Labor-led South Australia has recently announced some "world-leading" draft legislation which would ban political donations and instead give government money to political parties to do their campaigning. Although there seems to be widespread public support for what seems like a levelling of the playing field, it's our view that it is yet another effort to sabotage democracy by the same people who voted to triple the membership requirements for establishing federal parties.
The Labor Party are the same people establishing a Ministry of Truth; and their reluctant promise to create a National Anti-Corruption Commission has resulted in a commission which doesn't actually do anything.
What follows is our yourSAy submission about the Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Bill 2024.
By banning political donations, it looks like something that would level the playing field − it looks like something that would make our democracy more democratic, but really, voters should be alarmed at what’s to come.
In an ideal democracy, voters would be informed and would be engaging in the process. We would have plenty of ideas being debated and therefore, a variety of candidates pitching such ideas.
Unfortunately, the voters aren’t engaging − they’re more likely to follow US politics than what’s happening in their actual seat. If we say that there is too much money being spent, then does it follow that this money is what’s making the voters disengaged?
We’re in an unfortunate situation where the widespread political ads are thankfully managing to ensure that by the time the winner of an election is announced, voters might actually recognise this candidate’s name.
When parties spend all this money on advertising, look at what the ads actually say − it’s not much. Its most important function is clearly just to say “here is our candidate. They exist.”
A billboard claiming that Roshena Campbell would be a “strong voice”. Source: ABC.
Given that the most prolific political advertising is so banal, it’s hard to imagine a world where less money is spent advertising political parties, less prevalence is given to political ideas, and yet for whatever reason, voters decide to step up and become more politically engaged.
Nobody is asking for a ban on boring ads, so there is no mandate to cap the ability to run such ads.
It’s indeed a massive problem that we don’t have fair elections − that our elections are not a true contest of ideas. When candidates throw their hat in the ring, we have the ABC and even Wikipedia reducing everything to a 2-party contest, betting on winners and talking only about them; as though the other candidates don’t even exist, let alone deserve a vote.
In this story for the 7:30 Report, we twice hear the phrase “both parties” and indeed, only 2 of the 5 candidates are discussed. A man who is never introduced ends up describing it as a “seminal moment” when someone as qualified as Roshena Campbell was preselected for the Liberal Party − who would say this besides a Liberal Party staffer? Why did the report similarly fail to disclose that Ms Campbell’s husband is a prominent news figure and a regular guest on ABC Insiders?
These ideas flow around the zeitgeist − podcasts and other TV channels pick up on this sentiment and they too reduce the contest to a two-horse race.
The biggest disadvantage for small parties is the herd mentality amongst voters, “if everyone else doesn’t think this party is going to win, then what’s the point of me finding out about them and maybe voting for them?”
With preferential voting, it can be useful to vote for such a party, even if they don’t win. It gives a signal loud and clear to the eventual winners and to the electorate that this party has some ideas worth adopting. Anyone who voted for this party still gets their second preference counted at full strength; their vote is never wasted.
Votes flowing through reallocation and almost resulting in an underdog purple victory− for more of an explanation, see our home page.
If this electoral amendment bill really wanted to make all parties just as prominent, then rather than putting caps in place, it could be lifting up all contenders − we could ensure that voters are familiar with the values and the policies of all candidates.
What if we distributed campaign material in the mail? Even if it was only sent to people receiving postal votes.
What if we didn’t have such a lengthy pre-polling period? Minor parties struggle to staff these booths from 8am − 6pm for 2 weeks.
What if we displayed campaign material in the booth itself? This would be such an effective way to ensure that voters get some exposure to all the candidates.
In France, the media joins in too, ensuring that all candidates get some exposure.
It’s really a sad state of affairs where parties can increase their vote by turning up at a booth and giving a flyer to someone just one minute before they cast their vote − why wasn’t this person able to spend even 5 minutes researching which candidate is best for them? There’s no point blaming the voter, we need a system that empowers people to make sensible decisions that improve their future − after all, it’s a shared future for the rest of us too.
We need to be building a system that’s resilient to despots and decay.
This SA Electoral Reform bill purports to be creating a level playing field, but it’s lifting this field up off the ground, increasing the registration requirement of minor parties from 200 to 500. We saw federally that when the registration requirement increased, many parties folded.
We also need to be mindful of the fact that by making parties solely dependent on the government for their electoral funding, it’s easy to imagine a scenario where the funding is reduced and the minor parties end up in a worse situation than they are now, unable to get the word out about any of their policies or their existence. The incumbents don’t suffer from this problem − the easiest decision for voters is to keep things the same, and return the incumbents to power.
As described by Acemoglu and Robinson in Why Nations Fail, it’s a common pattern to make competition difficult and to ingrain some group as rulers for life. Such behaviour always leads to stagnation and suffering.
Voters therefore need to have the alarm bells going berserk in their heads any time they hear about extra restrictions being imposed on who can compete − this is a reliable way to preserve the ruling class.
There are better, obvious ways outlined which would increase the competition at elections. Fusion urges the South Australian government to take a step towards real democracy and to the long-term prosperity which would ensue.
PS, if it wasn't obvious, we really need your donations to keep up our fight − would you please toss in a few bucks for the cause? Donate