Watching the circus that was the Republican convention to endorse Donald Trump’s candidacy was enough to make Australian voters such as myself deeply grateful for the dull and boring election campaign we have just been through.

To see the serried ranks of Trump followers fervently applauding and encouraging their favoured candidate to utter the platitudes and slogans that compile his election speeches, the thumbs up signs, the hand clapping, the false smiles, should have made us appreciate the comparatively sedate and civilised manner of our two main prime ministerial candidates. It was unnerving to watch the antics of a pretender to the position of president of the most powerful country in the world behaving as if he were still the commercial star of a TV reality show, and his listeners the captive audience that had been bussed in to applaud his every banal pronouncement.

And it was sad to see the herd mentality of his audience as they uncritically applauded his every word, and one can only be grateful that the vote in the United States is not obligatory as it is in Australia; therefore there is a chance that more sensible people will prevail.

Are we fortunate in having a larger proportion of thoughtful people in this country or is it time that we considered changing the rules and most especially in removing the obligation to vote?

There is always an outcry when there are suggestions for changes to the method of voting in this country, but surely it is time to take a deeper look at the incongruities of our system. Taking the Senate as an example; where is the equity in a system that gives the same number of Senators to a state like Tasmania, with just over half a million inhabitants, as the highly populated state of New South Wales with more than seven million? As far as the representation of the people is concerned, the Senate system is anything but ideal, as the granting of twelve Senators to every state, irrespective of size or population, goes directly against this representation. If a country as large and important as the United States elects two Senators per state, making a Congress of one hundred, it is very hard to justify the fact that Australia should require such an inordinate number as seventy six to represent its much smaller population. Added to this, the powers granted to the Senate to reject measures desired by the ruling government, which has been given a mandate by the people of the country, go directly against representation of the electorate as a whole.

The regulations covering the Upper House, the House of Lords, in Britain allow for a refusal to pass a measure on its first passing by the House of Commons and returning it to that body for further debate and consideration. But under the reformed Upper House rulings, they have no authority to do more than delay a measure for up to two sittings or one year in time. After that, the House of Commons may pass it into law and the Upper House has no further say. Surely this system would be more suitable to Australia than the copy of American rules which is what we have at present, especially after the occurrences we have seen both here and in the States as a consequence? This whole system nullifies the democratic vote which elects the House of Representatives.

The sad story of Tony Abbott’s failed Prime Ministership was directly caused by the Senate rules we have now. He had an enormous majority in the House of Representatives given to him by the electorate to further the reforms that were so obviously needed after the failed Labor governments of Rudd and Gillard, yet he was consistently thwarted by the Senate to carry out his mandate, which led to the collapse of his support in the Coalition and his consequent removal by the majority who supported Malcolm Turnbull. Yet this Senate was composed of many small parties with Senators voted in by a minuscule number of votes, thanks to the preferences they were given by other parties. The Senate voting paper in this recent election was ludicrous in its size and the number of parties which the bemused voters had to select in order of preference. Small wonder that mistakes are made!

The origin of preference voting dates back to the beginning of the last century and was adopted in order to prevent the two emerging conservative parties, one being the newly formed Country party to represent the agricultural section which was the main generator of the country’s prosperity, from giving an advantage to Labor through the splitting of the conservative vote. This is no longer necessary as the Liberals and the Country party, now named the Nationals, have been in Coalition for many years. So do we really need Senators representing Recreational Fishers or Smokers’ Rights or even of people who indulge in the national sport of kangaroo poo throwing? Basically, this is trivialising the electoral system and opening the door to horse-trading and dubious back door deals between parties which lead to unbalanced electoral results.

Our system and our outcomes are far superior to the convoluted American system which requires wildly expensive and lengthy campaigns, but there is still room for considerable improvement, and it is high time that our politicians had the courage to tackle this situation.

Unfortunately, no matter how necessary this change might be in order to satisfy voters being truly represented by their politicians, it is hard to imagine that any reform is likely to pass in the Senate, where every one of the members there will be determined to protect his or her position at the bountiful trough spread before them.

The post Over-crowded upper house appeared first on The Spectator.