Damn crooked voting/election system!

[Whiskers]

What is a fair or fairest voting system... optional preferential. preferential or first past the post?

In a report in the 90's, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission (EARC) said: "... under the current compulsory preferential system voters are being required to express views they may not have. Encouraging voters to express preference is ultimately a matter for candidates and parties, not the electoral system."​

Should it be uniform across Australia, ie local, state and federal?

Should the election date be fixed, a-la the US system?


An article in the Brisbane Times today suggests Qld's optional preferential system introduced by Labor last decade, may come back to bite them... or is this ironic justice?

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/the-no1-reason-for-labor-to-worry-20100909-1532r.html

 

[Bushman]

What is a fair or fairest voting system... optional preferential. preferential or first past the post?

In a report in the 90's, the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission (EARC) said: "... under the current compulsory preferential system voters are being required to express views they may not have. Encouraging voters to express preference is ultimately a matter for candidates and parties, not the electoral system."​

Should it be uniform across Australia, ie local, state and federal?

Should the election date be fixed, a-la the US system?


An article in the Brisbane Times today suggests Qld's optional preferential system introduced by Labor last decade, may come back to bite them... or is this ironic justice?

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/the-no1-reason-for-labor-to-worry-20100909-1532r.html

Agree 100% Whiskers - we should not have a preference system. I am all for first past the post and think that Andrew Wilkie winning Dennison on 21% of the primary vote is an abuse of process.

 

[Julia]

I agree too. My guess would be that many voters just slam any number into any box. First past the post is simple and clear. Andrew Wilkie is a very good example.

Doing away with preferences would also eliminate the odious practice of deals between the parties.

 

[sails]

Rather than doing away with preferences or have an optional preferential system where I assume one can either put '1' in one of the boxes OR fill them all out, has it ever been tried where you can fill in more than one box but not necessarily have to fill in every box?

Example: Five boxes on the form but the voter only want preferences to go to two or three candidates. So only two or three boxes are filled.

At present, I believe that would be considered an informal vote, but it might be a good in-between system where preferences are not entirely thrown out.

I don't like the fact that I have to give the candidates I absolutely don't want a number at all and would prefer to give one primary vote and then preferences only to those that I like best.

Does anyone know if this has been tried or what the problems might be with such a system?

 

[Knobby22]

I love the preferance system.


I always vote independant first and then down the list to the major party.
A lot of people must be like me or we wouldn't have so many independants , the National Party, the Greens, the DLP (who are going to win a senate seat in Victoria.)

It is great you can also vote for single issue parties to make a point.
Some issues that come to mind are: gambling, euthanasia, family values etc.

Very good for democracy in my view. Without it we would have a true two party system like the USA has.

 

[noco]

One of the crooked things I would like have rectified when voting is for each voter to produce some ID such as a drivers lic. or pension card.

I tested the system out at the last election and the polling booth official was quite happy to let me vote for a deceased friend. I then gave my real name and when she went to cross it off, I said, " now are you sure that is me"and she replied, "I'll have to take your word for it".

I could have voted at 10 polling different polling booths without question.

I know for a fact the political criminals do every time.

 

[alphaman]

I'd like to be able to vote -1 to both parties and have it officially counted.

 

[explod]

Whatever you have the systems will be manipulated by those in power and have the upper hand.

Remember well 40 years ago when a shearer in Queensland, Joe kept it in line by having 50,000 voters in the Country party seats and 200,000 plus in the Labor Party seats. In that way he beat em every time.

And his old saying "don't you worry about that" and he did not; and escaped going to gaol when he should have IMV also. Redistributions to gerry mander is always on.

So get real, the voting system reflects what the general community will put up with. For most, as long as we can have a beer and go to the footy each week, everything else can jump.

 

[Smurf1976]

Personally, I'd prefer something like the Hare-Clark system with multiple seats per electorate (and fewer electorates). That system delivers an outcome somewhat more representative of the views of the population.

For example, if there are 5 seats in an electorate and the vote is 40/40/20 Labor/Liberal/Green then the likely outcome is 2 Labor, 2 Liberal and 1 Green elected. Seems a fair outcome to me.

 

[boofhead]

Smurf1976: That is surprising. So many people in Tasmania are wanting to move away from the system. As long as there is a way to do preferences I'm not too bothered. I'm one of those that number them all.

 

[Julia]

Smurf1976: That is surprising. So many people in Tasmania are wanting to move away from the system. As long as there is a way to do preferences I'm not too bothered. I'm one of those that number them all.

Even for the Senate?

 

[So_Cynical]

Optional preferential voting is my preferred option

At least that way voters that actually had a preference/gave a dam...could exercise it.

 

[boofhead]

Even for the Senate?

Yes for the senate too. Reps in my electorate wasn't too bad. Only 3 candidates. I think there were only 34 or so people on the senate sheet. It is my vote so I'll make sure preferences happen the way I want. I'm only 1 of 350,000 or so voters in Tasmania.

 

[gav]

Even for the Senate?

I voted below the line for the Senate too, all 60 numbers (I put Conroy last ) I just hate the way parties do deals with preferences, including the party I voted for. Thanks to our wonderful preference system, Victoria now has a nut-job from the Democratic Labor Party in the Senate.

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf1976: That is surprising. So many people in Tasmania are wanting to move away from the system. As long as there is a way to do preferences I'm not too bothered. I'm one of those that number them all.

I'd argue that those wanting to scrap the system in Tas hold that view due to an expectation of a certain outcome, that being to entrench the two party system.

I've heard suggestions of reforming the system on numerous occasions. Without exception, they are in the context of finding some means of keeping the Greens out of parliament.

Whilst I'm not exactly a Green supporter (though they do have some good ideas - credit where it's due...), entrenching the two party system isn't my idea of improving government in this country.

If 45% of people vote Labor, 35% Liberal and 20% Green then what's wrong with a parliament that ends up containing roughly 45% Labor, 35% Liberal and 20% Green MP's? Nobody has a majority, but that is simply a reflection of how the population has voted.

 

[grants]

Almost three quarters of a million more individuals voted for Liberal than Labor in this election. I would have thought that would have been important when deciding on the current Government.

 

[explod]

Almost three quarters of a million more individuals voted for Liberal than Labor in this election. I would have thought that would have been important when deciding on the current Government.

When you say Liberal, does that include or exclude the Nationals ?

 

[grants]

Good point - "the coalition"

 

[Julia]

Yes for the senate too. Reps in my electorate wasn't too bad. Only 3 candidates. I think there were only 34 or so people on the senate sheet. It is my vote so I'll make sure preferences happen the way I want. I'm only 1 of 350,000 or so voters in Tasmania.

My senate sheet had about 40 candidates most of whom I'd never heard of.
Couldn't possibly number them all with any logic.

Since the Democrats have disappeared, and if I feel strongly enough about my House of Reps vote, I'm happy to vote on the Senate paper as the lower house party of my choice suggests. Presumably they have done the numbers and know where they will best benefit from what preferences.

That said, I'd prefer to see non-compulsory voting and a first past the past system.

 

[boofhead]

I remember one of the elections the Howard coalition got in and Labor had more votes. Total overall primary vote across the country shouldn't be the method of determining which party gets first choice to form government. Hypothetical situation of a very popular Labor candidate wins his seat by 1000. In every other seat the Labor candidates lose by 1 vote. Labor has the most primary votes yet only 1 seat. I know it is a very contrived situation.