth, political parties don’t redraw electoral boundaries. This task is carried out by the Australian Electoral Commission to maintain the concept of ‘one vote, one value’. Boundaries are frequently re-drawn in physically large states (Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland) as their populations shift and grow. On a Federal level, the same thing is done to ensure each State and Territory has seats in the House of Representatives in proportion to their population.

The one issue that has had little or no coverage in the election campaign is the apparent desire on both sides of politics for Australia to become a Republic.

Yes, I know we had a referendum in 1999 and the motion was defeated, but successive polls have shown political support for Australia to become a Republic (but not in Queen Elizabeth II’s lifetime).

I’m not suggesting that Bill Shorten’s stance on this topic contributed to his defeat in 2019, but he was on record as saying he would have held a plebiscite if elected in 2019. While Labor and the Greens support Republicanism, there is also support within conservative parties. We should not forget that the 1999 referendum was driven by one Malcolm Turnbull, who 16 years later served one term as Australia’s (Liberal) Prime Minister.

While your imagination is reeling at the thought of President Albanese, President Morrison or President Wong, you could donate a couple of dollars for your Democracy Sausage on the way out of the polling booth.

I’m not sure what happens in other democracies, but down here local community groups like Lions, Rotary, school P&Cs and such run barbeques at polling booths and offer voters a sausage on a bun or a piece of (white) bread.

I’d make two observations about this: 1/ the aim is to donate money to a good cause; 2/ you don’t have to eat it.

But it’s an Aussie tradition, eh, like two-up on Anzac Day and wrapping yourself in a flag on Australia Day. Who am I to put a dampener on that?

#bobforpresident

FOMM back pages

Dawe, Morrow and Gessen – Satire and The Rise Of Populism

Dawe-satire — Satirist Bryan Dawe (left) and comedian Julian Morrow at Integrity 20. Photo by Frances Harper

Actor/satirist Bryan Dawe has such a low-key, laconic approach to ‘giving a talk’ that the journalistic instinct to take notes deserted me. Dawe is the surviving half of the satirical act Clarke & Dawe, but he is much more than that. He told the audience at Griffith University’s Integrity 20 Summit that when it came to political satire, he and John Clarke had never been short of material over 25 years of producing their weekly TV show.

Dawe introduced one of his best-known satirical characters, boozy retired judge Sir Murray Rivers QC; Dawe as interviewer/straight man to Sir Murray’s confused bigot. His presentation was funny; funny and sad, as he often referenced his late partner in satire John Clarke, who died in April this year. Dawe’s ‘talk’ would have been illuminating for the year 11 and 12 students attending Integrity 20, as Dawe summarised his unhappy days at school where he left early after being told by a careers adviser he would not amount to anything because he came from the ‘wrong postcode’.

Dawe joined Julian Morrow of The Chaser and The Checkout for a discussion on satire, comedy and how to know when you’ve gone too far. When asked that question by panel chair Rebecca Levingston, both agreed that nothing was off limits.

While agreeing that one could satirise and make jokes about anything, Morrow conceded that The Chaser’s skits post-9/11 were “too soon”. Levingston prompted Morrow to revisit the time The Chaser (a TV satire show), penetrated security at the 2007 APEC conference in Sydney with a fake motorcade transporting a ‘Mr bin laden of Canada’. As Morrow recalled “We never expected to succeed.”

Both satirists agreed that there are powerful people who always try to have good satire shut down, probably because nothing is funnier than the truth, greatly exaggerated. The trick, said Dawe, was not to engage with critics, trolls and others whose power base was being diminished by The Chaser’s sharp sketches or by John Clarke’s familiar introduction: “Thanks for having me, Bryan.”

Bryan Dawe’s presentation was the ideal tone for Integrity 20’s afternoon session, which followed serious and at times contrary debate about hate speech, free speech, censorship, the global rise of populism and how to destroy democracy.

Masha-Gessen-populism — Masha Gessen, photo by Bengt Oberger, Wikipedia CC

You may have heard Richard Fidler on Conversations interviewing Masha Gessen, an exiled Russian American journalist and author. Her speech ‘How to Destroy Democracy’ and later contribution to a panel discussion on populism was a highlight of Integrity 20.

New York-based Gessen outlined the seven lessons in ‘imagining the worse’, in which the rise of populism destroys democracy. These include destroying the sense of participation, conspiracy myth-making, and engaging in the ‘forever war’, (which in the US means a 16-year war against ‘terrorism’, an unidentifiable foe, with no end point in sight).

Gessen, an outspoken critic of Donald Trump, also referred to the way democracy could be destroyed simply by degrading language.

“Trump is a master at that. He lies and lies to convince you that something that’s not true is true. There’s no way for a journalist not to quote his lies.

“Trump says he’s the subject of a witch hunt when that’s the opposite of what he means. He creates word salad and makes it difficult to work out what it all means. It’s a direct assault on how we all live because language is the main tool we use to co-exist.”

Even while Gessen was articulating this I was thinking about former PM Tony Abbott’s ludicrous comments about goats, volcanoes and climate change. However daft the comments seemed, journalists had no option but to quote what he actually said at a climate conference in London.

As Ricky Gervais said this week in a thought-provoking tweet:

Some opinions are so stupid they hurt my feelings. But that’s my problem. It’s a person’s right to hold as stupid an opinion as they like. (@rickygervais):

A panel discussion followed on the global rise of populism. Panel chair Luke Stegemann summarised the rise of populism in countries including Italy, Poland, the UK, France and Germany. “Australia is not immune by any means,” he added, citing the resurgence of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and how it taps into the frustrations, racism and bigotry of people who are angry about immigration and furious about globalisation and the perceived impact these issues have on their jobs.

One ought to keep in mind that populism − a movement for the people and against a privileged elite − can occur across a broad political spectrum. It is possible, as panellist Geoffrey Robertson QC observed, to have left-wing populism.

The origins of populism date back to the 1800s when rural peasants revolted against their robber baron landlords. Today it is more about polarising the electorate and pitting angry poor people against (poor and possibly angry) immigrants and asylum seekers.

The privileged elite seem to survive with wealth intact, whichever way the populist wind is blowing.

Rachel Kleinfeld of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said the common perception was that supporters of populism are racists and bigots.

“There is a racist fringe but the core of populism is about high inequality and why people don’t understand why politicians don’t listen.”

Geoffrey Robertson said young people were disenchanted about the rampant capitalism that democracy encourages. This was in response to Kleinfeld’s comment that only 52% of people aged 18 to 29 think it is preferable to live in a democracy. Robertson said the key threat imposed by populist leaders was the attempt to replace an independent judiciary with their own people.

Kleinfeld made comparisons between Donald Trump and outsider president Andrew Jackson (1828-1834), who enjoyed two terms and put his successor, Martin Van Buren, in place to ensure 12 years of a populist government.

The Atlantic made much of the Trump/Jackson similarities.

“Jackson, like Trump, won over many white working-class voters, who brushed aside critics who warned that he was unstable and a would-be dictator. He maintained their loyalty even though, like Trump, he was of the elite.”

I can’t recall who started it, but it seemed all panellists agreed that Trump, despite being widely reviled, would easily take another term in office. They didn’t say so, but it seems obvious that Trump has a like-minded and seemingly un-impeachable successor in Mike Pence sitting on the bench (wearing a Martin Van Buren t-shirt).

If you were not yet confused about populism and its multiple meanings, Cas Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, coined the phrase “thin ideology”. This means to merely set up a framework: pure people versus a corrupt elite. Thin ideology can be attached to all sorts of “thick” ideologies such as socialism, nationalism, anti-imperialism or racism.

I will leave it to the reader to decide what type of populism exists in Australia.

Monday I’ve got Friday on my mind

I leave you with a tribute to the late George Young, who co-wrote the song from which this essay takes its name. Young and co-writer Harry Vanda and their band The Easybeats had an international hit with Friday on My Mind in 1967. Here’s a terrific cover from Richard Thompson and band from the album 1000 Years of Popular Music. (Please don’t listen to the Bruce Springsteen version that comes up after that…Ed)

The informal donkey voter

Eeyore's winter onesie — “Eeyore’ in his winter onesie! Photo by Penny Davies

On Saturday, an estimated 2.724 million Australians will either not cast a vote or will vote incorrectly, either by choice or by accident. I say estimate, because it’s my estimate, drawn from official Australian Electoral Commission statistics plus sums based on donkey voter research.

The AEC says there were 15.468 million people on the electoral roll as of March 31, 2016. That’s 94% of eligible voters, which means there are 978,933 people ‘missing’ from the roll. That’s a lower number than in 2013 (1.22 million), but it could still sway a tight election either way.

The second part of the equation is the informal vote, votes which for one reason or another do not get past scrutineers because the ballot papers have been filled out incorrectly or deliberately spoiled.

In 2013, there were 739,872 informal votes or 5.92% of enrolled voters, the highest proportion since 1984 (6.34%), which coincided with the introduction of above-the-line voting in the Senate.

According to Melbourne University’s Election Watch website, the majority of informal voters vote (1) only or fail to fill in all the preference boxes. Others use a tick or a cross instead of numbers. A few write their name on the ballot box (also a no-no). Some informal voters scribble slogans or graffiti on their ballot papers.

After meeting sources in dark corners of underground car parks, I can confirm that drawing penises is a favourite, suggesting (a) the voter thinks all politicians are dicks or (b) likes drawing penises.

The AEC did an analysis of informal voting after the 2013 election. The AEC estimates that just over half of informal voters meant to vote for someone, showing a preference for one or more candidates. But more than a third were disqualified due to incomplete numbering.

One alarming trend is a steady rise in the proportion of informal voters who put blank papers in the ballot box. This rose from 16% in 1987 to 21% in 2001, peaked at 29% in 2010 and dropped to 20% in 2013.

Meanwhile in Brexit

An analysis of the elusive 34% of Brits who did not vote in the 2010 election by Votenone observed that in the 2010 General Election, the UK total of protest and ‘spoilt’ votes was around 295,000, or 1% of voters. However, 34% of registered voters (16 million) just didn’t vote. Votenone advocate these people take direct action by doing just that, ie writing ‘None’ on the ballot paper.

“There have been petitions asking for ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA) on the ballot paper for many years. However, like the demand for votes for women in the early 20th century, success doesn’t come just from asking.”

The UK system is different from ours in several ways, not the least of which is that voting is not compulsory.

Meanwhile, the uniquely Australian phenomenon, the donkey vote, continues to ignore both the carrot and the stick, despite changes to the electoral system post-1984 which should have diminished the influence of the donkey vote. The so-called donkey vote is an anomaly of the preferential voting system. It describes the voter who simply numbers the ballot sheet from the left, or top down, without discernment.

Prior to 1984, the donkey vote was crucial in some seats as candidate names were listed alphabetically and party names did not appear on ballot papers. So numbering your candidates from the left meant that Aaron Aardvark, the Independent candidate for Aarons Pass, collected more votes than he ever thought possible. Some political pundits think the donkey vote is worth as much as 2% of any contest. On that basis, 309,360 votes will be wasted on Saturday.

Mr Shiraz found a 2006 study by the Australian National University which suggests the donkey vote is 1 in 70 or 227,114 votes.

If you want a clear example of how the donkey vote can skew results, look no further than the 2005 by-election for former Labor leader Mark Latham’s seat of Werriwa. There were 16 candidates, listed randomly on the ballot paper. In this instance the donkey vote was reflected in the high vote (4.83%) for Australians Against Further Immigration, a minor party who were placed first on the ballot. (Then again, maybe people meant to vote for them).

To compel or not to compel

The other slab of humanity missing at the polls is the 4.5% or so (696,060) people who are on the roll but don’t bother. A $20 fine applies if you are enrolled but do not vote – a potential $13.92 million windfall.

Australia is one of 22 countries where voting is mandatory, yet our voter turnout has been below 96% every year since 1946. In 2013, the figure was 93.23%; in 2010 93.22% and in the year of Our Kevin it was 94.76%. Nevertheless, we have the largest voter turnout of 34 OECD countries including the US, UK and Canada. In neighbouring New Zealand, where voting is optional, the turnout has only nudged above 80% once since 2002.

But getting back to our specific problem – how to engage the 2.724 million people who are apparently disaffected, uninterested, don’t understand, are too busy mowing lawns, chainsawing storm-tossed trees or having sex on polling day or misguidedly waste their democratic right in voiceless protest.

I heard Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull on radio yesterday urging people not to vote Independent as this could cause “chaos and instability in government”. Fair go Mal (and Bill), we’ve had five different PMs in six years, yet we only voted for two of them.

Meanwhile, a record 1.16 million people had taken advantage of pre-poll voting as of last Saturday (it was 775,000 at the same point in 2013). The speculation is that the increase in pre-poll voting (you qualify if you are going to be away from your electorate on the day, are 8kms or more away from a polling booth or have religious reasons for not voting on a Saturday), is because the government, in its wisdom, picked a date during school and university holidays.

In practical terms, however, nobody is enforcing these rules; you just get asked if you are qualified to vote pre-poll and if you say yes, then in you go. Rod Smith, a professor at the University of Sydney, who specialises in political parties and elections, told the Sydney Morning Herald electoral commissions encourage early voting.

“The categories are out-of-date and it is one of those instances where lawmakers are turning a blind eye to the way the legislation is being implemented.” Smith says.

The latest poll shows the Coalition is ahead of the Opposition 51/49, although other polls suggest 50/50 on a primary vote basis. The bookies have the LNP at $1.08, Labor at 8-1 and odds of a hung parliament at 4-1.

The challenge now is for someone to come up with what language guru Professor Roly Sussex calls a ‘portmanteau’ word (blending the sounds and meanings of two others, for example motel, brunch or Brexit), to describe Australia’s 2016 poll. Here’s a couple to get you started on election night: Texit, Sexit. Let’s hope there is no need to coin a post-election term like the one now widespread in the UK: Bregret.