Upgrading our electoral systems to use the gold standard would deliver a more representative democracy:
- representatives (the parliament) that better reflect the views of voters;
- more stability, i.e. a small swing won’t result in a large change in their number of seats;
- less discrimination, i.e. parties can easily pre-select both male and female candidates; and
- better candidates, i.e. parties can pre-select both sitting (e.g. older) members and renewal (e.g. younger or different) candidates.
Representatives that better reflect the views of voters
Better represents the electorate: in 1-member districts, the winning candidate often attracts 51-60% of the vote (with preferences), meaning that 40-49% of the voters don’t have a representative that they voted for. In practice, the single elected member doesn’t represent these ‘opposition’ voters. In contrast, in 5-member districts more than 83% of voters contribute to electing representatives, with only 17% remaining ‘unrepresented’.
Majority of votes returns a majority of seats: in parliaments elected using 1-member districts it is possible (even common) for a party to win a majority of seats with less than 50% of the total vote. In contrast, in systems using 5-member districts it is highly unlikely for a party or coalition to win power with less than 50% of the total vote.
Better reflects support for political parties: when multi-member districts are used in conjunction with Robson Rotation, the outcome better reflects the usual high support for the largest political parties; because votes are spread more equally between the major party candidates which helps them stay in the count for longer. Of course, if a candidate from a minor party secures a quota they will be elected. The benefit of Robson Rotation for major parties occurs in the competition for the last seat, as several candidates seek to secure the final few transfers.
More stability
Prevents parties suffering a major loss of seats: in Queensland (with 1-member districts), minor negative swings have caused governing parties to suffer major losses of seats, including to cabinet ministers. In contrast, with 5-member districts, a minor negative swing would only result in a small loss of seats.
Apart from delivering more stability for parties, this also delivers more stability for voters.
Less discrimination
Ease of offering equal opportunity within parties: multi-member districts allow parties to offer equal numbers of male and female candidates, or at least one candidate from each gender. This enables parties to offer equal opportunity.
Better candidates
Flexibility to offer candidates from outside the party machine: multi-member districts allow major parties to take a risk and offer candidates from outside the party machine, e.g. people with real world experience.
Flexibility to offer both factions to the electorate: multi-member districts allow major parties to offer candidates from both (or multiple) factions. This enables parties to identify which policies or values have more support.
Flexibility to support renewal within parties: multi-member districts allow major parties to offer candidates that include sitting members as well as new candidates. This enables parties to manage renewal without disruption.