AUSTRALIA’S voting system is arguably one of the most unusual in the world. Like Singapore, the country makes voting compulsory. Unlike Singapore, however, it avoids the “first past the post” system in favour of preferential voting. Both electoral practices are far from typical.

Yet for decades, Australian national debate on the advantages and disadvantages of the system has been almost nonexistent.

Earlier this month, however, a discussion paper issued by the conservative state government of Queensland, questioning the wisdom of compulsory voting, changed all that. Indeed, the whole system is now being debated, including the way Australia implements its preferential voting system.

“There’s something fundamentally undemocratic about forcing people to vote,” argued Queensland National Party MP George Christensen.

Those who support compulsory voting, however, insist that it is a civic duty. It prevents extremist minorities from gaining power, and ensures that governments so elected are truly representative of the people they serve.

For many, the debate transcends partisan politics. One academic study recently concluded that under a voluntary system, Labor Party supporters would be more likely to opt out than other voters.

Given these results, it is to the credit of many of Labor’s opponents – notably Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull and Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce – that they have openly expressed their opposition to the change.

Indeed, the general feeling is that if voting was made voluntary, political parties would have to follow the practice in the United States, where rival parties spend more time and resources getting out the vote than on explaining their policies.

Australian democracy would also become, in Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s words, “the plaything of cashed-up interest groups”.

Politics may also become more extreme, with moderate voters avoiding participation. Studies show that those who do not identify with any particular party are less likely to vote under a voluntary system.

Opinion polls regularly indicate that 70 to 80 per cent of Australians support mandatory voting.

A proposal to make Australia’s preferential voting system optional, however, is more persuasive.

Instead of placing a cross or check mark beside the candidate of their choice, Australian voters are required to indicate their preference numerically. From number 1 (most desirable), the voter ranks all the different candidates to the least desirable.

If no candidate has a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the least is eliminated. The latter’s votes are then redistributed among the remaining candidates according to the second preferences indicated on the voting cards. This process continues until one candidate has a majority.

In this way, the winner will always be the candidate most preferred by the electorate. At the same time, however, smaller parties also get a voice. This is because the second preferences of their supporters can often determine the outcome.

The system was first introduced into Australia by Prime Minister Billy Hughes in the early 1920s, partly in order to ensure that competition between his Nationalist Party (forerunner of the Liberal Party) and the emerging Country Party (now the National Party) did not benefit the Labor Party in three-cornered contests.

From the 1950s until about 1980, the preferential system continued to favour the conservative side of politics. This was because the breakaway Democratic Labor Party split the Labor vote, delivering its preferences to the conservative coalition.

Since the formation of the Australian Greens, however, the situation has changed. With the Greens directing their preferences away from the Liberal Party, the system now appears to benefit Labor.

Few want the preferential system abolished, but there are many who argue that forcing a voter to not only select his favourite candidate but also distinguish between others who may be disliked in equal measure, makes no sense.

In the 2010 election, 728,000 votes were declared invalid, mainly because they did not rank all the candidates on the ballot paper as required. This scandalously high figure represents more than 5 per cent of the 13 million people who voted. Yet surveys of rejected ballots consistently show that more than half of all informal votes had at least a clear first preference.

Optional preferential voting where voters need not rank all candidates – already in effect for state elections in Queensland and New South Wales – would significantly reduce this figure.

Like any other change, optional preferential voting has the potential to alter electoral outcomes. But unlike the proposal to abolish compulsory voting, its long-term impact on the fortunes of the major political parties and the political system in general would be limited.

Most politicians at the national level, however, remain wary, questioning the motives of the reformers and fearing that any change could rebound on their respective parties. In other words, the debate is likely to end in favour of the status quo.

The process, however, was important. Unusual electoral systems should be questioned – and justified – regularly.

(C) Singapore Press Holdings Limited