Unconstitutional?

While composing a submission to the Senate's Electoral Reform (Disclosure and Funding) Inquiry I found that Australia's dominant electoral system, based on the 1918 Commonwealth Election Act, is unconstitutional.

Sections 7 and 24 state that in the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, MPs are to be chosen by the people.

In reality they are not.

The single-member electoral district system, combined with preferential voting, grossly benefits the major parties.

Typically between five and 12 candidates present themselves for a seat in a federal election. Only one will be elected after the distribution of preferences.

In most cases the successful major party candidate receives around 40 per cent of the primary vote and then relies on preferences of the others.

Therefore they are clearly not directly chosen.

Of course they are also pre-selected or appointed by the political parties, bodies ignored in the Constitution.

In the Senate, the Hare-Clark system of PR (introduced in 1949) gives minor parties and Independents a better chance but most Senators are not directly elected either.

The major parties appoint their listed candidates and bank on the voters to follow their How-to-Vote cards, voting 96 per cent "above the line" for a Group Voting ticket (judged not unconstitutional in 1984 by one High Court judge).

The letter and intent of the Constitution are thereby seriously distorted and this is aggravated by compulsory voting which ensures that those many who want to avoid participating in this undemocratic exercise have to choose between ALP and Coalition or vote informally.

A second Electoral Reform Inquiry is about to happen.

Electoral and constitutional reform in this area is long overdue.

If direct election is impractical then change the Constitution and find a system that is both democratic and practical.

Australia has neither.

Klaas Woldring, Pearl Beach