Why Australia’s electoral system is unconstitutional?
If the Preferential Voting system appears to be perfectly designed to keep the two major parties in power, it actually is. The preferential voting system was introduced by the Nationalist Party in 1918 as a ploy for them to remain in power. It is not mandated by the constitution to use this or any other system of voting, and it was unnecessary when introduced and now it is the biggest hurdle towards progress in Australia.
The origins of the preferential voting system are completely omitted from educational curriculum in Australian schools and universities, and have been for generations. Preferential voting is essentially taught as "the word of god" of sorts. Furthermore, materials published regularly about elections use language that can only be described as gaslighting.
Compulsory preferential voting in single-member electorates violates fundamental democratic principles under the Australian Constitution.
Under current electoral law, voters are legally required to rank all candidates on the ballot. This includes candidates from political parties that the voter may strongly oppose. Failure to fully number all boxes may result in a formally invalid vote, even if a clear first preference is expressed
This means voters are being compelled by law to support political outcomes they fundamentally reject.
The right to freely express (or withhold) political support is a cornerstone of democratic participation.
Australia’s Constitution contains an implied freedom of political expression and communication, drawn from its structure of representative democracy. While this freedom is not explicitly written, it is embedded in the principle that members of Parliament must be “directly chosen by the people.” Section 24 of the Constitution
The system fails to provide genuine choice, undermining the constitutional requirement that Parliament be “directly chosen by the people” Section 24 of the Constitution.
While Australia maintains the appearance of a multiparty democracy, the structure of the electoral system overwhelmingly benefits the two major political parties:
Single-Member Electorates
Each electorate elects only one representative, meaning:
• A third party or independent must outright win the electorate or survive long enough in preferences to compete with a major party.
• Votes for smaller parties are routinely transferred to major parties, even when this contradicts the voter’s intent.
Compulsory Preferential Voting
Under compulsory preferential voting, all candidates must be ranked, regardless of a voter’s political position:
• Voters cannot choose to abstain from supporting any of the major parties without exhausting their vote or rendering it informal.
• Millions of Australians who vote for minor parties are eventually counted toward a major party, perpetuating the dominance of those parties.
This violates the spirit of Section 24 of Constitution, which demands that Parliament be “directly chosen by the people.” If voter intention is being redirected through compulsory mechanisms, the result is no longer fully representative. Australian Constitution
The major parties, which benefit most from the current system, are the ones who design and enforce electoral laws. This creates a clear conflict of interest:
• They set the rules of competition.
• They receive public funding based on past performance.
• They control the legislative agenda, including any proposed reforms.
As a result of that, the electoral system:
• Inhibits new entrants from gaining fair representation.
• Reduces political diversity in Parliament.
• Undermines trust in democratic institutions.
Electoral law in Australia is governed primarily by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
Stakes are low when re-election is guaranteed.
Contrary to constitutional principles of representative and responsible government, where laws should reflect the will of the electorate, not entrench the power of existing office-holders.
Australia’s preferential voting system is not a legacy of democratic innovation — it’s the result of electoral manipulation, introduced in 1918 by political actors with a clear intent to deceive. What began as a defensive strategy by the ruling party has become an entrenched structure of control, disguised as fairness for over a century.
A Political Fix, Not a Democratic Reform
In 1918, the Nationalist Party, led by Prime Minister Billy Hughes, faced a serious threat: conservative votes were splitting between the Nationalists and the newly formed Country Party, giving Labor candidates a pathway to win — even with a minority of the vote.
Their solution? Replace the first-past-the-post system with compulsory preferential voting. This would allow conservative voters to preference each other and prevent Labor from winning — even if Labor was the most popular first choice.
Sources and historical background: 1918 Elections
The illusion of choice undermines electoral legitimacy.
Deception in Plain Sight
Though preferential voting was sold to the public as a way to make elections “fairer” and “less wasteful,” this was a carefully packaged narrative. The reality was — and still is — that the system channels dissenting votes back to the major parties, especially in single-member electorates.
This deception was so effectively embedded in the public story that for decades, Australians have accepted the system as not only normal, but ideal — never realising its origin was a political fix, not a democratic advance.
Even today, voters are legally required to allocate preferences to candidates and parties they may oppose — a direct violation of freedom of political expression.
The Grooming of a Nation
For over hundred years, Australians have been systematically groomed to accept a voting system that limits political agency while appearing democratic. This was not achieved through overt propaganda, but through institutional normalisation, where key facts were excluded from public discourse, leaving generations unaware of the system’s origins and its consequences.
How It Was Done
• Historical specifics were omitted from the school curriculum, where preferential voting is taught as a neutral or superior system, with no reference to the political motivations behind its creation.
• University-level political science courses tend to focus on mechanics and comparative systems, but rarely frame Australia’s system as a case of entrenched structural bias.
• As a result, most Australians grow up without ever being told that the 1918 reform was a deliberate power-preserving move by the ruling party, not a democratic innovation.
Institutional deception through omission has replaced public memory with a myth of fairness.
Even public institutions have reinforced this grooming. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), in its official public history of electoral reform, omits the political context behind the adoption of preferential voting. It reframes the 1918 changes as technical improvements, failing to acknowledge that the system was introduced specifically to protect incumbents from losing power to a divided conservative vote.
