Andrew Leigh pushes for 5 x 5

Proboscus said :

If this model gets the go ahead, then the ACT will perennially have a Labor government because the Greens will win a few more seats in the Legislative Assembly and then they will align themselves with the ALP.

This is not the case. The quota for election in each electorate depends on the number of members – in a seven member electorate (eg. the current Molonglo), the quota is 12.5%; in a five member electorate (as in the 5×5 proposal), the quota is 16.7%.

This means that it’s harder for the Greens (and the other minor parties/independents) to get elected in 5 member electorates. At the most recent election, the Greens’ only successful candidate was elected in the seven-member electorate.

damien haas said :

I’d like 25 electorates and 25 members. There are occasionally some very lazy MLA’s that coast in on leader quota overflow. Some personal accountability would aid their motivation, resulting in a better outcome for constituents.

That doesn’t stand scrutiny Damien. Single member electorates lead to appalling governance when coupled with a single-house parliament. You kiss goodbye to all accountability for the entire term because there are no checks and balances. Majority single house government was hopeless under Peter Beattie and Anna Bligh, is even more so under Campbell Newman.

We have an Assembly size that suited the ACT years ago for a population half the size. I want good governance, and that means acceptable workloads. I lean the 5×5 model, even though I know it will be very hard for Greens to ever get more than one MLA in a seat. The balance is that ther electorate size is more reasonable to serve and be across the issues of, more affordable to campaign in, and more answerable to specific geographic communities.

3×7 leaves the electorates so large that they continue to only be reasonable for parties to campaign in, except for independent candidates who are well cashed up, which *may* itself point to them being less desirable.

p1 said :

Alderney said :

Personally, I’d go for 25 single member electorates and let the prospective MsLA have a closer, more personal affinity with the electors.

Really? I was leaning the other way – 1000 twenty member electorates, and we hold the Assembly meeting in Bruce Stadium at half time during Brumbies matches.

That`s absurd. It should be at Manuka under the new lights.

damien haas said :

I’d like 25 electorates and 25 members. There are occasionally some very lazy MLA’s that coast in on leader quota overflow. Some personal accountability would aid their motivation, resulting in a better outcome for constituents.

Hare Clarke is the only way to get proportional representation in the ACT – the CT had an article on election day last year that indicated that for the last 2 elections, using 17 single seat electorates would’ve resulted in 15 Labor Party candidates being elected. That’s not representative, nor is it particularly good for democracy (see: Newman’s reign of terror in Qld).

johnboy said :

The lazy ones rarely get re-elected when younger and hungrier candidates come forward.

Hare Clark in the ACT has 30% turnover.

Seems like a sensible approach not unlike appointing two additional judges.If we are prepared to allocate money for additional members then there is absolutely no reason not to do the same for the judiciary.

Ben_Dover said :

It’s bad enough with 17 of the buggers spending our money hand over fist. Think of what carnage 25 will impose on us.

There, fixed it for you.

Mixed Proportional Representation!!!

As in NZ, Germany

Many small electorates, could be single member or multi member, and then an ‘overflow’ that is allocated to make sure the Assembly represents the Territory wide vote.

Best of both worlds.

It’s bad enough with 17 of the buggers spending our money hand over fist. Think of what carnage 25 could impose on us.

25 members, names to be drawn from the ACT electoral roll at random. Like jury duty, but for three years…

Proboscus said :

If this model gets the go ahead, then the ACT will perennially have a Labor government because the Greens will win a few more seats in the Legislative Assembly and then they will align themselves with the ALP.

No, not really.

watto23 said :

Zed jumping probably does more harm to local liberals than a 5×5 system would do.

I dunno, I wouldn’t say that. I might vote for them now that Zed’s out of the picture.

I’d like 25 electorates and 25 members. There are occasionally some very lazy MLA’s that coast in on leader quota overflow. Some personal accountability would aid their motivation, resulting in a better outcome for constituents.

johnboy said :

How terrible that the numbers in the assembly should represent the community!

Libs took three of five in Brindabella last year. Your analysis doesn’t bear up to reality.

Reality has a left-wing bias and should be ignored in favour of talkback radio.

Alderney said :

Personally, I’d go for 25 single member electorates and let the prospective MsLA have a closer, more personal affinity with the electors.

Really? I was leaning the other way – 1000 twenty member electorates, and we hold the Assembly meeting in Bruce Stadium at half time during Brumbies matches.

Andrew,

You have not mentioned the cost of the increase in MLA’s.
Also you have made no reference to the reduction of sitting days.

I think the good Doctor has been a little muddled with his figures.

He states that a 25 member assembly would equate to a MLA per 12 931 persons, but there are only 256 702 electors on the roll at the last election therefore, a 25 member assembly will return 1 MLA to each 10 268 electors.

Personally, I’d go for 25 single member electorates and let the prospective MsLA have a closer, more personal affinity with the electors.

@Proboscus – The only setup that wouldn’t guarantee Labor government would be to massively gerrymander the electorates. It doesn’t matter if the electorates have 5, 7 or 9 members, the chances are that a Labor/Greens combination will be elected.

Proboscus said :

If this model gets the go ahead, then the ACT will perennially have a Labor government because the Greens will win a few more seats in the Legislative Assembly and then they will align themselves with the ALP.

More of an issue of quality independents and other parties.
Admittedlly the greens get more support than the extreme conservative parties, but thats the nature of society at the moment.

Zed jumping probably does more harm to local liberals than a 5×5 system would do.

If this model gets the go ahead, then the ACT will perennially have a Labor government because the Greens will win a few more seats in the Legislative Assembly and then they will align themselves with the ALP.