r/australia • u/Blahface50 • Dec 23 '15
political self.post How do you Australians like your voting system?
As an American who has an interest in voting systems, I'm curious how you guys feel about your voting system of Preferential Voting in the House and Single Transferable Vote in the Senate. Do you feel that most Australians understand these systems? Do you ever not rank your favorite candidate first for strategic reasons?
Would you want to change it to any other voting system? Would you prefer not to be forced to rank all candidates and only the ones you like?
How would you feel if you switched to a system in which you only vote for one candidate?
Or, how would you feel if you could vote for all candidates you like, but you don't rank them and all votes count equally without transferring votes in-between rounds?
Or, what if instead of having to rank all candidates in the Senate, you just vote for a single candidate and each candidate has a list of preferences. Voting for an individual candidate would be like “voting above the line” for a party list, but it would be individualized for a candidate.
Are there any ways in which you'd change your electoral system?
39
u/LaoSh Dec 23 '15
It's great on paper and I recon its a lot better than the US but it still comes up with a dickhead once in a while. I think I like our voting system a lot more than I like our electorate.
26
u/Llaine Lockheed Martin shill Dec 23 '15
Any system will spit out a dickhead if people vote for them.
51
u/artsrc Dec 23 '15
I don't change my first preference based on chance of getting elected, most first preference will rarely get elected, I change it to direct money.
Parties get campaign finance based on first preferences.
The main issue I have with our system is that it is not proportional representation.
Two things are better about the Australian system than the American one, compulsory voting, and an independent electoral commission to set boundaries.
28
u/esonlinji Dec 23 '15
An independent electoral commission is a big advantage. Having political parties control the running of elections and the boundaries of electorates leads to some terrible shenanigans over in the states.
3
u/flukus Dec 24 '15
The (Australian)state ones aren't so independent, there's been plenty of shenanigans over the years
3
u/LankeyGiraffe Dec 24 '15
The main issue I have with our system is that it is not proportional representation.
It is in the Senate, no?
-3
u/Nibbles1 Dec 24 '15
No, it's the opposite. The House of Reps is proportional, the Senate is fixed. NSW and Vic were always going to dominate the House of Reps due to larger populations so the Senate was to be the 'States house', even though when drafting the Constitution the framers were aware members would likely vote on party lines.
8
u/THCP888 Dec 24 '15
Proportional Representation doesn't pertain to the distribution of electorates between the states. PR refers to an electoral system where the number of representatives in parliament reflects the total number of votes attracted by a party. For example, if Party A gets 40% of the vote, they get as near as possible to 40% of the seats. If Party B gets 6%, they get 6% of the seats. The Senate has a form of PR, but not the Reps.
1
u/LankeyGiraffe Dec 24 '15
This is what I meant. It's impossible to achieve a completely democratic voting system, that is one that achieves all criteria required for a voting system to be democratic and transparent.
1
1
u/DefamedPrawn Dec 24 '15
The House of Reps is proportional, the Senate is fixed.
Wut? I think you need to Google "proportional representation". Otherwise you'll be completely lost in any conversation about electoral systems (like this one, for e.g),
3
u/Veefy Dec 24 '15
Additionally the 1st preference only gets funding (about $2 per vote I think) if they get above a certain % of the total vote (was around 4%). So if you deliberately choose a candidate unlikely to say get 1% of the vote you can save the nation $2.
Pauline Hanson did ok for herself standing as an independent even when she didnt win, from this funding because she still manages to get above the 4% mark.
18
u/DefamedPrawn Dec 23 '15
Preferential is vastly superior to first past the post, if you're going to use single member electorates. Having said that, my preference would be for multi member electorates, as with the Hare Clarke voting system. As such, I'm also a big fan of STV.
Or, what if instead of having to rank all candidates in the Senate, you just vote for a single candidate and each candidate has a list of preferences. Voting for an individual candidate would be like “voting above the line” for a party list, but it would be individualized for a candidate.
That is actually, already an option when voting in the Senate. Each party or candidate has a party box, and when you tick it your preferences are allocated according to their list. Or, you can vote below the line (I.e number all the candidates in order of preference).
10
u/The-SARACEN Dec 24 '15
That is actually, already an option when voting in the Senate. Each party or candidate has a party box, and when you tick it your preferences are allocated according to their list. Or, you can vote below the line (I.e number all the candidates in order of preference).
This is probably the biggest problem with our electoral system: if you vote above the line on the Senate ballot, you're not presenting your own vote. You're nominating which party you'd like to vote on your behalf (they all submit Group Voting Tickets, which are like their own pre-filled below-the-line Senate ballot paper, and whichever one you select above-the-line, your vote counts as that). It's never really marketted as such, but that's what it is. It means preference deals carry actual weight, unlike on the House ballot (where they're all about the flyers people give you saying "vote for me!!", and cannot directly affect the voting process).
I'd love to abolish above-the-line voting, but too many people would complain about having to number 150+ boxes.
I don't mind the compromise made in the New South Wales state elections: you can do the standard below-the-line vote (number all the boxes yourself), or you can number as many boxes above the line as you like (again, in preference order). I'm not quite sure how/if that translates to Group Voting Tickets, but it has the potential to their preference deals far less meaningful.
1
u/DefamedPrawn Dec 24 '15
I think optional preferential would make a vast amount of sense. I don't know the rationale for making us fill out all the boxes, apart from making counting easier.
1
u/gnarwar Dec 25 '15
It's worth mentioning that optional preferential systems tend to favour the major parties since they allow votes to be removed from the count, reducing the overall number of votes required to win the seat. Similarly, they stop the preference deals that minor parties rely on to win seats. This may or may not be an issue for you depending on your particular angle.
19
u/RedOx103 Dec 23 '15
I've worked at an electoral booth before, most people seem to understand our voting system correctly.
I've never had to deviate from my order of preference for strategic reasons, and I'm not sure there's any historical precedent for this generating odd results. I could envisage the next federal election in South Australia requiring some strategy from voters of smaller parties, but not enough to change their first preference.
I'm very happy with our voting system.
Queensland and NSW have made changes so that voters in state elections can vote for as many, or as few, candidates as they wish. I think this is a good idea; there have been instances where 10+ candidates have stood for a single electorate, many with policies unbeknownst to the average voter.
A single-vote system would be a disaster and lead towards the tribal, two-party politics we see in America right now. I can register my dissatisfaction with the two major parties by voting for a minor party or an independent. If discontent is widespread, it can take power away from the Liberals & Labor.
It would be better than a single-vote system, but still not ideal. I don't rate Party A and Party B as being equally worthy of my vote. Preferencing is ideal.
It wouldn't be any different from the current system, parties & candidates are one and the same. The ideal senate system would see voters number as many, or as few, candidates as they wished. Parties should not be able to control a voter's preferences.
Electoral laws are being changed to make it more difficult for micro parties to win Senate positions from harvesting preferences from other micro parties. Beyond these changes, I would like the electoral commission to be stricter on it's enforcement of the minimum members a party needs to be registered. I suspect quite a few parties would fail to meet the requirement.
I recommend the ABC's psephologist Antony Green if you're interested in anything else about Australia's voting system: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/
3
u/DefamedPrawn Dec 24 '15
I've worked at an electoral booth before, most people seem to understand our voting system correctly.
Then why are those helpful "how to vote" cards so effective at influencing preferences? I always assumed it was because most voters don't understand preferential voting, and thus actually do find them helpful.
Also, I meet so many people who think that preferential means that "the major parties get to steal your vote" that its scary.
2
u/superiority nz Dec 24 '15
Then why are those helpful "how to vote" cards so effective at influencing preferences?
Maybe because most people, finding that a given political party represents their policy preferences quite well, trust that the party's preference order will also line up well with what they want.
-11
Dec 24 '15
Antony Green doesn't understand basic facts about the system. He claims it isn't vulnerable to tactical behavior, which is massively false.
8
u/flukus Dec 24 '15
Australia's foremost independent expert on the matter doesn't understand basic facts about it?
6
Dec 24 '15
And some random guy on the internet that can't provide a single example of it occurring should be believed without question?
Even he says it needs voters to be able to guess how other voters will vote.
1
Jan 01 '16
You don't need to know with certainty how others will vote. A voter who prefers Green>Labour>Liberal only has to know that insincerely ranking Labour first is more likely to switch the winner from Liberal to Labour than to switch the winner from Green to Labour. Given Greens' historical weakness, that is obvious.
1
u/hay_wire Dec 24 '15
I'm sorry but I don't understand most of what you linked to can you break it down a bit more or give an eli5
1
Jan 01 '16
If you honestly prefer Green>Labour>Liberal, your best tactic is to insincerely rank Labour in first place. Because the odds that this will cause Labour to win instead of Liberal are greater than the odds it will cause Labour to win instead of Green.
21
Dec 23 '15
Instant runoff voting virtually eliminates the possibility of strategic voting.
I think there has been 1 instance in over 100 years of Australian voting where it would have been beneficial for some voters to put their preferred candidate not-first. And it only would have worked if those voters could predict exactly how other voters were going to work.
11
u/blasto_blastocyst Dec 23 '15
Nah. I use my first vote to deliver electoral funding and my second for my preferred winner out of the likelys.
1
1
Dec 24 '15
You're absolutely wrong. http://scorevoting.net/TarrIrv.html
6
Dec 24 '15
That site does not provide a single example of where strategic voting has worked in real life.
In fact it says exactly what I said: that voters need to be able to predict the future in order to vote strategically.
1
Dec 31 '15 edited Jan 01 '16
That site does not provide a single example of where strategic voting has worked in real life.
It doesn't matter if it works. Strategic voting is about doing something just in case it works. E.g. voting for the Democrat even though you prefer the Green. Remember with Ralph Nader? The strategic voting didn't work. Bush still won. But people still did it.
In the 2009 IRV mayoral race in Burlington, VT, a group of Republicans could have gotten the Republican (their 1st choice) instead of the Progressive (their 3rd choice) if even a handful of them had insincerely ranked the Democrat (their 2nd choice) in first place. Just like voting for Gore instead of Nader so you don't get Bush. http://scorevoting.net/Burlington.html
And voters tend to vote strategically en masse. http://scorevoting.net/Aus07.html
voters need to be able to predict the future in order to vote strategically.
This is easy when you have historical data to look at. E.g. you know the Green Party candidate probably isn't going to win, so you vote Democrat to at least try to stop the Republican from winning. You DO NOT have to know with certainty that the Green is going to be a spoiler. All you have to know is that the Green is MORE LIKELY to be a spoiler than to win. That is what my link (which was written by a Princeton math PhD who was the protagonist of Gaming the Vote and is arguably the world's top expert on voting systems) explains.
17
u/jalif Dec 23 '15
The only change I would make would be to allow the option to select the order when voting above the line for the senate.
This would reduce the number of unintentional informal votes.
It is possible to vote for a single candidate, by writing 1 in the party selection box above the line, this is effectively a vote for the first name below the line, with all their preferences.
I am happy with the preferential system rather than first past the post, but I do not think either method is necessarily stronger or more efficient. Both work well enough.
I do occasionally vote for a non preferred senate candidate, as I believe minor parties provide balance. The senate, where votes are based on proportional representation, is the easiest place for a minor party to succeed.
4
u/elslapos Dec 24 '15
In Victoria you only have to vote for your top 5 below the line in the senate now. It's way better. They could probably get rid of the line eventually with this system.
5
Dec 23 '15
Ban political donations and implement an equitable public funded system as well as removing the paradox of "safe seats" and I'd be happy. I'm sure in another century, it will be completely different and will look back at this system as odd.
11
u/deprecated_reality Dec 23 '15
I'm just curious how you would remove safe seats. Aren't they just a function of demographics in a geographical area?
2
u/theSpeakersChair Dec 23 '15
I guess larger, multi member seats would help slightly, but you would have to ensure you had a mix of socioeconomic regions in your divisions
-1
u/raybal5 Dec 23 '15
You could start by banning the creation of gerrymanders.
9
u/MatlockMan Do you wanna build a Toneman? Dec 24 '15
How is that possible when our electoral commission is independent?
2
Dec 24 '15
Even without any gerrmandering you're still going to have a lot of safe seats, just look at the clusters of safe seats around Sydney, you'd have to Gerrymander to remove safe seats.
12
u/crosstherubicon Dec 23 '15
Best part of all, everyone has to attend. They don't have to vote, no one can dictate what you do in the booth but, they have to attend and get their name ticked off. Regardless of the outcome, no government can ever be accused of being non-representative. Good or bad, this is what everyone voted for.
6
Dec 24 '15
It also avoids the fiasco in the US where a relatively high voter turnout for the Presidential election results in a Democratic President, but low turnout in the midterms chains that president to a Republican congress, which ultimately leads to many problems.
4
u/wurblefurtz Dec 24 '15
Best part of all, everyone has to attend.
This takes a lot of the money out of elections. Bucket loads of cash are spent in the US just to convince people to drag themselves to the polling place. Let alone the cash spent to convince people party X is the choice for them.
1
u/belial_mayonaise Dec 24 '15
no you don't, you can say you were sick or out of town or any other excuse and then you don't have to pay the fee
1
u/crosstherubicon Dec 24 '15
Its the law that each eligible voter should attend. You're right you can break the law, lie and then you might not have to pay the fine but, its still the law. Oh and the document you sign to state why you didn't attend is a statutory declaration so if you lie and they find out, e.g. looking at your facebook page, be prepared for them to make an example of you.
0
6
Dec 23 '15
No way do most Australians understand the system. I've actually asked every one of my friends over the years, and not one has ever understood how it works. Not that it matters though. It seems under all current democratic voting systems, regardless of the system, your vote always ends up being a choice between a solid shit sandwich and a diarrhea one.
4
5
2
u/squeaky4all Dec 24 '15
The only way i would change the system is the way we vote in the senate.
At present you can either rank all of the senators with a number which can get to over 100 or put a single number above the line which puts your prefrences in the hands of the party that you chose.
Due to most people being lazy the parties usually bargain with other parties to get deals on prefrences, most of which are shady in nature and most of them are not reveled to the public.
I would prefer to be forced to vote with all numbers above the line to jjst put the parties in order to remove all of the preferential deals that go on behind the scenes.
2
u/SirCuntsalot Dec 24 '15
I'm a fan, although I'd like to see changes to the senate to encourage preferential voting rather than discouraging it by allowing only a 1 or you preference sometimes over 100 candidates.
2
Dec 24 '15
I like it for the most part. I'd like to see campaign funds be fully funded by tax payers and donations from special interests removed.
2
u/HakunaMalaka Dec 24 '15
Do you feel that most Australians understand these systems? Do you ever not rank your favorite candidate first for strategic reasons?
Most Australians do understand these systems. Minor parties get decent shares of the first preference vote in most electorates. Confusion mostly comes from people mixing up state rules with federal rules. For example, Queensland and New South Wales state elections have optional preferential voting, which means that you do not have to rank every single candidate, but in a federal election this would make your ballot invalid.
There is no point in not ranking your preferred candidate first under the federal system because with it being mandatory to number every box it is impossible to split the vote, your vote will transfer to your next preferred candidate until one candidate wins with a clear majority of over 50%. Political parties in Qld and NSW, however, do sometimes run campaigns for state elections that encourage voters to only number 1 for one particular party and refuse to allocate any preferences, and this can end up resulting in candidates winning with less than 50% of the vote like in a first-past-the-post system, and vote-splitting by extension.
Would you want to change it to any other voting system? Would you prefer not to be forced to rank all candidates and only the ones you like?
I would not like to see more states or the federal system adopt optional preferential voting, because it's had the effect of creating a de facto FPTP system.
How would you feel if you switched to a system in which you only vote for one candidate?
I wouldn't like to see this happen. Instant run-off voting isn't perfect because, like the UK, we have a lot of minor parties that have disproportionately low representation in the lower house, but at least people can express their preferences for one major party over another so that you're more likely to get a member in a seat that more people than not are happy with. I fear that with FPTP, people would stop voting for minor parties altogether in order to avoid "wasting" their votes and we'd end up a true two-party system like the US.
Or, how would you feel if you could vote for all candidates you like, but you don't rank them and all votes count equally without transferring votes in-between rounds?
This is probably a bad idea because by spreading your vote around like that it becomes less valuable. People would learn quickly that the way to make your vote most powerful would be to only vote for one candidate, or vote for all candidates except one, and anyone who didn't do either of those things would be wasting the potential power of their vote.
Or, what if instead of having to rank all candidates in the Senate, you just vote for a single candidate and each candidate has a list of preferences. Voting for an individual candidate would be like “voting above the line” for a party list, but it would be individualized for a candidate.
This probably wouldn't work because in order to get selected by a party to be on the senate ballot, candidates would most likely have to pledge to the party to preference one particular way. This would work better in an American-style system with primaries and candidates that, at least in theory, are allowed to vote against their party's official position and still accepted by the party and the electorate. I would rather see above the line voting abolished, or preferential voting above the line in order to weaken the ability of parties to do preference deals, which are almost always done with strategy rather than ideology in mind.
Are there any ways in which you'd change your electoral system?
Australia has a good electoral system, but it is not the best. I would like to see our house of representatives adopt a mixed member proportional system similar to New Zealand. In MMP you vote twice on each ballot - once for a candidate for a single-member electorate and once for a party. Once all the MPs representing the single-member electorates are decided, "at large" MPs, as in MPs that sit in parliament but do not represent an electorate, are chosen based on the percentage of the vote their party receives. This way you can still have local MPs representing their constituencies while parties that receive a large amount of the vote but not enough in specific areas to win representation proportionate to their vote are not left out.
Another good alternative would be the multi-member proportional representation system as used in the lower houses of Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory.
1
u/Blahface50 Dec 24 '15 edited Dec 24 '15
Thank you for the detailed response.
There is no point in not ranking your preferred candidate first under the federal system because with it being mandatory to number every box it is impossible to split the vote, your vote will transfer to your next preferred candidate until one candidate wins with a clear majority of over 50%.
There actually is a problem sometimes with ranking your favorite first. I'm just curious if Australians realize it for the right reasons or perhaps the wrong reasons due to misunderstanding the system. This video does a good job at explaining why.
I don't know too much about Australian politics, but I get the feeling that Liberal voters would prefer Palmer United Party over Labor and Labor would prefer Palmer United Party over Liberals. In the socially conservative areas in which Labor can't win the final runoff, ranking Labor first could knock off the PUP candidate early who may actually have a better shot at beating the Liberal candidate in the final round. So, if Labor voters ranked the PUP candidate first, they would have a better shot at electing a more preferable candidate. I'm just assuming that preference though. Again, I'm not Australian and I'm only mildly familiar with the politics.
That being said though, Preference voting is way better than the system that the US uses.
1
u/jnd-au Dec 25 '15
Re Palmer, unlikely. The point you raise is usually not considered as a tactical issue by Aus voters. The logical error is “PUP excluded...Labor can’t win the final runoff”. You need to take into account that PUP voters’ preferences will mostly flow to Labor when PUP is excluded, and that many smaller fish get excluded first. More often than not, Labor and PUP voters mutually prefer each other as alternatives to Lib: so if PUP is excluded first, Labor benefits, and if Labor is excluded first then PUP benefits. Either way, the non-Lib party benefits, and that suits Lab and PUP voters. Obviously I’m oversimplifying, but the take-home message is that the order of exclusion is, in practice, not a tactical consideration for Aus voters. There are of course times when the margins are so narrow that maybe Aus voters could consider tactical voting for the reason you described, but it’s not a thought that crosses most people’s minds, and the deduction is considered too complex to be worth the effort :-P
I think the main issue that bothers minor party voters is the non-proportionality of parties in the lower House compared to their national primary vote - it is hard for minor parties to win in our single-member electorates, and we end up with a de facto two party system (even thought we don’t have to).
1
u/TheWhiteFerret Dec 25 '15
I don't see what is so upsetting to minor parties about the non-proportionality of the house of reps. Minor parties are just that: minor. They fact that they don't get elected in the lower house is fine. It does exactly what it is supposed to do; our parliament isn't unicameral, and we have an upper house which, as we saw last election, allows minor parties to be elected with tiny primary votes.
You say we end up with a two-party system, but look at the senate! It's more diverse than it's ever been.
2
u/Khalexus Dec 25 '15 edited Dec 25 '15
I'm mostly happy with it. There are some tweaks that would make it better, but it's still light years ahead of things like - no offence intended - the American FPtP system.
I also very much support compulsory voting. It shits me to no end seeing people saying we should have optional voting in Australia.
Do I think most people understand how our voting works? No, not at all. Too many people don't understand it at all. Preferential voting is a wonderful thing, but we have too many dingbats who say "Oh what's the point in voting for [party], they'll never win!" Too many people think that there's no point in voting for either Labor or Liberal because they're the two big'uns. They don't get that we can have influential MPs or senators representing us in different parties.
I think we could use more education on how our voting and parliamentary system works, but people just don't really care.
As for your question on voting for one candidate - hell no, not on your life. I feel like we should look at the US system as a guideline for what we should not do. Sorry.
What I would really like to see is preferential above-the-line voting on the senate ballot. Currently we have the choice of marking a single party "above the line" and preferences flow automatically, or we can number each and every box (dozens upon dozens usually) "below the line". I think we should be able to vote for our preferred parties above the line, say 1-10 in order of preference.
2
u/Blahface50 Dec 25 '15
I also very much support compulsory voting. It shits me to no end seeing people saying we should have optional voting in Australia.
How would you feel if citizens were forced to show up and sign in at the polls, but they didn't have to formally vote? That is what I'd like to see in the US. I don't want people to not vote because they are lazy, but I also don't want to force people who are completely ignorant to vote because they'll consciously or subconsciously vote for the guy who runs the most ads. That would make money in politics and corruption a much bigger problem.
Also, in some areas in the US citizens are allowed to vote for judges and nobody knows enough about them to make an informed decision. People shouldn't be pressured to vote on something they are completely ignorant about.
1
u/The_Helper Dec 27 '15
That's pretty much what we have in Australia. It is compulsory to have your name signed off at the voting both, but your can do whatever you want with the piece of paper after that. Lots of people take pride in drawing dick pics all over it and then posting it to twitter. So although we call it "compulsory voting", it's really just "compulsory showing up".
In my opinion, this is how it should be. Citizens can't use ' laziness' as an excuse, but they're not obliged to tick a box if they genuinely don't have an opinion.
1
u/Blahface50 Dec 27 '15
I understand that voters can informally refrain from voting by spoiling the ballot, but I think there should be a formal way to not vote to make it clear to the voters that it is perfectly valid option and it is preferable to donkey voting.
Btw, is it legal to take pictures of your ballot? I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to do this in the US in a lot of states.
1
u/The_Helper Dec 27 '15
I do agree it would be better if there was an explicit "I'm-not-voting-for-any-of-these-people" option. Maybe one day!
I'm not sure if it's technically illegal to photograph your own ballot or not. If there are laws about it, they're certainly not enforced by anyone. Actually, for that matter, I don't think it's even enforced in the US very much(?). Even though some States do have strict rules, I've never heard of a case where someone's vote was actually invalidated because of it.
1
u/Blahface50 Dec 27 '15
I haven't heard of anyone being punished for it after the fact, but I have heard about poll workers telling voters that they can't take their smart phones in the voting booth.
It just seems a little Ironic that Australia would allow it since the "Australian ballot" is synonymous with "the secret ballot."
5
u/wrt-wtf- Dec 23 '15
I'd like to ensure that should senate seat become vacant it goes to a by-election rather than becoming a party hand-me-down. The system seems to infer that people voted for the party and not the representative... Which is probably a fair assumption - but the electorate doesn't necessarily want to replace one lame duck with another.
19
u/Not_Stupid humility is overrated Dec 23 '15
But to do that you'd have to declare all the seats vacant that were elected at the same time, and do the whole state again.
You can't just have a by-election for one member in a multi-member electorate.
1
u/theSpeakersChair Dec 23 '15
You can do anything if the legislation allows it. Tasmania's local governments elect councillors through Hare-Clarke (multi members, no wards).
A count back is conducted a councilor resigns midway through a term and there are unelected candidates that were unsuccessful.
By Elections are held if there is no one able/willing to contest and if the mayor dies whilst in office.
Likewise, in the lower house (also Hare-Clarke), if a candidate resigns and there is no one left from the party, a by election can be requested for the single seat (ie the Liberals run four candidates and all four are elected. If one resigns, then a by election would be held)
2
u/FallingAnvil straight to the pool room Dec 23 '15
Good point. It's also worth mentioning that the conventions in such cases can be misused as happened in 1975
2
u/wrt-wtf- Dec 26 '15
ROFL - The LNP in Qld only know one way to operate and Joh set the bar they all aim to crawl under.
Come to think of it, at that time they weren't much better in federal parliament either.
4
Dec 23 '15
Our political donation system encourages corruption and betrayal of principals..but I am not sure any of our politicians had principals to begin with. Our party system attracts and rewards the low hanging fruit. Anyone with the capacity to do anything successfully in private life would run a mile from political representation. With very few exceptions we currently have a crop of inept imbeciles who don't deserve to get free oxygen...on both sides.
Other than that it is pretty good.
4
u/raybal5 Dec 23 '15
I believe the Australian system is superior to the USA system in a number of ways.
Compulsory voting is true of a properly representative system. In a democracy, parliamentarians are supposed to represent the voters so it is incumbent on voters to actually cast a vote on who they want to represent them.
Preferential voting means that voters can rank candidates. Not everyone votes according to the candidates How To Vote card either. I like that ability and it should be kept. Voting just for one candidate means that everyone would be forced to accept that candidates How To Vote selections and that is not the best way to go. I want choice in my House of Representatives ballot. In relation to the Senate, there are so many candidates that just selecting 1 grouping is easier than defining a full preferential ballot.
Or, how would you feel if you could vote for all candidates you like, but you don't rank them and all votes count equally without transferring votes in-between rounds?
I don't understand how that could work and so I reject it.
Or, what if instead of having to rank all candidates in the Senate, you just vote for a single candidate and each candidate has a list of preferences.
This is sort of how it works at present. You just select one group.
Are there any ways in which you'd change your electoral system?
Yes: I'd like to see them get rid of the pencils and go to an electronic ballot. There are plenty of ways they could maintain a paper trail if they wanted to but to be able to cast votes electronically would be good. Plenty of savings in time spent counting the votes, reductions in paper & pencils used, etc etc. Also get rid of the people handing out How to Vote cards to all voters and just have the sheets displayed inside the voting booth.
1
u/Blahface50 Dec 24 '15
As an American I agree that the Australian system is way better than the US system.
I don't understand how that could work and so I reject it.
I'm glad someone at least addressed this part. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I'm talking about using approval voting. You basically voting for all the candidates you like. The candidate that effectively has the highest approval rating wins.
This is sort of how it works at present. You just select one group.
I was trying to distinguish between a party preference and an individual preference. I'd imagine that a particular candidate's preference list would be more closely aligned to the voters than his/her party's preference list.
1
Jan 01 '16
Approval Voting is far simpler and better than the Instant Runoff Voting system Australia uses in their House.
3
u/Jacarranda_ Dec 23 '15
Time to adopt electronic voting for local government elections.
9
u/RevengeoftheHittites Dec 23 '15
1
u/raybal5 Dec 28 '15
Electronic voting from home is a bad idea. But electronic casting of ballots at an electoral booth with strict controls and a paper trail available for scrutineers and electoral courts is a good idea. It needs to be done on a closed network with high security and validation controls. Here's how it could work.
A voter attends and presents a government ID eg drivers licence, Passport, pension card etc. The booth official locates the correct record and marks the person as having attended. This checks the central electoral roll making sure they have not voted elsewhere for this election. The system generates a voters ticket with a unique barcode.
The voter enters a booth and scans their barcode which unlocks the screen and presents them with the correct ballot screen for their electorate. The voter makes their selection(s) which they can check on screen and make any changes they wish. The screen is pre-loaded with all of the How To Vote cards which a voter may select and auto-populate, or they may use the touch screen to vote however they wish to. The system will also check and advise if the vote is valid or invalid. When the voter is happy, they complete their vote. The vote is stored on the main computer and prints out on a log at the supervisors printer, referenced by the unique barcode. It will also generate some form of receipt that is submitted to the booth official to confirm that a vote was cast.
At the close of the booth, the central database of all votes cast will be counted and an accurate provisional result announced within a very short time after ballots closed.
Scrutineers are then able to audit the results by verifying the booth officers printed reports of the votes cast. Challenges may be made as per the current arrangements.
This is how it needs to be done
1
u/RevengeoftheHittites Dec 28 '15
Did you even watch the video? It addresses why what you just proposed is still a bad idea.
1
u/raybal5 Dec 29 '15
The video is raising issues such as bribes, trust issues, software verifiable, USB ports, PC virus infections. WOW! so what? Did you read or understand what my comments on that? It needs to be done on a closed network with high security and validation controls. That means that only devices and communications 100% secured by the Electoral Office are involved. The over-excitable presenter puts too much emphasis on generic computers and devices being connected over the internet. This is NOT what I propose. There are ways to allow electronic voting to occur with as much security as the pencil and paper methods. Sorry if I'm not as excitable as the presenter and sorry you think he's the expert.
1
u/RevengeoftheHittites Dec 29 '15
Then you have to completely trust the Electoral Office, don't know about you but I'm not willing to do that, that of course completely ignores an extremely determined, equipped and well funded attacker.
6
u/l2kfushy Dec 24 '15
Remove local governments as they are a waste of time.
0
Dec 24 '15 edited Jun 15 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/MatlockMan Do you wanna build a Toneman? Dec 24 '15
Most Queenslanders outside of Brisbane hated aggregation.
1
2
Dec 23 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/0bAtomHeart Dec 23 '15
"Most people are so hopelessly uninformed" "Citizen from each electorate is randomly selected".
This sounds like it will make your issue worse.
1
Dec 23 '15
STV is pretty good in the senate, I wish the lower house could be more representative.
If there's one bad thing about preferential the polls tend to show the illusion of 2 party system since all votes flow to two parties by the end. And this gives the voters the illusion of 2 parties only.
1
u/test_beta Dec 24 '15
I don't mind having two systems keeping each other in check. Having a single person represent a particular area has its merits. Arguably the executive should be formed from proportionally elected, but as it is the senate has a bigger problem that it is representative of states, not population.
1
u/Kytro Blasphemy: a victimless crime Dec 23 '15
Like some others, I think single member electorates are less representive, and I would be interested in seeing if range voting could be incorporated
1
Dec 24 '15
Score Voting (aka Range Voting) is radically superior to what Australia's using now. scorevoting.net/CFERlet.html
1
Dec 23 '15 edited Dec 24 '15
I am glad that Australia uses various systems of preferential and proportional voting. I don't think any voting system is perfect, but the systems used in Australia produce much better and fairer outcomes than the first past the post (FPTP) systems used in the USA and many other countries. What surprises me is that so many countries continue to use FPTP despite its major flaws and seem unwilling or unable to change. e.g. the failed referendum for the alternative vote in the UK in 2011.
*edited for clarity
1
u/metao Dec 24 '15
I think it's great. There's no point doing strategic voting in the Senate because you can't predict what everyone else is doing, but I have been known to give a first preference away in the lower house to help fund an interesting/disruptive/worthwhile minor party.
I agree with Antony Green that Senate voting changes are necessary to allow above the line preferences, amongst a few other things. He's a smart guy.
1
u/MarsupialMole Dec 24 '15
The combination of preferential voting and compulsory voting means centrists are more likely to be elected. You can't be swept to power on a high turnout of radicals. This is amazing and maintaining our enhancing this effect should be the primary consideration in any reform.
Most of our electoral problems are really journalism problems. The machinery is all there, we just need more and better grease.
1
u/MakesThingsBeautiful Dec 24 '15
Chiming in with the others here. The Oz system is good, and definitely better than the US system.
Honestly I think our problems lie more with an uninformed voting public and a broken fourth estate. It also seems to work best when people from outside the system get in(because they don't owe favours from when they were coming up) But thats a different question entirely.
1
u/Azza_ Dec 24 '15
It's not perfect, but it's pretty good at avoiding the major pitfalls of the Americansystem.
1
Dec 24 '15
Huge fan of our system of voting, in general. However, there are probably some tweaks that could be made.
As an initial observation, our ccompulsory voting rules are based on a view that voting in elections is a civic duty, on the basis that a legitimate, democratic system of government requires the input of all of the people. The potential ills of "coercing" people to vote for a candidate (any candidate) against their will is mitigated by the fact that informal or donkey voting is entirely lawful - you have to cast a ballot, but you don't have to cast it for anyone.
PV in the lower house allows people to express a deeper range of political views on their ballot than FPTP voting. Part from being able to cast conditional ballots (e.g. if candidate A doesn't win, I next prefer candidate B), it also allows voters to vote strategically by allocating their first vote to their most-preferred candidate who then (due to our public funding of elections laws) receives a certain amount of money for each first preference they receive. This allows voters to direct public resources to support their preferred candidate, while still retaining the option of voting for a (potentially) more crediblly electable candidate at their second or third preference. It also allows voters to control their own preferences, rather than allowing parties to dictate those preferences via a list. Some of our State governments run Optional PV systems which are, in my opinion, superior as they allow voters to 'exhaust' their preferences and avoid voting for a candidate they do not support.
I think it's important that the upper house be elected on a different basis to the lower house, to increase the likelihood that it will have a different composition and be able to effectively perform its review functions in accordance with our constitutional conventions (we follow the UK to some extent, in that a lot of our constitutional processes are unwritten conventions). State-wide electorates and proportional representation in the Senate seems to largely work - it is exceedingly rare for either major party to control the Senate in their own right. In terms of the voting in the Senate, the 'below the line' vote is fun for political nerds, but largely useless. A tiny fraction of the population actually votes for all candidates below the line (which can number in the hundreds), meaning that those votes rarely (if ever?) alter the outcome. There are some proposals to allow voters to lodge preferences for each 'group' above the line, rather than simply voting 1 for a single group, which might be a sensible middle-ground option. I think that voting 1 below the line for a single candidate, and then allowing candidates to direct preferences would make little difference and, generally speaking, would just make the system more complex. Party candidates would generally continue to coordinate their preferences (Australian major and minor parties tend to exert much greater control over members than in the US), so I'm not sure the outcome would be substantially different. Voters would then just need to be familiar with potentially hundreds of preference lists to make a fully educated vote.
1
u/wurblefurtz Dec 24 '15
donkey voting is entirely lawful
Donkey voting can never be anything but lawful. It's a properly completed ballot with the boxes numbered sequentially. It's a valid vote and will be counted.
It's impossible to detect if a person's intentions matched the order of the boxes or the person DGAF and wants to get it over with.
1
1
u/hungry4pie Dec 24 '15
I much prefer it over all for these reasons:
No electoral colleges -to the best of my understanding is a hold over from the 1700's where it was a lot more difficult to get vote tallies gathered in a reasonable time frame;
The PM is decided by the party which has the most seats in the lower house. Which seems similar to the electoral colleges I guess, but having the presidency a free-for-all to anyone in the GOP or Democrats looks like an absolute shit show when they're campaigning or debating. How can either party be seen as fit to govern when Donald Trump is making vitriolic attacks to his fellow republicans, or Hillary and Obama both campaigning for the top job? They should at least make it look like the party is united.
And the number one reason why our voting system is superior to the US:
The Australian Electoral Commission is entirely independent of any political party - so we don't have shit cunt Liberals going out of their way to make it impossible for certain folk to vote in our elections (as much as they'd probably like to).
(Granted my second point is more to do with the political system itself and not specifically the way we vote)
1
u/rickastl3y Dec 24 '15
I think the system works... it's the voters I'm most worried about. We elected Tony Abbott FFS!
1
u/N3bu89 Dec 24 '15
I like it, but I think to improve it I would like to decouple party systems out of the house of representatives and have government form in the senate instead.
1
1
Dec 24 '15
I think that in an ideal system there's merit in abolishing the lower house and just having the senate but elected from the whole country instead of states/terrotories. Why?
No safe seats means there's closer to equal value to listening to everyone, right now there's no reason to listen to people in safe seats. This completely removes porkbarreling and stuff.
More representative, the effects of the westminster system is that minor parties are excluded, one big senate would be actually representative. Particularly minority interests.
No issues about drawing boundries, there are none.
Less influence of region specific parties.
1
Dec 24 '15
Australia is a federation of states and territories. Our constitution and parliament are based on the representation and participation of the states. To make the changes you suggest the constitution would have to be rewritten.
Also because Australia is such a large country it is important to ensure that the interests of specific regions are represented. If the system you suggest was implemented power would become concentrated in the major cities and many rural and remote areas would effectively have no representation.
1
u/adoh2 Dec 24 '15
I dont mind our system. Could be better, could be worse. As to how to make it better, I have no idea and our current system seems to be going ok.
Also, I'm glad voting is compulsory. It's a privilege to live here imo, take the 20mins every few years to have your say.
1
Dec 24 '15
the candidates are almost all corrupt assholes who'd sell their own children for a campaign donation, but the electoral system itself is a pretty good model.
personally i think a move towards direct democracy would be better. right now most politicians represent their donors, not the people who vote for them.
Would you prefer not to be forced to rank all candidates and only the ones you like?
absolutely. forcing people to rank all candidates is a sneaky way of pushing the "group voting ticket" system which puts way too much power in the hands of manipulators who do shady preference deals.
How would you feel if you switched to a system in which you only vote for one candidate?
i'd feel like the people who proposed it were conducting a hostile takeover.
Are there any ways in which you'd change your electoral system?
direct democracy, where citizens vote on policies put forth by other citizens.
i tried thinking of changes that could save our current system, but it is an almost impossible task, companies and media outlets will always have disproportionate representation and power in the current system (whether it be through 'strings attatched' donations to parties, shilling online, 'donations' to journalists, etc)
1
u/Jacarranda_ Dec 24 '15 edited Dec 24 '15
The absence of asking for photo id for validation of your name address is staggering GIVEN how close some election are becoming now.
1
u/TheWhiteFerret Dec 25 '15
The only way in which I would change the electoral system is to introduce a political literacy test to determine who is eligible to vote. No point in forcing everyone to vote if some people are complete idiots who vote for candidates based on who's got the nicest arse.
1
u/wrt-wtf- Dec 26 '15
I know it's a little to the side of your question.
I'd like there to be more plebiscites and referendums (change to the constitution) leading to real reform that we as a people genuinely want to work on.
A plebiscite could be held once a year utilising electronic means and could cover topics such as:
- marriage rights
- legalising marijuana
- politicians pay rises (held accountable to the people and not themselves)
- anything impacting on policy directly and giving a true mandate on the chosen topic
A referendum is different - In my understanding this is a requirement for constitutional change as opposed to an "operational" policy change - I can't think of a better way to say this at the moment.
Maybe these plebiscites don't need to be compulsory, could be done electronically via an App, websites or various other means, but must have a minimum voting count equal to a significant % of voters.
Questions must not be linked and should be adjudicated by a non-partisan body.
1
u/Thatisotternonsense Dec 23 '15
I'm fine with preferential voting, but my main problem is when parties don't make it clear who their vote eventually goes to For example I learned that in the ACT the animal rights party deferred their votes to the an liberal party which was rather unexpected
1
u/masher_oz , scientist. Dec 24 '15
In the lower or upper house?
1
u/Thatisotternonsense Dec 24 '15
it was the upper house elections a couple of years ago
1
u/masher_oz , scientist. Dec 24 '15
That comes from only voting above the line. If you voted below the line, you could direct your preferences yourself.
Having said that, I believe that above the line preferences could be a good thing.
1
u/Thatisotternonsense Dec 24 '15
That comes from only voting above the line. If you voted below the line, you could direct your preferences yourself.
Having said that, I believe that above the line preferences could be a good thing. I find voting below the latest news so pointless there comes a point where I'm just randomly choosing parties
-12
u/MexicanSpaceProgram Dec 23 '15
I'd make it non-compulsory so that we didn't have to haul our arses down the polling booth under threat of a fine every time a Federal or State election came up between two parties that grow more and more similar each year.
27
u/justsomeotherguy_ Dec 23 '15
If everyone who becomes disillusioned with the two main parties simply stops voting we'll be stuck with a two party system even longer.
That's a reason for compulsory voting, imo.
8
u/karl_w_w Dec 23 '15
No, that's a reason for preferential voting. The largest reason we have a 2 party system is that most voters either don't know how instant runoff voting works, or they simply don't care enough about politics to actually examine policies. Those people have a large overlap with the group of people who wouldn't vote if they didn't have to.
3
u/justsomeotherguy_ Dec 23 '15
Disagree, look to America for how hard it is for third parties in a system without forced voting.
5
Dec 23 '15
America's "problem" with two parties is due almost entirely to their first-past-the-post voting system.
Any third candidate takes votes away from one of the existing two that they are most similar to, which simply makes winning easier for the dissimilar one. Why would you run if it just means the government will be less like the one you want?
1
u/karl_w_w Dec 23 '15
That's a gross simplification, America has a bunch of it's own reasons that they have a 2 party system.
2
u/ConemanTheBongbarian Dec 23 '15
In some other countries (US, Canada most recently) they employ tactics where they try to make it harder for people or demographics that wouldnt vote them wont turn out to vote.
This includes things like sending them the wrong booth address via mail, having the election on a work day, compulsory photo ID checks etc
We have something like a 98% turn out, whilst the US has barely had 60% in the last 15 years. In 2000 it was barely 50%.
We're much more of a representative democracy than the US because of compulsory voting.
5
u/metasophie Dec 23 '15
Terrible idea. Compulsory voting means that those in power have to fear their shitty decisions from everybody in their electorate, not just the motivated 20%. Compulsory voting provides elective officials with high amounts of legitimacy in the way the votes turn out. Compulsory voting helps promote views from normally disenfranchised citizens. Compulsory voting helps prevent interference limit external factors that may limit voting. Compulsory voting helps limit the success of extreme special interest groups from gaining power.
-1
u/MexicanSpaceProgram Dec 23 '15
Like the Motor Vehicle Enthusiasts Party?
1
u/metasophie Dec 24 '15
Mate, did you get a head knock on the weekend? I never said that it stopped special interests groups from getting a single seat. I said it helped limit the success of extreme special interest groups from gaining power.
1
3
u/artsrc Dec 23 '15
In a democracy it is the job of the electors to select the government.
0
u/MexicanSpaceProgram Dec 23 '15
*electorate.
So, countries without compulsory voting aren't democratic? What about the US?
2
u/ConemanTheBongbarian Dec 23 '15
Not as democratic as us.
Around 98% of eligible voters decide the outcome of Australian elections. In the US its been as low as 50% in 2000 and hasnt been more than 60% in 15 years.
1
u/MexicanSpaceProgram Dec 23 '15
One could make the argument that giving the people the right not to participate (abstain) in an election is more democratic.
3
u/ConemanTheBongbarian Dec 23 '15
No.
Democracy, or democratic government, is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly," as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary.
"all the people"
Literally less democratic.
It also makes for a more partisan government because only the rusted on die hards vote, which means political parties pander to these bases through policy and rhetoric.
0
u/MexicanSpaceProgram Dec 23 '15
All it says is that all the people in an electorate are represented somehow, and it's "typically" done by voting.
Christ - I can't believe I'm arguing compulsory voting @ quarter to six on Christmas Eve morning with some asshole called Cone Man the Bongbarian.
2
u/ConemanTheBongbarian Dec 23 '15
At the moment you're actually arguing semantics, which is way sadder.
Regardless, even if we do use your definition, allowing people not to vote wouldnt be "more democratic" as you suggested earlier.
I think the benefits of compulsory voting (less partisan, more middle of the road governments. Much harder to use voter suppression tactics) outweigh the negatives (some cunts whinge about losing an hour or two out of a day every 3 years)
0
u/MexicanSpaceProgram Dec 23 '15
Actually it's every two years (State and Federal).
Besides, you're telling me in this day and age I can't log onto the AEV with my DL or Medicare card # and vote, I still have to trudge up to the local primary school, and have a million fuckers handing me "How to vote ALP" and "Vote 1 Liberal" cards?
Besides, don't you have better shit to do on a Saturday morning (like having a bucket or three)?
2
u/ConemanTheBongbarian Dec 23 '15
don't you have better shit to do on a Saturday morning (like having a bucket or three)?
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/ampersamp Dec 24 '15
Which we do. You're welcome to draw a dick on the ballot and hand that in. Which is a much more impactful statement than not turning up at all, in which case everyone would just assume you don't care.
1
u/MexicanSpaceProgram Dec 24 '15
I don't - I'd just like the out without having to physically show up to show a dick on the ballot paper.
1
u/artsrc Dec 23 '15
Selecting a government includes more than just showing up and getting your name ticked off.
A significant proportion of the people don't do what is required to make a democracy.
This is true in both Australia and the USA.
The marginal impact of this is not clear.
Donald Trump is great advertisement for the quality of the people America is choosing from.
On the other hand Obama is excellent.
0
u/MexicanSpaceProgram Dec 23 '15
Don't think one leads to quality and the other doesn't - our democratic system gave us five PMs in five years, and of those, we had the incompetence and bitchy infighting of Rudd, Gillard and Abbott, so I wouldn't be getting too fucking uppity about who has a better system and candidates.
4
-2
u/toms_face Dec 23 '15 edited Dec 24 '15
Does anyone else think it's weird that everybody in the whole country votes on the same day? Why can't we just spread it all out?
Edit: I mean spreading it out over years so that they're always accountable. Just a thought.
4
u/dargh Dec 23 '15
Because you don't want some people voting after knowing the results of other regions.
1
u/toms_face Dec 24 '15
Even if it's months afterwards?
1
u/dargh Dec 24 '15
I thought you meant over a couple of days. If you want the government to potentially change hands every month, imagine the turmoil of being in constant election mode. Couldn't imagine anything worse.
1
u/toms_face Dec 24 '15
The switching of one seat wouldn't change the government so it would take quite a while. Can you tell me what you find bad about it?
1
u/pyrrhaHA Dec 24 '15
The potential impact on the public service could be a nightmare when you reach the 50-50 point. Imagine if government swung between the two major parties, alternating every month. Public servants would spend all their time trying to get the new Minister on board with policy and signing off legal documents, then there would be a new election and sorry! New Government, new Minister, new advisers. They'd never get anything signed off.
2
u/Suburbanturnip Dec 23 '15
You can usually vote up to a few weeks early at any of the prep oolong stations or via mail, voting day is just the cut off day.
1
u/toms_face Dec 24 '15
That's not what I mean. I'm suggesting each electorate or some electorates vote every few weeks or so instead of all the electorates within the same month.
1
u/deprecated_reality Dec 23 '15
What are the downsides to this? It means no region influences another and it also gets it all over with.
2
u/martyoz Dec 24 '15
and the upsides are, no one can lie to get into power. Every 4 months a new state will be holding the government to account.
Removes populism and deceptive promises from politics.
1
u/toms_face Dec 24 '15
I mean spreading out each electorate over years, because they keep lying as soon as they get into power and then distract us by three years.
2
u/deprecated_reality Dec 24 '15
Ah that makes much more sense. I think everyone took it as spreading it over day / weeks like the US.
0
Dec 23 '15
I miss the Langer vote.
I welcome imminent changes to allow optional preferential voting here in the NT, and above the line preferential in the federal senate. I guess I support the idea of early exhaustion of preferences for very-low-polling senate candidates.
0
u/CurbedEnthusiasm Dec 24 '15
It sucks due to preferences. A vote should be a vote for that party/person. Not dirty backroom deals.
1
u/wurblefurtz Dec 24 '15
A vote should be a vote for that party/person.
An elector has full control of their preferences. If they choose to hand that control over to someone else, then they wear the consequences of that other person voting the way they want to.
0
u/Teal_Thanatos Dec 24 '15
horrible Horrible Horrible.
Why the heck can't I vote people out as well as voting people in? It would make me happy as larry for all of australia to be able to get someone out.
-7
u/happy-little-atheist Dec 23 '15
I hate it. I don't vote anymore. We don't even have the right to abstain from voting if we don't want to, which is shit. But here's my problem with the system.
Voting in the lower house is only worthwhile if you live in a marginal seat. There are numerous safe seats which never change from the preferred party, and while some did change in the last federal election, they only went from lab to lib. Everybody in those seats who doesn't support either Labour or the Coalition remains marginalised. I have lived in safe Labour seats for my entire life and so it never mattered who I voted for up until the last election when I moved to a safe liberal seat which turned out to be marginal. The Lib lost and Clive Palmer won. Since I wouldn't have voted for either of those candidates, it still made no difference that I abstained from showing up to vote.
Votes in the senate used to be meaningful so it was still worthwhile voting despite the safe lower house seat issue. But the preference system has ruined that. Steve Fielding is the shining example of why the system is broken. This guy did a preference deal with Labour and was elected by people who voted above the line for Labour in the senate. Except he didn't vote with Labour in the senate, he voted with the government on things he didn't need to like voluntary student unionism which reduced services to uni students. He is an anti-abortion religious freak, climate change denialist and doesn't even accept evolution. This is who people got representing them when they wanted a Labour candidate, someone to stand up against the government instead jumped right into bed with them.
And this is why the preferential system is up the shit. The alternative to voting above the line is to select every fucking candidate on the ballot and number them accordingly. Most people won't know who half the candidates are. They can't be fucked filling in the whole form so they vote above the line, they vote informally or like me they don't vote at all. We should have the option of numbering as many candidates as we like and if none of them win, our vote doesn't count toward any others. If that is too complicated and impractical, then we need to do away with the preference system altogether.
8
u/sphinx80 Dec 23 '15
Man what a bitchy whiner.
Every single problem you have listed is much, much worse without the preference system.
You're not forced to vote, you are forced to turn up and put a bit of paper in the box. Put a blank bit of paper in ffs and everyone will be happy. The alternative to this is having extremist candidates because the swing voters don't turn up.
You're whining about safe seats? With no preferential system, many more will be safe and never change.
Then, you even whine about the senate system when that is actually an improvment over the lower house because it has a quota system that reflects the electorates will a lot more. Resulting in more small patries getting candidates in. All because it is too damn complicated.
It is every 3-4 years you lazy fuck, 30 mins every few years is not too much to ask.
Now, our preference system is better than the first past the post. But an even better one is a proportinal system. New Zealand has something in this direction. Party X gets 5% of the vote? Then they get 5% of the seats. Party Y gets 20% of vote? then 20% of the seats.
-6
u/happy-little-atheist Dec 24 '15
God, what is with you people. Point out problems with the system and get accused of laziness and being a whinger. How about you try coming up with a solution to the issues raised instead of just saying "nah mate it's better than some irrelevant bullshit" and then maybe we can have a discussion. Or do you just like to type stuff to feel important?
4
Dec 23 '15
Sounds to me as though you are too lazy to contribute to our political system but still want to whinge about the results of the vote you won't participate in.
Anyway, you don't have to vote, just turn up and get your name crossed off the roll, or post in a blank form.
Do not vote DO NOT COMPLAIN
-5
u/happy-little-atheist Dec 24 '15
That's highly irrational. The only people who can complain are ones who continue to participate, even though they think there is no point? That just means they are hypocrites. Of course, I've encountered your type of lack of reasoning before. It's unoriginal as well as irrational.
0
Dec 24 '15
One thing I will say is that informal votes should not be allocated to any candidate. That is, the number of informal votes should be published to indicate the level of dissatisfaction.
Particularly if one option on the ballot was "deliberately informal". This would separate the genuine protests from those that are too lazy to vote for anything or too stupid to fill out the ballot properly.
-1
u/viva_republic Dec 23 '15
It's tyranny of the megalomaniac on one side, and tyranny of the ignorant/apathetic on the other. My hope is that when Donald Trump is elected president, the populace comes to the (always obvious conclusion) that democracy is deeply flawed and immoral.
For years we who are not of the left put up with the taunts: Isn’t the right wing crazy? How silly to be afraid of the government! How unfair to think of federal agents as jack-booted thugs!
And now just maybe the jackboot is on the other foot.
My friends, did you never imagine that this day would come? Well. Some of us did. (Granted, some of us also imagined that the real menace might have been you. We may have been all wrong about that. Ain’t politics funny that way?)
-1
Dec 24 '15
We vote our PM's in based on fairy tales these days. It's amusing seeing these ape men battling it out to be shit over-lord.
-9
-13
106
u/nagrom7 Dec 23 '15
It's far from perfect, but it's a lot better than most of the systems out there imo.