Opinion Piece by Lynne Strong

As the dust settles after the recent Kiama council elections, the final results offer some interesting insights into how our voting system works and what it means when candidates are elected without reaching the set quota.

Out of the nine successful candidates, three—Matt Brown, Stuart Larkins, and Mike Cains—were elected despite not reaching the quota of 1,460 votes. This might raise questions: How did they get in, and what does this say about our democratic process?

Understanding the Quota

In local council elections, a quota is the number of votes a candidate needs to secure a seat outright. In this case, with 18,000 enrolled voters, the quota was set at 1,460 votes. Six candidates—Cameron McDonald, Imogen Draisma, Melinda Lawton, Yasmin Tatrai, Erica Warren, and Melissa Matters—reached the quota and were elected fairly early in the counting process.

However, not all seats are filled by candidates meeting this quota. That’s where the importance of preference voting comes in.

The Role of Preferences

Candidates like Matt Brown, Stuart Larkins, and Mike Cains didn’t receive enough first-preference votes to meet the quota. However, they were elected because, by the final rounds of counting, they had the highest number of remaining votes, even though they didn’t reach the quota.

In a proportional representation system, as the candidate with the lowest number of votes is excluded in each round, their preferences are redistributed to other continuing candidates. This process continues until either candidates meet the quota or the remaining candidates’ vote totals are high enough that they can no longer be overtaken by others.

This highlights the nuanced role of preferences—they can have a significant impact, but only if the margin between candidates is narrow enough for preference flows to make a difference.

Understanding Preferences Across Different Elections

It appears that many people, including me and those who regularly engage in the political process, do not fully understand how preferences work. It’s important to remember that the way preferences are allocated differs across the three levels of government.

• At the Federal level (for the House of Representatives), it is compulsory to allocate preferences, meaning a voter must number every single box for their vote to count.
• At the state and local level, preferences are optional. In the NSW Lower House elections, voters can simply vote "1" and are not required to number additional boxes if they do not wish to.

For local council elections, such as Kiama’s, the proportional representation system is used. This system, also applied in the Australian Senate and NSW Upper House, determines the outcome based on quotas and the redistribution of preferences.

What Does This Say About the Election?

1. Broad Community Support: Although these candidates didn’t reach the quota through first-preference votes, their election reflects broad support across the community. Voters might have chosen them as their second or third option, showing that they were seen as viable representatives, even if they weren’t the top choice for many.
2. Fragmented Voting Patterns: The fact that three candidates were elected without reaching the quota suggests that voting was spread across many candidates. With so many individuals and groups running, voters likely had diverse views, leading to a fragmented first-preference vote. This fragmentation creates an opportunity for candidates to win seats through preference flows.
3. Preference Allocations Can Be Critical: In some cases, like the 2021 election, every preference allocation made a difference to the final positions when candidates didn’t make quota. However, in 2024, the primary votes were more spread apart, meaning that while preferences played a role in determining the final order, the primary vote totals were decisive.
4. It Is the Voter Who Determines Their Preferences: A crucial point to emphasise is that voters control their preferences. How voters choose to rank candidates—whether they stop at their first choice or continue ranking additional preferences—has a direct impact on the election’s outcome. Voters ultimately decide how their preferences will flow if their first-choice candidate is excluded.

The Takeaway for Future Elections

The Kiama election is a powerful reminder of the importance of preference voting. It shows that elections aren’t just about the most popular candidates but about how the community as a whole distributes their votes. The candidates who understand the importance of preferences—and who engage with a wide range of voters—are the ones who stand the best chance of success.

As we look ahead to future elections, it’s clear that preference voting can lead to more diverse representation. By giving weight to lower-preference votes, the system ensures that different voices and perspectives can still find their place on the council.

For Kiama voters, this election serves as a call to action: don’t underestimate the power of your second and third preferences. They can make all the difference in shaping the future of our council.