Australia With Proportional Representation

WI Australia has proportional representation as its electoral system? This means both State and Federal levels, although I am thinking of particularly Federal politics. This is instead of the OTL preferential single member system.

I am also particularly interested in this ATL to have the change adopted fairly earlier on say no later than 1920, before the current party system became too solidified.

So instead of having 150 single-member electorates, there would instead be for instance 15 electorates electing 10 members each, via the single transferable vote proportional representation.

What POD would be required for this change to get support for it to be implemented?

Also how would it affect Australian politics? I don't think it's just sufficient to say that the minor parties we currently have, ie The Greens would be more powerful, as the whole two party system may not have developed in the first place.

Also how would it affect Australian political culture. It has been said that proportional representation promotes 'consensus democracy' based on consensual coalition building, whereas single member systems promote adversarial 'majoritarian democracy'.
 
The Senate, and Tasmaina, don't strike me a shining lights in Australian Government. I personally prefer the strong Government that our system provides, with the safety net of preferences. A lot of people around the world with an interest in this sort of thing like our system just the way it is.
 
The Senate, and Tasmaina, don't strike me a shining lights in Australian Government. I personally prefer the strong Government that our system provides, with the safety net of preferences. A lot of people around the world with an interest in this sort of thing like our system just the way it is.

I agree that I prefer the single-member system, but I just thought it would an interesting ATL.

Also I think that the workabilty of PR systems depends on the examples. For instance Italy is an example of the pitfalls of PR, however Sweden is probably by anyoné's measure and exemplar of stable consensus government.
 
Are we consensus people?

Is New Zealand?

All PR systems usually do is define the parties a little more tightly, and then have them group together anyway in a coalition. Italy, which is always & mistakenly mentioned, has other problems.


So in Australia the Coalition might consist of the Nationals, the Conservatives, the Liberals, and so forth—the party would break up into somewhat more tightly defined ideologies, and then group back together anyway.

Or it might be like New Zealand: a couple new minor parties, and the two main parties remain dominant.
 
Give me the Tasmanian multiple member districts anytime. It's a lot closer in representing in parliament a truer cross-section of the political mindset of the Australian People than is the current situation. It won't break the two-party structure, over all, but a few of the smaller parties will get some representation in the Lower House. It may even make governments more accountable, which in a democracy is what it should be all about.
 
Is New Zealand?

All PR systems usually do is define the parties a little more tightly, and then have them group together anyway in a coalition. Italy, which is always & mistakenly mentioned, has other problems.


So in Australia the Coalition might consist of the Nationals, the Conservatives, the Liberals, and so forth—the party would break up into somewhat more tightly defined ideologies, and then group back together anyway.

Or it might be like New Zealand: a couple new minor parties, and the two main parties remain dominant.

I'm don't know that much about the case of Italy, perhaps you could tell me a bit more.

Yes it is true that really all that happens it that the parties break up and then group back together in coalitions. However, what I mean is that whereas predominately two-party competition promotes a very adversarial system (as each party knows that they can form a government on their own), whereas multi-party competition promotes a consensual system (as all significant parties could potentially be in coalition together, they are less likely to oppose for the pure sake of opposing).

Also whilst PR system can in some cases lead to very unstable government, more often than not they actually lead to extremely stable government, which is characterised as a 'dominant-party system'. For instance due to the plethora of small parties they produce, any single party that can be significantly larger and more cohesive than the others can position itself as the main coalition party virtually indefinitely.

Often this tends to be a left-wing party, as despite all their internal factions and tendencies, they seem better able to remain as a single party. However there usually tends to be a plethora of right-wing parties. This leads to a situation where the left-wing party is almost permanently in power either by itself (which is rare) or more commonly in coalition with one of the more moderate right-wing parties.

For instance in Australia if PR had been in place since Federation I suggest that the Protectionist and Free Traders would never have united into a single party, but that the ALP would still have been a cohesive unit.
 
I would be very happy if this occured as I am myself a Australian Greens supporter..

from wikipedia said:
Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections. Under this system, voters number the candidates on the ballot paper in the order of their preference. The preferential system was introduced in 1918, in response to the rise of the Country Party, a party representing small farmers. The Country Party split the anti-Labor vote in conservative country areas, allowing Labor candidates to win on a minority vote. The conservative government of Billy Hughes introduced preferential voting as a means of allowing competition between the two conservative parties without putting seats at risk. It was first used at the Corangamite by-election on 14 December 1918 [4]. It had previously been introduced as a result of the work of Thomas Hare and Andrew Inglis Clark in the Tasmanian House of Assembly.

So to have preferential voting not take place and proportional voting to replace it you would need a POD before 1918.

A few possibilites do come to mind:
  • A Labor split alongside the rise of the Country Party
  • No rise of the Country Party OR a later rise of the party
  • Multiple small parties all appearing at once (this occurs most likely in the aftermath of a national defeat.... convienent that this happens in 1918)
  • A diffrence in opinions in the cabinet ministry and the government-at-large.
 
I'm don't know that much about the case of Italy, perhaps you could tell me a bit more.

A couple system things: secret balloting by MPs, and previously a pure list PR system. (Pure list PR sucks, in short, and nobody ever proposes using it in modern electoral reform.)

A couple historical things: north/south Italy & Prime Ministerial power.

Yes it is true that really all that happens it that the parties break up and then group back together in coalitions. However, what I mean is that whereas predominately two-party competition promotes a very adversarial system (as each party knows that they can form a government on their own), whereas multi-party competition promotes a consensual system (as all significant parties could potentially be in coalition together, they are less likely to oppose for the pure sake of opposing).

Ah, yeah sure that's a supposed benefit. In practice? To a limited extent, but it's quite unlikely in Westminster descended countries. European PR countries have a very different background—in the Australian (or Canadian, or British) context New Zealand is very much the central example.

What it boils down is that governments are often unable to do anything bold, but in return smaller parties get representation, a wider spectrum of political views are on display, and the real and deep voter over/under representation is eliminated (see Canada, 1993, for an extreme example: with 16% of the vote the Progressive Conservatives 2 out of 301 seats).

Despite claims, you're really not going to see much in the way of consensus politics. What you will see it less name-calling by similar ideological parties (i.e. in Canada the the NDP and Liberals might be nicer to each other, as without a resurgence of Radical Toryism the NDP are quite unlikely to ally with the Conservatives).

Also whilst PR system can in some cases lead to very unstable government, more often than not they actually lead to extremely stable government, which is characterised as a 'dominant-party system'. For instance due to the plethora of small parties they produce, any single party that can be significantly larger and more cohesive than the others can position itself as the main coalition party virtually indefinitely.

Stability, yes, as Italy & Israel are atypical examples, but not the dominant party system in Westminster descended systems / Commonwealth countries. As with New Zealand I'd expect to see a broad left and right coalition with a dominant party in each.

Canada and the UK, incidentally, would wind up pretty odd given the UK's Liberal Democrats and Canada's NDP & BQ parties. I'd expect smaller regional parties in Canada, and perhaps 2-3 parties out of the existing UK parties.

In Australia, though, the situation would be a little simpler—I'd expect no more than two parties out of the Liberals and Labor, and the Nationals would probably remain coherent.

Often this tends to be a left-wing party, as despite all their internal factions and tendencies, they seem better able to remain as a single party. However there usually tends to be a plethora of right-wing parties. This leads to a situation where the left-wing party is almost permanently in power either by itself (which is rare) or more commonly in coalition with one of the more moderate right-wing parties.

I'd argue that's more due to the unpopularity of neo-liberalism in Europe (as neo-liberalism has been more or less the right's defining characteristic since the 80s abandoning older Disraeli/Burkean conservatism) and would not expect such a thing normally.

It does tend to moderate even more the parties, swinging them both to the centre, but that's not always a good thing. Being bold in handling Canada's economic situation by the Liberals in post '93 Canada would have been very hard if they relied on the NDP, likewise the Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand would probably have been unable to do the required neo-liberal reforms of NZ before economic collapse (of course the boldness of the Fourth Labour Government's Roger Douglas and the following National government are the key reasons NZ brought in PR).

What PR does do is leave a broader ideological canvas…*albeit mostly in small parties as the big "dominant" ones remain a fairly broad church.
 
Top