Our Democracy

1974, 2011

Our Democracy

CONTENTS
This is an extract from Christs People and Society. (1974, 2011) page 8 3. OUR DEMOCRACY 8 3a. Democracy 9 3a and the alternative form of Government - nature of democracy: e1ector, representative parliament, law - by comparison, a totalitarian system - ease of pushing democracy into totalitarian form 10 3b. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Individual in a Democracy. - what they are; limitations to use of some - power of vote; what the voter must do - political parties: advantages and disadvantages 12 3c. The Electoral System - What happens to your vote after it is cast A. One candidate to be elected B. Multiple elections from one ballot - some recommendations, in the light of the nature of the electoral system, for voters 23 3d. Power in a Democracy - Federal powers; local government powers; State government powers; individual power; pressure group power 24 3e. Law Enforcement in a Democracy - limit of law - need for reliance on individual rather than "authority" 25 3f. Liberalisation of Law Today - pressure for liberalisation - justification for liberalisation - dangers in liberalisation

Our Democracy

3. OUR DEMOCRACY
3a. Democracy Democracy is supposed to be "Government, of the people, by the people, for the people"Abraham Lincoln. In Australia we have a representative democracy. That is, we accept that we must be governed and as individuals we choose to be obedient to the laws. We, as equals before the law and in the election system, do the governing, by choosing some one to represent us in our parliaments and councils. Our representatives, by deciding on policy and framing the laws to implement that policy, provide the government, or the state of affairs, for us to live in. Our role, as electors, is to choose the representative who presents policies that suit us. If these policies do not suit us, then we can (1) formulate policies that do suit us, these will be in opposition to other policies being presented by others standing for election as representatives, and we can stand for representative position ourselves (2) join a political party and by action through that party can frame the policies that we want the party representatives to have. This is, and must be, a continual activity. Every single voter must retain an interest and activity in these decisions, otherwise, the interests of the voter will be ignored and the interests heard will be those of the more active participants in the democracy. So there are three steps in our democratic process: (1) the people make a choice of their representative (2) the representative makes a stand to support or fight for some particular policy (3) decisions made by the majority of the representatives are binding on the community So, for example, to illustrate the point, we vote for a representative who supports "free beer for all the students". That representative receives majority support in the community at an election, and so wins the election. That representative presents this policy and how it is co be carried out, to the parliament or council. A majority of other representatives support him. The policy then becomes an Act or a decision. The Act is a statement of law. So, beer has to be provided free for all students. Failure to supply beer free to students usually results in some penalties that someone enforces.

Our Democracy So we have the structure: VOTER - has a role in determining the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE - who has a role in determining a

GOVERNMENT ACT, this is then the law which VOTERS are required to obey. If they do not obey the law they are penalised in some way for their disobedience. And this structure is then intricately involved with POLICE who must investigate if the law has been broken, who broke it and arrests the same COURT which decides whether the police evidence is right, and then determines the penalty to apply if the person is guilty The courts also have another role, that of determining whether a government act is "legal". If an act contradicts another act, other laws already established, or if it conflicts with decision of higher governments or acts or laws (for example common law) then the act is not "legal". This involves a decision of "precedence- determining which law takes precedence over others when in conflict. In the democracy there are then checks on voter and government alike. 3a. ... and the Alternative Form of Government ... By comparison, there are other systems of social organisation. These, because they do not allow for the freedom of expression of different ways in which we might go about achieving our social goals, can provide a single-minded, efficient and effective government in our human communities. A totalitarian system is a political system having only one governing body or political party, and which leaves no room in the society for political opposition. The efficiency and the effectiveness of the totalitarian system lies in (1) its single-mindedness (2) its organisation (3) the devolving of authority and power within a well disciplined organisation (4) the restriction of freedom of expression of opposition (5) the oppression of minorities or minority views which challenge the rightness of the totalitarian view. The rigidness with which such a political system is applied to a community can be a very valuable step in bringing cohesion to a community. A community torn by internal strife, anarchy, can be restored to function under totalitarian regimes

Our Democracy Eg England of Elizabeth I, France of Napoleon

10

With the threat of external aggression, most communities readily accept martial law, accepting the continuity of wartime leadership without insisting on elections Eg England 1939-45 A democratic community weakened by external and/or internal injustices, with internal failure to accept responsibility, and where the old accepted order of monetary relationships and established privileges appears to be threatened by certain internal directions of social change, or by social changes occurring in nearby communities, can respond readily to a demagogue who bases his challenge for power on the values of the old order and does not challenge th3 conservative institutions that exist in every society to regulate sexual behaviour and protect property e,g. Germany, the rise of the National Socialist Party as the democratic government followed by the dictatorship of Hitler No democracy is immune from the threat of this kind of takeover from within. The responsibility of protecting our democracy from this lies with each one of us. It depends on our awareness of the danger and our continued resistance to taking fanatical stances. It requires the exercise of all our powers to ensure that injustice is not allowed to build up within the community, and to do this most effectively we will need to be open to the real needs of the people within our community. Any society which fosters the oppression of one sector of the community for the advantage of another sector of the community creates the tensions that lead to open revolt. Any society which does not continue to uphold the value of the individual, the value of relationships between individuals, and the value of the responsibility of each individual to play a unique part in sustaining the nature of that social system, checking the authenticity of its justice through the community, leaves itself open to takeover. 3b. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Individual in a Democracy Our democracy protects the following rights: (1) secret ballot (2) freedom of speech (3) freedom of association which can lead to the formation of a new political party (4) freedom to stand for election (5) freedom to present a case to the elected representatives and/or the constituted body, the parliament or the council, through a petition (6) freedom to challenge the law if it infringes any rights It is as these rights and their inherent responsibilities are exercised that the democratic institutions respond to the challenges and demands of the community. The nature of the costs in our present economic structure place constraints on the exercise of some of these rights and as such restricts the use of some of these instituted means of effecting change.

Our Democracy

11

What is not open to general use, can be seen as being the private province and privilege of a particular group. For example, the cost of effectively mounting an election campaign is tending to prevent all bar major parties from engaging in effective political debate for the public's support at election time. The costs of litigation usually mean that the protection of rights in the court is limited to the rich who can afford litigation. The courts are then seen as protectors of particular privilege, rather than the avenue through which an ordinary person can and will normally seek justice. There is however nothing to prevent us from demanding legislation which will effectively offset this kind of economic disadvantage: equal time for all in the media , etc. 3b. ... the Power of the Vote... The vote at an election, is one area where monetary advantage can be offset. However, the essential power of the vote is not readily understood in our community. The use of a voting system, which seeks to give some representation to all, is seen as a complexity that the ordinary person cannot understand. Not only is the system not straightforward (a straightforward system is not necessarily just), but there is a deliberate attempt to fail to inform the ordinary person about the basic nature of the system, and a deliberate attempt to keep the ordinary person subject to the "mystique" of the "complicated" system. This places the ordinary person in a position of powerlessness, powerlessness resulting from lack of knowledge. The political parties and their henchmen, political strategists, journalists, commentators, all perpetuate this by the use of jargon, and by their failure to explain the basic nature of the system in terms that can be understood. Consequently our electoral system is open to abuse. What the Voter Must Do For a voter to cast a formal vote, the voter must clearly indicate his preference between the various candidates and/or the parties to which they belong. The voter must do this by placing the number 1 against the name of the candidate to whom he wishes to give his first preference. The voter is also required to indicate whom of the other candidates he would prefer next. He places the number 2 against this candidate. This procedure is to be continued for as many candidates as there are standing for elected position. This makes sure that each voter has some say in who is the elected representative. When there is a close battle for majority support in the electorate, those people who have supported a minority view also have their viewpoint considered by finding which of the major contenders they support.

Our Democracy

12

The making of the deliberate choice between one and the other is what is required. This is difficult if there is a wide range of choice, and if nothing is known of the candidates or their positions to allow a meaningful distinction to be made. The decision concerning whom you vote for and what preference you record for the different candidates comes then from (1) a knowledge of their different policies (2) a decision of which policy you prefer and the order in which you prefer those policies (3) a decision of the reliability of the candidate, to know whether he will continue to present that policy .... Political Parties ... The existence of political parties and a decision to give allegiance to a political party or its ideology can simplify the process of deciding on how to vote. The "advantages" of the political party system are similar to the advantages of a totalitarian system: namely, that if a party or group with similar ideologies have the numbers, or majority in the legislative parliament, they can take a singleminded attitude to legislation, and so govern without disruption between elections while they retain this majority. The retention of the majority between elections also depends on strong internal discipline on the party members. The party, rather than the individual representative, then becomes the responsible body, and the choice, at an election. The disadvantages in our reliance on the party to sort policy and to present an overall philosophy come in much the same way as in the totalitarian system gone awry: the dependence on the authority of the institution being unable to be questioned, and the failure of a minority viewpoint getting through. The institution can become more obsessed with the maintenance of itself, rather than the society it depends on and is responsible for, then there is trouble.

3c. The Electoral System... What Happens to your Vote after it is Cast ... In every kind of election, the first two steps in the counting of votes are the same: Firstly, the formal votes are collected together. For a vote to be formal it must show clearly to the electoral officer the differential preference of the voter between all the candidates. Secondly, the "first preference" or "primaries" are counted in the following way: All the ballot papers with 1 for a particular candidate are placed in a group by themselves. These are then counted for each candidate. These are the first preferences that a candidate receives. The next step in the counting of an election depends on how many are to be elected from the vote, and what kind of system is being used.

Our Democracy Let us look at some examples :

13

A. One Candidate to be elected: Counting for the Federal House of Representatives and for the State Legislative Assembly In this case we are to elect one representative for an electorate. "The candidate who has received the largest number of first preference votes shall, if that number constitutes an absolute majority of the votes, be elected. " ..." an absolute majority of votes means a greater number than one half of the whole number of ballot-papers other than informal ballot-papers." "If no candidate has received an absolute majority of first preference votes, the Returning Officer ..., shall proceed with the scrutiny and the counting of votes as follows (i) the candidate who has received the fewest first preference votes shall be excluded, and each ballot-paper counted to him shall be counted to the candidate next in order of the voter's preference; (ii) if no candidate then has an absolute majority of votes, the process of excluding the candidate who has the fewest votes, and counting each of his ballot-papers to the unexcluded candidate next - in the order of the voter's preference, shall be repeated until one candidate has received an absolute majority of votes; and (iii) the candidate who has received an absolute majority of votes shall be elected." Readers are directed to Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1966 and (N.S.W.) Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act, 1912 and NSW Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Regulations 2008 for the confirmation of these proceedings. Let us suppose that there are four candidates standing for election under this system, and that seventeen people have cast formal votes in the ballot. The Labor (opposition to Liberal) will have issued a how-to-vote card, presumably of the following form: 2 Ind 1 Lab 4- Lib 3 MP The Liberal (opposition to Labor) will have issued a how-to-vote card, presumably of the following form: 3 Ind 4 Lab 1 Lib 2 MP Assuming that the MP minor party is a non-Labor party and arranges to exchange preferences with the Liberal party, its how-to-vote instructions will be : 3 Ind 4 Lab 2 Lib 1 MP

Our Democracy In a marginal seat we usually get the following kind of distribution of first preferences:

14

First count: Seventeen formal votes have been cast, therefore the absolute majority required for election is 9 (50%+1) 1 Ind 1 Ind 1 Ind 4 Lab 4 Lab 2 Lab Independent 3 Lib 2 Lib 3 Lib 2 MP 3 MP 4 MP 3 (so-called donkey vote) 2 Ind 3 Ind 2 Ind 2 Ind 1 Lab 1 Lab 1 Lab 1 Lab Labor 4 Lib 4 Lib 4 Lib 4 Lib 3 MP 2 MP 3 MP 3 MP 7 3 Ind 4 Ind 2 Ind 1 Lab 1 Lab 1 Lab 4 Lib 2 Lib 4 Lib 2 MP 3 MP 3 MP 3 Ind 3 Ind 3 Ind 3 Ind 4 Lab 4 Lab 4 Lab 4 Lab Liberal 1 Lib 1 Lib 1 Lib 1 Lib 2 MP 2 MP 2 MP 2 MP 5 3 Ind 4 Lab 1 Lib 2 MP 3 Ind 4 Ind 4 Lab 3 Lab Minor Party 2 Lib 2 Lib 1 MP 1 MP 2 (so-called upside-down donkey vote No candidate has the nine needed for election, so no-one is elected yet. The candidate with least is excluded, namely the minor party candidate, and the votes are given to the candidate next in order of the voters preference

2011 Update: For those elections that permit optional preferential voting, the voter may decide to only indicate their first preference. What that means, in effect, is that after the first round the number of votes, needed to have the absolute majority, decreases, as voting intentions are exhausted. The count keeps using indicated preferences (providing the vote is formal) until those preferences have been exhausted. At the extreme, optional preferential voting becomes first past the post.

Our Democracy

15

Distribution of Preferences of Minor partys Votes: The minor party candidate is excluded and the votes, with a full one whole vote value, is given to the candidate next in the individual voters preference, as shown on the ballot paper 1 Ind 1 Ind 1 Ind 4 Lab 4 Lab 2 Lab Independent 3 Lib 2 Lib 3 Lib 2 MP 3 MP 4 MP 3 (so-called donkey vote) 2 Ind 3 Ind 2 Ind 2 Ind 1 Lab 1 Lab 1 Lab 1 Lab Labor 4 Lib 4 Lib 4 Lib 4 Lib 3 MP 2 MP 3 MP 3 MP 7 3 Ind 4 Ind 2 Ind 1 Lab 1 Lab 1 Lab 4 Lib 2 Lib 4 Lib 2 MP 3 MP 3 MP 3 Ind 3 Ind 3 Ind 3 Ind 4 Lab 4 Lab 4 Lab 4 Lab Liberal 1 Lib 1 Lib 1 Lib 1 Lib 2 MP 2 MP 2 MP 2 MP 7 3 Ind 3 Ind 4 Ind 4 Lab 4 Lab 3 Lab 1 Lib 2 Lib 2 Lib 2 MP 1 MP 1 MP 3 Ind 4 Ind 4 Lab 3 Lab Minor Party 2 Lib 2 Lib 1 MP 1 MP EXCLUDED (so-called upside-down donkey vote No candidate has the nine needed for election, so no-one is elected yet. The candidate with least is excluded, namely the independent candidate, and the votes are given to the unexcluded candidate next in order of the voters preference

Our Democracy

16

Distribution of Preferences of Independents Votes: The minor party candidate is excluded and the votes, with a full one whole vote value, is given to the candidate next in the individual voters preference, as shown on the ballot paper 1 Ind 1 Ind 1 Ind 4 Lab 4 Lab 2 Lab 3 Lib 2 Lib 3 Lib Independent 2 MP 3 MP 4 MP (so-called EXCLUDED donkey vote) 2 Ind 3 Ind 2 Ind 2 Ind 1 Lab 1 Lab 1 Lab 1 Lab Labor 4 Lib 4 Lib 4 Lib 4 Lib 3 MP 2 MP 3 MP 3 MP 8 3 Ind 4 Ind 2 Ind 1 Ind 1 Lab 1 Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 4 Lib 2 Lib 4 Lib 3 Lib 2 MP 3 MP 3 MP 4 MP 3 Ind 4 Lab 1 Lib 2 MP 3 Ind 4 Lab 1 Lib 2 MP 1 Ind 4 Lab 2 Lib 3 MP 3 Ind 4 Lab 1 Lib 2 MP 3 Ind 4 Lab 2 Lib 1 MP 3 Ind 4 Lab 1 Lib 2 MP 4 Ind 3 Lab 2 Lib 1 MP 3 Ind 4 Lab 1 Lib 2 MP 1 Ind 4 Lab 3 Lib 2 MP

Liberal 9

Minor Party EXCLUDED

This vote should go, by the number 2 to the minor party candidate, but that candidate has been excluded, so we must look at the next preference 3, the vote then goes to the Lib candidate

The Liberal candidate has the nine needed for election, so is the elected representative. Essentially the electorate has not elected the party with the largest number of first preferences, because the majority of voters were not prepared to support that group outright.

Our Democracy

17

B. Multiple elections from one ballot: Federal Senate, NSW Legislative Council, some

other situations
In this case we are to elect several representatives for the whole State rather than one representative for an electorate within the State. Again, all the formal votes are collected first. Again, all the ballot papers with 1 for a particular candidate are placed in a group by themselves, and counted to give the "first preference" count. Any candidate who has received a number of first preferences equal to or greater than the quota required for election shall be elected. The quota is determined by dividing the total number of formal first preference votes by one more than the number of candidates required to be elected, and then increasing the quotient so obtained by one, disregarding any remainder obtained during the original division. If the number of first preference votes received by a candidate is equal to the quota, the whole of the ballot-papers containing those votes are set aside as finally dealt with. If all the vacancies are not filled, then the surplus votes (that is, any number in excess of the quota) of each elected candidate are transferred to the continuing candidates in proportion to the voters preferences. In 1974 there were detailed instructions for how this is done as equitably as possible throughout the State, working through the different electoral divisions. In 2011 this process is now conducted by a computer program. If, after the transfer of surplus votes, a candidate now has received a number of votes equal or greater than the quota required, he shall be elected. In the event of all the surpluses being transferred, and not all of the positions being filled, and none of the continuing candidates having the quota required to be elected, the procedure now followed is the same as for the election for the House of Representatives: namely, that the candidate with the least number of votes is excluded and each ballot paper counted to him shall be counted to the unexcluded candidate next in order of the individual voter's preference, ballot paper by ballot paper. This is carried out until all the positions are filled by candidates having received the quota.

Again, let us take a typical example, looking at what has happened in the recent Senate election in the double dissolution in N.S.W., in 1974. And let us simplify the process by looking at the relative support the candidates received and dealing with it as if 1,000 votes had been cast and were determining the election. The results were as follows:

Our Democracy 1974 Senate Election for 10 NSW Senators Total No. of Votes cast 2,370,085 A.L.P. (Murphy) 1,169,231 Lib CP (Cotton) 982,136 D.L.P. (Kane) 67,186 F.A.M. (Brown) 44,861 Aust P. (Gilling) 36,661 Group A (Malcolm) 17,127 Comm. P (Mundey) 10,888 Other 65 candidates Ten senators are to be elected, so the quota is 9.09%.

18

first pref first pref first pref first pref first pref first pref first pref

=100.0% =50.0% 41.7% 2.9% 1.9% 1.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6%

1,000 500 417 29 19 17 7 5 6

Only two candidates have the quota namely, Murphy and Cotton. These two are elected and eight more places have to be filled. The filling of these eight places is done firstly by transferring the surpluses of Murphy and Cotton, and then, if need, be by excluding candidates who have received so little support, starting with the candidate with least support. We will proceed to work out the result treating the election as if only 1000 people had voted. This may lead to some weighting of the results, and some distortion, but it will essentially illustrate the electoral system, so that we understand it, at least enough so that we can vote with confidence. Using only the 1 000 votes, the following conditions apply: Number of votes cast 1 000 Number of senators to be elected plus one = 10 + 1 = 11 Quota = 1000/11 = 90.9 + 1 = 91 ignoring the remainder Of the candidates standing, only Murphy and Cotton have more than 91. So they are elected. But they have more than 91 and all the positions have not been filled, so we must first transfer the surpluses. Looking at Murphy' s 500 votes first. Let us assume that every one of these votes followed the party ticket. Murphy received 500 votes. He only needed 91 to be elected. So he has 409 votes surplus. The transfer value of Murphy' s surplus vote is calculated in the following way : Transfer value = Number of surplus votes received = (409) DIVIDED BY Total number of votes received (500) Now all the 500 votes are taken and the electoral officer locks at the number 2 on all those votes. If they have all given 2 to McClelland (following the party ticket) then McClelland gets Number of preferences received x transfer value = 500 x (409/500) = 409 votes

Our Democracy

19

These 409 votes are picked out randomly from the 500 second preferences that he received and the other 91 votes are put aside, as dealt with finally, as the votes which have been used to elect Murphy. (Had the five hundred votes not followed the A.L.P. ticket the result would be different. Vis Let us suppose only 490 of the votes which gave Murphy 1 also gave McClelland 2, and that the other 10 had given, say, Brown 2 . The electoral officer then follows these recorded voter's preferences, disregarding the A.L.P. how-to-vote advice and the result would be McClelland = 490 x (409/500)=401 Brown = 10 x (409/500) = 8.2 (this 0.2 over, is ignored) Of the 490 cast Murphy 1, McClelland 2, 401 would be picked out randomly and the other 89 put aside. Of the 10 cast Murphy 1, Brown 2, 8 would be picked out randomly and the other 2 added to the 89 and put aside finally as Murphy's votes used to elect Murphy. The results would have varied accordingly.) Returning to our original assumption, that McClelland had received all the number 2 preferences of the 500 voters, McClelland has 409 votes after the transfer of preferences. The quota required, for election is 91. McClelland has 91, indeed he has 409, so McClelland is elected. McClelland also has more votes than he needed so the surplus he has is transferred as above: Transfer value now = 318/409 If all the number 3 votes go to the next on the A.L.P. ticket, Mulvihill, then Mulvihill gets 409 x (318/409) = 318 votes These 318 votes are picked out randomly and the other 91 votes are put aside as finally dealt with, as being the votes which have been used to elect McClelland. As Mulvihill only needs 91 votes he is now elected. Mulvihill has more than he needed so his surplus is transferred too, in the same fashion as before. The Liberal-Country Party's votes are being dealt with in the same way. Murphy's surplus is transferred first, getting in McClelland (A.L.P.) as third serator, as Murphy had highest first preference result. Cotton's surplus is transferred next, getting in Carrick (Lib) as fourth senator for N.S.W. Then McClelland's surplus is transferred, getting in Mulvihill (A.L.P.) as fifth senator. Carrick's surplus is then transferred getting in Scott.

Our Democracy

20

Assuming that the voters have followed the ticket in both these teams, then the 50% of the vote that the A.L.P. received will get in Murphy, McClelland, Mulvihill, McClelland, & Gietzelt with Westerway holding 45 votes at the end (using our 1000 sample). Similarly the Liberal-Country Party ticket will get in Cotton, Carrick, Scott, and Anderson and will leave Baume holding 53 votes at the end of the transferring of the surpluses. At this point nine senators have been elected and there are 64 continuing candidates, none of whom have the quota 91. Starting with the candidate with least support, and excluding him, the votes accorded to him are passed on to the continuing candidate indicated next in the voter's preference on these ballot papers. (As in House of Representatives process) The candidate with least support is amongst the "others" having a total of six votes in our sample. All of these will be successively excluded. Supposing the votes that these had went to the remaining candidates who had substantial first preference support in the following way: A.L.P. 1; Lib-Cp 1; D.L.P.1; F.A.M. 1; Aust P 1; Group A 1. This would mean that the following candidates would be the only ones in the running at this stage and they would have the following vote tally Lib-CP Baume A.L.P. Westerway D.L.P. Kane F.A.M. Brown. Aust P Gilling Group A Malcolm Comm P Mundey 54 votes 46 votes 30 votes 20 votes 18 votes 8 votes 5 votes

Mundey would be the next candidate excluded. Suppose all 5 votes go to the A.L.P. Westerway. The continuing candidates and score would now be: Lib-CP Baume A.L.P. Westerway D.L.P. Kane F.A.M. Brown. Aust P Gilling Group A Malcolm 54 votes 51 votes 30 votes 20 votes 18 votes 8 votes

Malcolm would be next excluded. Assuming 6 of these votes were standard donkey votes, these would then go to F.A.M. and assuming the other two followed the how-to-vote instructions, these would also go F.A.M.

Our Democracy The score would now be Lib-CP Baume A.L.P. Westerway D.L.P. Kane F.A.M. Brown. Aust P Gilling 54 votes 51 votes 30 votes 28 votes 18 votes

21

Gilling would be next excluded. Assuming these go 12 to A.L.P. and 6 to Lib-cp. The score would now be A.L.P. Westerway Lib-CP Baume D.L.P. Kane F.A.M. Brown. 63 votes 60 votes 30 votes 28 votes

Brown would be next excluded. 6 have come from donkey vote, these would go to D.L.P. 2 were from Group A following how to vote instructions, these would go to Lib-CP. Assuming the 20 others go 15 to Lib-C and 5 to A.L.P. The score would now be Lib-CP Baume A.L.P. Westerway D.L.P. Kane 77 votes 68 votes 36 votes

Kane would be next excluded. 6 have come from the donkey vote, these would go to the A.L.P. Assuming of the 30 left, 25 go to the Lib-Cp and 5 go to the A.L.P., the score would now be Lib-CP Baume A.L.P. Westerway 102 votes 79 votes

Baume has the quota 91 he is elected to the tenth senate seat.

C. Counting for Local Government Council Elections In this case we are to elect a number of representatives for the one ward, rather than just one representative for each ward. In 1974, in some cases (Kiama for instance) the preferential system was used, rather than the proportional system (the Federal Senate system is the proportional system), to determine the successful candidates. The counting of the votes to determine the first representative elected is the same as for the House of Representatives and the State Legislative Assembly election. To determine who else is elected, all the votes of the candidate already elected have to be used in the second count. To be elected, a candidate has to receive the absolute majority of the vote.

Our Democracy

22

Depending on how many representatives are to be elected from the one vote cast, showing the voter's preferences for the candidates, the preferences of a candidate already elected may be used time and again to determine the full composition of the representation for a ward. Since 1991, it has been open to Councils to decide sizes of wards, how many people represent wards, and whether the preferential or proportional method of counting is conducted. In the preferential option, compared to the proportional option, with a very strong lead candidate and very tight following of how-to-vote cards, a very distorted, and totally unrepresentative group or bloc can get voted in.

D. Changes since 1974: optional provisions and above and below the line designations for multiple elections from the one ballot As noted, since 1974 there have been alterations to the electoral laws, and to how people are represented on ballot papers, and whether there are preferences to follow when counting the vote. Where there is optional preferential voting and counting for a single person seat, the voter can choose how many times they want their vote taken into account, and so how they separate, by preference, the different candidates. In the NSW Legislative Assembly election, in 2011, there is optional preferential voting and counting. The voter fills in as many of those preferences as they wish to indicate, and the returning officer ensures that the preferences on the ballot paper, which the voter filled in, are followed, until that vote is exhausted and not used any further, or until it is used to count towards one or other of the final two candidates contesting the seat. As noted previously, an optional preferential voting count can become a first-past-the-post system, if all voters only register one preference. In the NSW Legislative Council election, in 2011, there is optional proportional voting and counting. Here, to simplify both voting and counting, the instructions usually followed are to vote for one group, above the line. A voter can choose to allocate preferences, and must show preferences for at least 15 candidates if voting below the line. The allocation of votes to candidates follows the process noted above: if a group receives more than the quota, the top candidate is elected, and surplus votes are passed down to lower positions on the group ticket. Now, at the last stages of the election, when the final votes are needed to be used to determine the successful candidate, candidates with least votes are excluded, and the preferences, if any, are distributed to candidates still in the race. If, when all preferences have been allocated, there are still vacancies to fill, the remaining candidate/s, whether associated with a group or not, who have the largest numbers of active votes will be elected to fill the positions still vacant.

Our Democracy 3c. The Electoral System Some Recommendations

23

It should be realised, by any person wanting to cast an intelligent and responsible vote, that regardless of what system is being used to count the votes, the most significant stand that you can take with your vote is to cast a vote which shows, as clearly as you can, your exact preference between each candidate standing. It is best to do this regardless of any how-to-vote advice given, since this is often given irresponsibly, and it is best not to get into the trap of thinking about organising a successful pattern of preferences. Regardless of how-to-vote advice, regardless of party statements or candidate statements that "they are giving their preferences to so-and-so", the electoral officer is required to decide who wins the election ON THE BASIS OF HOW EACH INDIVIDUAL BALLOT PAPER IS MARKED, and your ballot paper is marked by you and no-one else. If a person fills out their ballot paper following how-to-vote advice, then that ballot-paper is dealt with according to that order of preferences. No candidate can tell the electoral officer what to do. The voter alone tells the electoral officer what to do. If the voter decides to tell the electoral officer to do what the party or candidate says to do, by following the party's how-to-vote instructions when filling out his ballot-paper, then again it must be clear that it is the voter who tells the electoral officer. The best support a voter can give any candidate is to give that candidate the number 1 vote. What every voter should then also realise is, that if the candidate of their first choice is not elected, then their vote may still be used to find out which of the major contenders is elected. The other preferences that the voter may award to other candidates cannot help the candidate of their first choice get in at all, but these other preferences will be significant to the other candidates, as they will either help or hinder one of those candidates to get in, when these preferences are used to determine the winner and loser. 3d. Power in a Democracy ... There are three levels of elected government in our present democracy. These are: Federal Government, State Government and Local Government. Federal Government has its powers and responsibilities clearly defined by the Federal Constitution, agreed to by all the States in 1901 and which has been amended from time to time since then. Local Government has its powers and responsibilities clearly defined by the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1991, as amended from time to time by the N.S.W. State Government. State Government, by comparison, has a very flexible constitution, being able to "legislate for the peace, welfare and good government of the State in all matters not specifically reserved to the commonwealth". (Encyc.Britt.)

Our Democracy

24

Just as when we looked earlier at the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a democracy, we found that some rights depended on ability to pay, in the case of the State Government the execution of its wide responsibilities is most times limited by the funds that it can extract from the Federal Government (given the current tax reimbursement agreement), and how much else it can raise from other taxes and charges. But irrespective of the funds that every level of government is prepared to raise, the power of every level of government is still limited by what the individual is prepared to accede to that government. Democratic power only resides in the legislative body while every citizen accepts the rule of that legislative body and its law. Rebellion, be it in the form of individual disobedience, or group civil disobedience, reinforces the fact that power always lies with each one of us individually. The exercise of that power depends on our individual responsibility. Individual disobedience usually has only a small effect on the maintenance of order in the general community. (Note: conscientious objectors to conscription, bank robbers who are successful, individual anti-social snipers) However, because of the nature of the interdependence of our community, disobedience by small groups can have much greater repercussions on the maintenance of order in our community. (Note (1974 issues): The I.R.A., the Symbionese Liberation Army, Ulster unionists, officers of the electricity commission) While individual disobedience can be entirely irrational, and unpredictable (e.g. a sniper attack can come at any time, in any place, without any reason), the opportunity for group disobedience depends on the establishment of single-mindedness in the group. This establishment of single-mindedness involves communicating to and convincing the whole group of the merit of certain action. If there is not good reason for disobedience in a generally conservative community (and most communities are generally conservative) then group disobedience is rejected as being appropriate action. This then places greater responsibility on the groups seen to be in control. These must ensure that "good reasons for disobedience" do not occur. If the controlling body does not discharge its responsibility properly, then it invites anarchy in the community. There can be no preventing the eruption of anarchy, but whether the anarchy receives widespread support or whether it receives widespread condemnation, depends on whether the general community can also be convinced of the rightness of the cause and the real failure of the

Our Democracy responsibility of the properly constituted body to discharge its obligations in the matter producing the need for revolt.

25

In the event of anarchy being unreasonable, the widespread reaction in the community gives the responsible body whatever power is needed to subdue these anarchic members of the community. 3e. Law Enforcement in a Democracy In our democracy, formulated law serves merely to patch the holes in a leaky dam: to regulate oppression and opportunism. In any democracy the strength of the democracy depends on the reliance that we can place on the individual to discharge his personal responsibility. In our democracy, if we cannot rely on our local newsagent to be responsible about the material displayed in the local newsagency for the full range of people that comes into the shop to purchase the available wares, then we are in a very sore predicament. Our predicament arises because the only answer we appear to have to this, is to insist that our neighbourhood sergeant exercises what ought to be the newsagent's responsibility, by enforcing a prescriptive law that permits such and such and prohibits such and such. This becomes compounded: for how then can we be .sure that this same sergeant will exercise personal responsibility in a policing duty when it comes to controlling any baser instincts when questioning an objectionable prisoner, for example? As soon as our society starts to rely on outside authority to guard us from our weaknesses, we give more power and responsibility to that body than it should have, and we take away from ourselves the power and responsibility that we should individually exercise. The end result of this is subservience to authority and reliance on authority to make our decisions, for us. This was judged, at Nuremberg, to be an inappropriate relationship in a civilisation which has had its humanity enlightened by the love of Christ. The need for any sort of human rights bill, considering the alternative advantages of persisting with unlegislated rights and responsibilities as they exist, in common law at present, is questionable. Protection of rights that have not needed protection till the time of litigation can be established readily by precedent, providing the judiciary is prepared to accept this responsibility.

Our Democracy 3f. Liberalisation of the Law Today ...

26

The pressure for liberalisation of the law today can be seen to have three important aspects. These are: (1) by liberalising the law we hand back responsibility for behaviour to the individual, rather than having it and leaving it with some institutionalised organisation (2) by liberalising the law we can relieve the oppression of conformity to a single pattern of behaviour, releasing the oppression of some minorities within the community. (3) by liberalising the law we accede to the general unwillingness (in individual aril institutional life) to accept any responsibility at all, particularly refusing to accept the responsibility for past actions or corporate actions Liberalisation of the law can appear to be justified in that (1) it can be seen as a step to counter and reduce corruption and the opportunity for corruption in the law enforcement officers. (2) it can be seen as a step to counter civil disobedience that may arise because of the reluctance of the community in general to accept the harshness of the law, (3) it can be seen as a way out of the problem of enforcing the law when large numbers of people are disobeying the law. More people have to be trained in investigatory and enforcement procedures to try and cope with the increased incidence of the breaking of laws The opportunity and incidence of corruption of the law enforcing body becomes greater. The inequity between these 'caught' and those who 'escape' detection is not lost on the general community, either. (4) it acknowledges that the oppression of minorities is no longer acceptable in a pluralist society. (5) it can be seen as a necessary step to reduce the power and need for the bureaucratic structures typifying our present way of life, and in giving back power to the individual makes his corporate contribution more meaningful and more valuable. The trap in liberalisation of the law lies in human nature. Present day philosophies of life have led to the consideration of the rightness of an action depends on the circumstances surrounding the action: there is no absolute right and wrong. This philosophy, in its positive stances can demand very deep individual responsibility. On its negative side the individual is considered to be responsible for self only, and self alone. When our human nature has a habit of taking what it wants and forgetting the rest, we get the following result: The fault or responsibility for a sexually transmitted disease (STD) lies with the transmitter: If I catch STD then it is the responsibility of the person who had it with whom I had intercourse. If I transmit STD to someone else, then I am responsible for that person's getting STD The antithesis: the fault or responsibility for STD always lies with the recipient: If I catch STD from someone then it's my fault for having had intercourse with them. If I transmit STD to another, then that is the other's responsibility since that person had intercourse with me. The natural tendency in human nature is to shift the blame: If I catch STD then it's the other person's fault because they had it first. If I transmit STD it's the other person's problem, since they chose to have intercourse with me.

Our Democracy

27

Whereas when we individually accept our responsibility for all that we do, we are placed in the position: If I contract STD it is my fault as I was the one having intercourse. If I transmit STD, it is my responsibility as I was the one having intercourse. When laws are liberalised each and every one of us is given the opportunity to reject responsibility. The consequence of this is that the value of another person then comes to lie only in how useful that person is to me. Another person has no responsibility to discharge with respect to their relationship with me. Likewise I have no responsibility to discharge towards that person. It's up to that person to look after themself, I'll look after myself. With law liberalised, neither of us has any recourse to an outside body to arbitrate in the event of either one of us failing to reciprocate mutual responsibilities.