Increasing “Exclusivity” in a Seemingly “Inclusive” Process

Exclusivity is evidenced by the level of control party leaders have over the candidate selection process. When party leaders choose candidates, this shows high exclusivity. Inclusivity is just the opposite. When voters themselves are those that select candidates, there is high inclusivity. There are pros and cons of both sides, but recent trends have been pulling toward inclusivity because of the ability to select candidates that are widely appealing. However, in Australia, party leaders are seeking to exert more power into the inclusive process of candidate selection.

Party leaders use the power of “pre-selection” as a means to increase party discipline, and as a result, exert more power into the candidate selection process (Solomon pp 7). Pre-selection is very much like a party’s primary process in the United States. However, in Australia, parties may choose whether or not they want to hold a primary election. Leaders will opt not to hold a primary election if they are currently satisfied with their previously elected candidate; or they will choose to hold a primary election, pre-selection, in an effort to replace the previously elected legislator.

Because Australia has relatively small chambers, every vote counts in the legislature. There is no room for dissenting votes. Thus, it is critical that parties remain as united as possible. Party leaders strengthen party cohesion by reserving the right to “recognize” or “de-select” their party’s currently elected legislator. When party leaders recognize their elected candidate, the candidate may have access to party resources and carry the party’s label. When parties de-select a candidate, they withdraw the party label from their previously elected candidate, and begin the pre-selection process to seek out a replacement. Recognizing this power held by party leaders, legislators seek to remain disciplined in party voting. Research has shown that when party leaders decide to begin the pre-selection process, incumbent candidates retire rather than run as independents. History has shown that incumbents running as independents hold little chance of being re-elected. As a result, party leaders have the power they desire to add a measure of exclusivity to the inclusive process by indirectly being able to select those that will remain disciplined and vote in accordance to party ideology. 

- Solomon, David. Pillars of Power: Australia's Institution. Federation Press, 2007. pp 7.

- Abjorensen, Norman, Yusaku Horiuchi, and Meg Sato. "Decomposition of Valence and Paradox of Primary Election." (2011): n. page. Web. 2 Mar. 2012. <http://law.anu.edu.au/COAST/events/APSA/papers/101.pdf>.