Adelaide City Council currently chooses its Lord Mayor and Councillors in five separate elections: one for Lord Mayor; one for 5 Area Councillors; and three ward elections electing 2 Ward Councillors each.
Is this system fair? Are all plutocrats treated equally?
Councillor Election
Consider the influence of the following voters in the election of councillors:
Voter A – Net worth $500,000
Owns, with the bank, two small rental properties in two different wards and lives with his parents in the third ward.
Number of Votes = 5 (1 Mayoral; 1 Area Councillor; 3 Ward Councillors)
Voter B – Net worth $10 million
Owns two factories in different wards and lives on Kangaroo Island
Number of Votes = 4 (1 Mayoral; 1 Area Councillor; 2 Ward Councillors)
Voter C – Net worth $100 million
Owns three office blocks in the central business district and lives in the penthouse of one of them.
Number of Votes = 3 (1 Mayoral; 1 Area Councillor; 1 Ward Councillor)
Is that fair?
No, it is seriously undemocratic. Multiple voting went out in the nineteenth century. In a democracy, all plutocrats, and indeed all voters, should be treated equally.
Solution
Abolish all wards and elect all the Councillors as Area Councillors; every voter then gets one vote for Mayor and one vote for the Councillors.
Advantages
- Every voter is treated equally.
- Every Councillor has the same responsibilities. It is worth noting the following extract from Adelaide City’s website, “The Lord Mayor and Councillors are elected by voters across the Adelaide City Council, and have a responsibility to the City as a whole.” The suggested electoral arrangement eliminates any potential conflict a Councillor may have between ward and city responsibilities.
- Councillors no longer need to decide which election they will run in.
Lord Mayoral Election
Adelaide City Council prevents candidates from running for both Lord Mayor and
Councillor positions. This has major disadvantages.
Consider the following scenarios.
Scenario 1
Two highly experienced candidates run for Lord Mayor. One will lose and his/her experience and expertise will be lost to the Council.
Scenario 2
The less popular party/group runs a dud as their Lord Mayoral candidate because they do not want a valued member of the group to lose. The result is that the dominant group wins an easy election and the voters are denied an honest choice.
Scenario 3
The less popular party/group runs a dud as their Lord Mayoral candidate but an unexpected change in voting patterns sees that candidate elected as Lord Mayor. Now the City has a dud as Lord Mayor and the services of the experienced losing candidate are lost to the city.
The voters of Adelaide City deserve to be able to choose between the best candidates the parties or groups can put up.
Solution:
No candidate should be elected Lord Mayor unless they are also elected as a councillor.
This should not be a problem as election for Lord Mayor would require over 50% of the vote and a quota for election as a Councillor, in a ward of ten or more, is less than 10%.
Furthermore, all groups would be comfortable in running the leaders of their teams – their most able and experienced candidates – as their Lord Mayoral candidates.