{"id":368,"date":"2014-08-27T22:36:40","date_gmt":"2014-08-27T12:36:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/electoralreformaustralia.org\/?p=368"},"modified":"2015-02-04T21:30:37","modified_gmt":"2015-02-04T11:30:37","slug":"occams-razor-some-reactions-to-the-submissions-to-the-jscem-interim-report-2014-and-why-we-need-an-independent-white-paper","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/electoralreformaustralia.org\/?p=368","title":{"rendered":"Occam\u2019s Razor: some reactions to the submissions to the JSCEM interim report 2014 and why we need an independent White Paper"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Stephen Lesslie (President, Electoral Reform Australia)<\/i><\/p>\n

Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora <\/i>[It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer] <\/i>\u2013 William of Ockham (c. 1287\u20131347)<\/i><\/p>\n

There is no perfect electoral system, but in reforming the Senate voting system we should keep Occam\u2019s Razor in mind.
\n<\/p>\n

For those who think fourteenth century philosophy is a bit dated, the twentieth century KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle works just as well.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

In 1948, Doc Evatt \u2013 with disastrous consequences \u2013 refused to listen to a sensible suggestion from Dame Edith Lyons and other Tasmanians in the House of Representatives that it was unnecessary for voters to number every square on a Senate ballot paper. Had Evatt simply asked his Labor caucus colleagues to fill in a mock Senate ballot paper, he would have realised the dire implications of his requirement for voters to number every square.<\/p>\n

The only other time Australians have had an opportunity to comment on Senate voting reform was in 1983 when Parliament again ignored sensible advice that their reforms would not work.<\/p>\n

Although this lack of foresight became blindingly obvious in 1995 with the election of the A Better Future For Our Children candidate to the NSW Legislative Council, it has still taken nearly twenty years for the Parliament to realise that they got it wrong.<\/p>\n

The 2014 interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) on the conduct of the 2013 election seems to indicate that the Parliament will get it wrong again. This time it will not be the fault \u2013 well, not fully \u2013 of the politicians because, judging by the submissions received by the JSCEM, most of the advice given by psephologists and lawyers is just plain wrong.<\/p>\n

A copy of the interim report can be found at: http:\/\/www.aph.gov.au\/Parliamentary_Business\/Committees\/Joint\/Electoral_Matters\/2013_General_Election\/Interim_Report<\/a><\/p>\n

Apart from a general agreement that group voting tickets must go, there is almost no consensus as to how the problem can be solved. Many commentators cannot even give a single suggestion but come up with alternative suggestions within the same submission. Hardly helpful to a Parliamentary Committee looking for answers.<\/p>\n

Even worse, none of the submissions cite any mathematical or academic study to support their recommendations which, much like Doc Evatt\u2019s conclusions in 1948, appear to be based solely on folklore and guesswork.<\/p>\n

To separate proportional representation facts from myths, the Government needs to commission a White Paper on the issue of Senate Reform. This committee should be chaired by a mathematician and not another lawyer. It would need to examine the necessity or otherwise of any form of forced preferencing, transfer values, and the method of counting a proportional representation ballot (Gregory, Meek, Wright, etc.).<\/p>\n

To demonstrate why such an independent White Paper is needed, Electoral Reform Australia offers some comments on a number of the submissions to the JSCEM.<\/p>\n