tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post395176890814482427..comments2024-03-13T12:01:30.303+11:00Comments on Billablog: Why Preferential Voting WorksBillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03412983524190021368noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post-74722195511166283112010-05-16T23:37:02.902+10:002010-05-16T23:37:02.902+10:00Equally, voluntary voting is not going to weed out...Equally, voluntary voting is not going to weed out all the people who haven't thought their vote through. <br /><br />No system is perfect - it's a question of the least imperfect. Whatever the system, the country gets the government it deserves.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412983524190021368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post-39491545953343929512010-05-16T23:22:13.661+10:002010-05-16T23:22:13.661+10:00Like I said, it's a non-issue. And considering...Like I said, it's a non-issue. And considering campaigning is nothing but mud-slinging and telling the public what they want to hear (as opposed to what you're actually going to do), then really I suppose we're never going to ever have a 100% accurate result for what the people want, hm? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post-85871674643935160862010-05-16T23:19:43.389+10:002010-05-16T23:19:43.389+10:00No one is suggesting we move our voting day to a w...No one is suggesting we move our voting day to a weekday if we were to introduce voluntary voting. What's wrong with leaving it on a Saturday? That removes the possibility of tampering, also.<br /><br />Running out of ballot papers isn't really a big issue. It's not like we're going to base our decision of whether to move to voluntary voting or not on that kind of thing.<br /><br />Now, if those who cared voted properly, and those that didn't care made donkey votes, then I wouldn't have a problem with compulsory voting. But that's not what happens. We have a bit of that, and a bit of: "Aw who's PM now? Howard? Yeah. He's alright. I'll just go him. Don't fix it if it ain't broke, eh love?"<br /><br />Now, of course, those people have MADE A DECISION, haven't they? But based on what? Laziness. Ignorance. That's dangerous, imo. I'd prefer if those people stayed at home and left the voting up to those of us who care about the outcome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post-90533244824258782852010-05-16T23:05:55.109+10:002010-05-16T23:05:55.109+10:00I understand where you're coming from, but I t...I understand where you're coming from, but I think there are other issues at play. Compulsory voting means you know what the turnout is going to be, so there are no "surprises" at polling booths that run out of ballot papers because they weren't expecting so many people wanting to vote. <br />Another thing about the British and US systems - and many others around the world - is that they vote on a regular work day. In Britain, there have been suggestions that employers told staff that they were needed to work late that day. In fairness, those reports are unconfirmed and the constituencies where people were turned away from the polling booths were safely held seats, where the number of people who missed out would not have been enough to make a difference, but it's bound to give people ideas. <br /><br />I think compulsory voting removes that possibility of tampering and while it does lead to the donkey vote, or people voting when they don't really care, I believe that's the lesser of two evils. I don't think it's possible for compulsory voting to misrepresent the will of the people because those who vote only because they have to, are still making a choice about their vote (notwithstanding the donkey vote). I think there's far more danger of misrepresenting the view of the electorate if one group (let's say, the unions) are better at getting out the vote than another.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412983524190021368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post-59749398751779638832010-05-16T22:24:46.375+10:002010-05-16T22:24:46.375+10:00OK. Just curious, because if you had written a pos...OK. Just curious, because if you had written a post about it, I'd want to read it. But I suppose that paragraph is just about the same thing, really.<br /><br />I haven't read/researched enough to have made a definitive opinion on it, myself, but right now I tend to favour voluntary voting. Not because of the "right to not vote" nonsense (with you on that one), but because I don't see how compulsory voting results in an accurate representation of what a society wants.<br /><br />Those who have a solid preference will vote. Those who don't care will stay at home. The non-voters will have to make do with what they get, and if they don't like that idea, then they can go vote. People who don't give a shit will just vote for the current PM, or vote for the guy with the coolest name, or do a donkey vote. How's that accurate?<br /><br />Anyways, it's a non-issue really, because Australia is afraid of change, right? :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post-62943059433376183592010-05-16T21:13:25.950+10:002010-05-16T21:13:25.950+10:00The original idea of the college system was to mak...The original idea of the college system was to make every state count so that a candidate couldn't just focus on the major population centres and never visit the rest of the country. It was an understandable solution for making candidates spread themselves around in the 19th century but these days, we have a thing called television. The college has had its day and now it's just a scam - as is the notion that supporting minor parties is wasting your vote.<br /><br />It bewilders me that anyone is taken in by the "don't waste your vote," argument. It's not about trying to pick the winner - not in <i>that</i> sense. A wasted vote is voting for who you think is going to win, rather than who you want to win. <br /><br />I don't really have much to say about compulsory voting other than that I am all for it. I have no time for the nonsense about the right not to vote. This is a country that doesn't have conscription or national service. The only thing we are compelled to do is vote. Fifteen minutes of your Saturday once every three years is a small price to pay. And even then, all you really have to do is show up and have your name marked off. It's up to you what you do with your ballot paper after that - although anyone who doesn't use it correctly deserves to be mocked by small children. No matter how dull the choices are, there's always a least-worst option.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412983524190021368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post-59377587914237346972010-05-16T19:25:12.893+10:002010-05-16T19:25:12.893+10:00Preferential voting, in a two-party system, also w...Preferential voting, in a two-party system, also works to eliminate the idea that people have (especially Americans) that voting for a third-party candidate is "wasting your vote".<br /><br />As you said, "With preferential voting, those who want to vote for an alternative to the major parties can do so safe in the knowledge that their preferences are recorded."<br /><br />The part of the American electoral system that leaves me the most gob-smacked is the idea that the majority winner (either democrat or republican) in a state "wins" the state, which means the electors of the winning party in that state are the only ones who vote for the presidency (and a democratic elector isn't going to vote for a republican president, and vice versa). So if a state votes 45% democrat and 55% republican, the republican electors win that state, and go on to vote for the republican candidate, which essentially means that 100% of the votes cast in that state, despite the fact that 45% of them were for the democratic candidate, went to the republican candidate.<br /><br />How on EARTH is that representative of what the people in that state want? (I hope I didn't stuff any of that up!)<br /><br />But that's a discussion for another day. :)<br /><br />By the way, have you written any posts that discuss the idea of compulsory versus voluntary voting?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post-34136809596532655842010-05-06T07:52:57.226+10:002010-05-06T07:52:57.226+10:00I take your point that preferential voting does sk...I take your point that preferential voting does skew the result but I disagree that it also elects the least unwanted. I believe the important thing is that it abandons a simple notion of most wanted and instead chooses the most <i>preferred</i>. <br /><br />I agree that proportional representation is a fairer reflection of the electorate, but how many representatives can one constituency have? And if you widen the boundaries of electorates in order to elect multiple candidates proportionally, then what happens to local representation? You could end up with the whole of Alberta represented by a dozen people, all from Calgary. <br /><br />That's my main concern about proportional representation. There may be ways to make it work practically as a legislature, but this is why I like preferential for the lower house and proportional for the upper. <br /><br />People will always end up voting for the lesser of evils. And yes, tactical voting does occur. I should have said reduces rather than removes. One way it occurs is that people who actually want to vote for a major party (usually the incumbent) will put them second or third after some minors or independents, just to give them a scare.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03412983524190021368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post-3589647901551697032010-05-06T03:32:27.098+10:002010-05-06T03:32:27.098+10:00This doesn't stop people from voting against t...This doesn't stop people from voting against the lesser of evils or tactical voting. They just do it on a different form.Miahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17881826389793941197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4942719624481214321.post-15719351043333096932010-05-06T03:12:14.641+10:002010-05-06T03:12:14.641+10:00Preferential voting creates the illusion of majori...Preferential voting creates the illusion of majority support, but you are still electing the least unwanted candidate. In any system where you elect only one member for a constituency, there are going to be more losers than winners. <br /><br />The Alternative Vote also stifles diversity even more than first-past-the-post.<br /><br />For everyone to be represented by someone they positively prefer, you need proportional representation.Wayne Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08080912916559741326noreply@blogger.com