This Open Labor focus on the secret ballot examines a process enshrined in ALP rules, yet factions insist that their delegates hand over or show their voting papers to ensure they follow the factional line. With Victorian Administrators preparing a Victorian branch Labor reform report, Open Labor and friends offer some views on the secret ballot.
Three different writers offer different view points here: Janet McCalman and Peter Fitzgerald both argue that this practice violates the democratic principles and integrity of the ALP and should be abolished as part of the Administrators’ reform recommendations. But Peter Holding argues that in some cases open ballots play a useful role in ensuring voters get the outcomes they want.
Australia pioneered the secret ballot as a cornerstone of democracy. Do we want it properly reinstated in practice within the ALP?
Related readings
The ALP, integrity and the secret ballot – a submission to Administrators by Peter Fitzgerald, Open Labor, Aug 2020
One person – one vote – by Janet McCalman, Open Labor, Aug 2020
The case for recommitting to secret ballots – by Peter Fitzgerald, Open Labor, Aug 2020
Secret ballots depend on context – by Peter Holding, Open Labor, Aug 2020
From Secret Ballot to Democracy Sausage: How Australia Got Compulsory Voting – by Judith Brett, Text Publishing, 2019
Can we be Labor and undemocratic at the same time? by Janet McCalman, Open Labor & the Independents, Aug 2021
Democracy is not “one size fits all”. There are a myriad of ways of implementing democracy, and myriad levels to be taken into consideration.
The secret ballot is designed to ensure that individual voters are free from any perceived coercion when making their democratic decisions. If ballots are public, then an individual may feel pressured by others to vote in a particular way; voters may be suffer from punishments of one form or another by those who have other forms of authority over them. As an example, an employer may hint that someone’s employment would be at risk if they voted for a party who has pro-worker policies. Or they may feel pressure to vote in accordance with their church’s official policies if their local priest knows that they voted for a pro-marriage equality vote.
So secret ballots are hugely important in ensuring that grass roots democracy allows people to freely decide, on their own principles, who they vote for without any risk of interference.
However, most people would also be aware that votes in Parliament are not secret. In fact, how people vote is published and spread around.
Why the difference?
Because Members of Parliament are expected to be representatives of other people, not just their own personal views.
We are asked, at election time, to vote for the person who is most likely to pursue legislation and government policies that we agree with and support.
And, of course, if we don’t know how our elected representative has voted, we can’t then make a judgement later about whether or not that person really is someone who represents our perspective, and thus determine whether or not to vote for them the next time.
These distinctions transfer easily and directly into the Labor Party’s internal operations.
When individual members are asked to vote only representing themselves, then the ballot should be secret. We should ensure that people are able to vote entirely on their own conscience, and with no threat of reprisal. Votes should be sought on the basis of argument and debate, not peer pressure or possible retribution.
However, once someone has been elected using this process and is fulfilling a representative role, those who voted for them should surely be able to know how their representative is actually voting. We may select a representative on the basis of one policy position, yet they could secretly vote another way without us ever knowing. It’s about accountability.
Delegates to state or national conferences are representatives of specific Labor Party electorates – whether representatives of an entire state branch to the national conference, or representatives of a Federal Electorate Assembly to a state conference.
The party cannot ensure true accountability if the actions of representatives are secret.
So in conclusion, it is my firm belief that votes _for_ representatives must be secret. But votes _by_ representatives must be public.
However, this is easier said than done. It is not illegal, in a state of federal election, to have someone with you when voting to ostensibly “assist” in making sure your vote is recorded properly. So I can’t honestly see what rules could be put in place to stop people voting in pairs if that is what they wish.
However, I do believe it would be relatively simple to change the rules to ensure that votes by representatives are public.
Dear Jason, This is a valuable contribution that deserves more discussion. In principle I see and acknowledge your point about representativeness, but this does not absolutely apply within the Labor Party. Most votes in conference on policy are by show of hands anyway—which covers your concern about representatives being seen to represent views for which they have been elected.
In conference the control of voting by the factions is for party positions on committees and it is the factional and union leader control of those elections that causes the problems we have in the ALP, where a small group are able to impose their will on the full party – eg election to the Administrative Committee etc, POSC, policy committees.
Furthermore, most branch members are non-aligned, but find their delegates under the control of a faction.
Delegates do not usually declare their factional allegiance during FEA votes, so members are not consciously voting for a factional member. They are voting for an individual, usually guided by a ticket that may vary between members of a faction anyway. In conference, members would expect their elected delegates to exercise discretion and good judgement in voting for committee members etc, not relinquish their voting rights to the faction or union leaders. It is against all democratic practice, for a all votes (not just of the disabled) to be filled out by others, and it is this which enables quite small groups of people to control the party in the service of their own political advancement.
Hi Janet, thanks for your reply.
Yes, I recognise that this doesn’t currently apply absolutely within the Labor Party. It is my contention that all votes by anyone who fills a representative position should be public. That includes voting on platform issues in State Conference, but also voting by the POSC, policy committees and the administrative committee. I just can’t understand any position which says that a person whose role is to represent other people shouldn’t have every vote they make publicly available to the people who voted for (or against) them.
This shouldn’t be confused by the issue of having other people complete ballot papers. As I said at the end of my comment, I don’t believe that there is any way that this kind of behaviour can be effectively stopped. We can’t have rules that forbid anyone helping another person to complete a ballot – that would discriminate against people with disabilities. And so that means we can’t set up a situation where privacy is absolutely enforced. People will “game” whatever system is set up. So while I think that handing a ballot over to someone else is the wrong thing to do, I’m not convinced that it shows anything other than mistrust between internal factional allies. I mean, if they agreed to fill in the ballot according to factional lines, what’s the difference whose actual hand does the filling in?
As an example, I have delegated my voting decisions to the Labor Party as a whole. I’ve signed a pledge that I will vote for ALP endorsed candidates in any election (that’s what our membership form requires). This has involved me occasionally voting for people who I probably would personally rather not vote for.
That’s not really all that different to people who agree that they will always vote along factional lines. It’s a trade off between the principles of solidarity, and individual decision making. This trade off is really the heart and soul of the Labor Movement ethos.
My choice to delegate this decision making is public, visible and open for all to judge on its own merits. I’m not ashamed of committing to always vote Labor. I don’t hide it.
Likewise for all our representatives in Parliament. They MUST publicly show that they are voting with the Labor Party at every vote. If they don’t, they won’t lose their seat in Parliament, but they will lose their Labor Party endorsement. The general public know that they are committed to always voting for Labor, and at election time there is no doubt about what Labor Party voters are going to get. Similarly to internal labor elections, where – as you correctly note – most members are non aligned but vote for factional delegates, most ordinary voters are non-aligned but end up voting for party delegates. It works because we KNOW they are party endorsed / factional people, and we can openly assess whether or not we think that is OK.
Having the members of the POSC be personally accountable for their voting would help ensure the integrity of the representatives themselves.
If – as a representative on POSC you vote according to a factional line – you should be perfectly happy for everyone to know you voted that way. If you want it “hidden”, then that strongly suggests you know it’s not the right thing to do, or that your supporters would not agree with your voting.
I’d love it if the rules required people to declare any allegiances they’ve made prior to standing – but that’s also impractical and would be impossible to ensure. I think that the best way to guarantee accountability is to ensure that all decisions made by elected representatives are open to the full sunlight of member scrutiny.
Dear Jason,
I agree that when delegates are voting as representatives that their voting should be open, as it is in parliament. However voting for leaders is done by secret ballot, at least in the Liberal Party. Votes for positions on committees should be secret and if people want to sign a pledge to follow a ticket, that’s fine but they should then be trusted to keep their word.
It is a terrible look for the party that this sort of direct control of voting is practised. It is not the same as assisting disabled people to vote and usually that is done by a polling booth officer for obvious reasons. Interfering with a disabled person’s vote is corruption of the ballot.
Rights in the Labor party do not stop at the factions. One of the major needs for this reform is to enfranchise the majority of party members who in fact do not belong to factions, did not elect them, and find their party hi-jacked by a relatively small group of people. Some of whom are of dubious moral character. Just because ‘gaming the system’ is very hard to stamp out, that does not mean we should tolerate it any longer. It’s not fair, and it is harming the party.
There are a lot of undesirable behaviours that are impossible to stamp out, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have criminal codes, regulations and judicial processes. To just give up on this is not good enough if we are to save Labor.
We can’t be defeatist and say ‘this is human nature’ or ‘Labor has always been like that’. Yet the times when the party has generated outstanding politicians and electoral success have exactly been when non-aligned members had a voice in the party. The factions are not productive – they are defensive, and in the case of one faction within a faction, destructive of Labor’s chances of government. That this latest attempted take-over driven by one man could happen so quickly and easily demonstrates our fragility.
Best
janet
Thanks Janet, I think we’re furiously agreeing on the basic principles. I would not object to any proposals that enhance the secrecy of appropriate ballots so long as they don’t inadvertently discriminate against people who need assistance.