German Greens would now win 24%

One reason why the German Greens can do so well lies in the infinitely fairer German voting system, which we would do well to adopt. If we had the German system here, there would now be 42 Greens in a House of 300 seats. Explanation follows.

At federal level, Germans elect an equivalent to our House of Representatives, the Bundestag. It has one chamber. A Federal Council, the Bundesrat, represents the regions; its members are not elected by voters but delegated by the governments of the 16 federal states in proportion to their populations.

There are 299 electorates (Bundestagswahlkreise) in Germany. But the Bundestag (House of Representatives) has twice that number of MPs,598, elected for a four-year term.

Half of the members (299) are elected first-past-the-post in single-seat constituencies, the other 299 are allocated from statewide party lists to achieve a proportional distribution – a fair count of party votes across the nation.

You vote once for a constituency representative (your “local MP” in our system) and a second time for a party; the lists are used to make the party balances match the distribution of second votes.

Translation: Because of the work he/she is doing, I like a local candidate who happens not to be in my preferred party, but I want him/her to have the local seat. Then I can vote as well for my preferred party. So I get the best of both worlds, the local person I know and like in my area and the party I want running the overall show. Democracy.

In The Greens case, if they get 24% of the votes cast nationwide, they get 24% of 598 seats, plus any first-past-the-posts they may pick up, which is unlikely. In other words, The Greens get into parliament without winning a single seat directly, as long as they (or anyone else) win at least 5%. Democracy.

Theoretically applying that to our House of Representatives: Firstly, it would have to have 300 seats. 150 would be elected first-past-the-post, as now, for your "local member". The other 150 would be distributed according to votes for parties. In August, The Greens scored 14% across Australia. 14% of 300 seats is 42 seats - which would accurately reflect the mood of the nation. What we've got is just one Greens MP, Adam Bandt in Melbourne. Rotten system flying in the face of what 14% of Australian voters want.

Much like our Senate scrutinizes and can block House of Reps legislation, so can and does the German Bundesrat (Federal Council). Through it, the 16 German states can input on national laws.

Let me compare with our recent election.

I had five choices for Wide Bay in Queensland, which covers part of the Sunshine Coast.

I’ll call them John Smith, Bill Brown, Joe Bloggs, Gwen Anywoman and Mary Poppins.

I like John Smith but can’t for the life of me abide any of the other four because they’re all ratbags. But I am forced to number ratbags to validate my choice of John Smith. Undemocratic. Dictatorial.

Democracy is not about choosing “second-bests”. My single “1” should count as my choice and I should have the option of numbering through to 5 (or whatever) if I think the other four are worth numbering.

In Germany voting is voluntary.

That leaves everyone the chance to show pollies their contempt of them by not voting at all.

By being forced to vote, we are robbed of our free choice to have anything to do with politics or to shun it.

Why should I be forced to a go to a booth when I abhor the entire system? (I don’t, I’m being theoretical here, or I wouldn’t be bothering to write.)

Compulsory voting is deeply dictatorial and paternalistic.

Put another way: it gives the pollies a legitimacy they might not earn. It’s make-believe democracy.

I’d like someone to argue their conviction that compulsory voting is moral, democratic and necessary. Maybe you can convince me....

Let me turn to our Senate voting.

Imagine yourself back in the tight space of a voting booth.

You’ve gone there with a name in mind for the Senate – John Smith, who belongs to no party.

His name is buried somewhere among dozens of others – in my case 60+.

I want Smith because I’ve liked his local work.

I put a “1” by his name.

I’ve never heard of the other 60-odd people.

So what do you do?

My guess is most people just number down the list, catching all sorts of ratbags in the process. Or they jump all over the list for fun, because it makes no difference to the outcome they want.

Sooooo easy to make a numbering mistake. I have though I rate myself as half-way intelligent. If we make a numbering mistake, we can ask for another ballot, right? But who would?

We hand in our flawed ballot.

We’ve wasted our vote. We’ve unintentionally denied Smith our vote because the ballot system is crap. Not fair to the voter, not fair to John Smith. Senseless.

Or is it?

Senseless to voters, but not the pollies.

It robs independents of chances.

It forces me as a voter to vote for a party (above the line) if I want my vote to make any sense at all. Precisely what the parties want. Anything to keep Independents out. Undemocratic.

Rewinding the tape:

Below the line I put my “1” beside John Smith and don’t have to care a bean about the dozens of others. My “1” counts because it is a genuine expression of my will.

Fair. Democratic. Mature. Anathema to the parties.