As more states are considering moving to some form of ranked-choice voting, this weekend is a chance to look at the original home of ranked-choice voting — Australia.  There are certain differences between how ranked choice voting works in Australia and how it is likely to work in the U.S.

The big difference between the two systems is that, in elections in which Australia uses ranked-choice voting, there are only two election contests — each of which has a separate ballot.  Because there is only one race on each ballot.  There is no need for trusting computer programs to accurately read the preferences and allocate them for the House of Representatives.  (The Senate uses single transferrable vote which is more complicated and does require computer assistance.)

Second, Australia does not have party primaries.  Candidates are chosen by party committees (which can sometimes backfire when the national party forces a candidate on the local party). and it is not difficult for small parties to get on the ballot.  In most of the states using ranked choice, they either have ranked choice for party primaries or have a “top four” primary with ranked choice reserved for the general election.

So how did things work this weekend.  While first preferences are not the entirety of the election, they are crucial.  If a candidate gets 50% of the first preference vote, they win regardless of how the preferences on the other ballots flow.  If a candidate gets 33.4% of the vote, they will be in the final two, and the only question is how the preference flow.

Traditionally, in Australia, the two major parties were dominant.  Even in bad elections, they were both likely to finish with a first preference vote in the upper 30s.  In short, with a handful of exceptions, they were likely to clear the 33.4% first preference vote threshold in almost every division (seat).  But in recent years, those first preference votes have been declining.  This year, the Labour Party only got 32.8% and the Liberal/National Coalition only got 35.6%.  With numbers like that, third party candidates are making the final two in several divisions.  In fact, currently, there are about five or six three-way races (typically with the Greens as the third party) in which it is unclear who will be in the top two.  And that delays knowing the results.  While nothing is official until all ballots are processed and counted and preferences distributed step-by-step, election officials will do an unofficial count of the preference distributions to the top two candidates when it is clear whom the top two candidates are.  When there is no clear top two, it takes longer to figure out who will win.

In the past, successful independent candidates have typically been either a very localized issue or a sitting member who got crossways with their party and decided (or were forced) to run as an independent.  This year, there appears to have been a group of loosely affiliated independents (mostly women) who have run in Liberal-leaning seats only an environmentally-friendly platform (labelled as teal independents by the media). If ranked-choice voting takes off, this could become something that might merit a closer look by some candidates.  While not trying to get into the minds of these candidates, it appears that they decided that running with the Green label would hurt their chances due to how moderate voters in their division perceive the Green Party.  By running as independents, they avoided that label and were able to focus on specific issues and proposals.  Given that some districts in the U.S. are very lopsided and the policies associated with both parties, I could easily see districts where moderate Republicans would be unable to win as a Republican candidate, but might be able to slip in as an independent.  Likewise,  even in Republican areas, Democratic policies are popular, and a Democrat running as an independent with ranked choice voiting might have a chance, especially if you have three Republicans in the top four who spend most of their time tearing each other down.

And the current state of the count shows (after approximately two days) that, while it takes time to complete the canvass, it is possible to project winners relatively early.  At the current time, approximately 92% of the seats have been called by the media with only twelve seats seen as too close or too early to call.   As we know in the U.S., it takes longer to determine the winner in a close race.  (We may not know which unqualified Republican wins the Pennsylvania Senate primary for weeks.)  It is already clear which party has won (Labour) even if it is still uncertain if they will have a majority or will be forming a minority government.  (The problem being that it looks like there will be 2-4 Greens and 10-12 members who are either independents or from some other party.  Thus, while Labour will have a significant margin over the Coalition, the balance of power may rest with the Green Party and associated independents.)

There are two last lessons from Australia.  First, the teal independents tended to win suburban districts.  Basically, the more compromises that the Coalition made to keep the right-wing fringe on board cost them votes in these types of districts.  That is something that we have become very familiar with in the U.S.  As the Republican Party has become a more “rural” party that panders to its far right-fringe, it has lost its dominance in the suburbs.  But the Democrats have not yet sealed the deal with suburban voters.

Second, even though Australia uses neutral government agencies to do redistricting, there is still a bias in favor of the Coalition.  It’s smaller than the bias for the U.S. Congress (about 1% instead of the 5-6% in the U.S.), but it’s still there.  Simply put, when you use community of interests and political subdivisions as the building block of districts, you get rural districts, suburban districts, and urban districts.  And the conservative movement has very little to offer to urban areas while the progressive agenda actually has some ideas that would help rural residents.  As a result, progressives do better (not well enough to win though) in rural districts than conservatives do in urban districts.

In short, there are some lessons to be drawn from this weekend’s elections for those interested in election reform.  Unfortunately, not many are paying close attention, and there is a “not invented here” tendency in U.S. politics.  Which is a shame because the Australian system is worth a closer consideration.