I feel preference voting makes voting a fast. Parties are able to get together and stop minor parties that they don't like from being elected. The Greens lost 3 seats due to this in the last election and One Nation also lost a seat. It really makes a fast of who we vote for.

I voted CDP because they gave preferences to the Liberals but the more i think about it I still would have voted for them because of their immigration policy. Your vote is only a waste if you vote for someone you don't really want to vote for.

You mean switching from preferential voting to FPTP? No way. FPTP stops minor parties. Preferential voting levels the playing field for them.

Parties are able to get together and stop minor parties that they don't like from being elected.

No, that is single member electorates. If only one member is elected, it is not going to be the representative of a small minority group.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html

Freediver I knew you would come back with "It stops minor parties", didn't you read what I wrote?

How can you speak for everyone? We are all individuals and I believe the people who vote for minor parties today would keep their vote the same way as their parties have more of an opportunity to picking up a seat. Take away preferences and you take away 30% of the vote for the two major parties. After the first election people would see this then their would be a flood for minor parties.

Your argument has been going around since Menzies. The argument itself is crap just to keep the two major parties as a monopoly.

I think we should wipe the preference system as well.  In the last Federal Election the Greens got twice as many primary votes as the Nationals - yet the Nationals got all the liberal preferences and so got extra seats in the lower house, which should have gone to the Greens.

Look at Family First and that illiterate Fielding - he got the balance of power in the Senate on a minority number of votes.

It certainly hasn't been a level playing field for the Greens.  In some electorates in the State election they got up to 40% of the primary vote - yet missed out on seats because of the preferences.

It's very unfair.

Take away preferences and you take away 30% of the vote for the two major parties.

No you don't. Many people would vote strategically for the major parties. Even if you did take away 30%, that's still 70% for the major parties and 30% for all the minor parties to share, which still means they don't get elected. The only difference then is that the major parties do not court the preferences of the minor parties.

After the first election people would see this then their would be a flood for minor parties.

There would be fewer minor parties and they would get far less of the vote. That is what happens in reality. Global experience backs me up on this.

The argument itself is crap just to keep the two major parties as a monopoly.

The two parties do not have a monopoly. The minor parties hold considerably power in Australia compared to places without preferential voting like the US. Abolishing preferential voting creates a two party duopoly.

Your argument has been going around since Menzies.

It has been going around since preferential voting was first promoted and adopted. It is going around in countries that don't have preferential voting yet, because they are stuck with unfair voting systems.

In the last Federal Election the Greens got twice as many primary votes as the Nationals - yet the Nationals got all the liberal preferences and so got extra seats in the lower house, which should have gone to the Greens.

That is because the National's vote is concentrated, not because of preferential voting. Getting rid of preferential voting would not change that.

In some electorates in the State election they got up to 40% of the primary vote - yet missed out on seats because of the preferences.

For example?

Read Wikipedia on Australian Elections and look at the breakdown before preferences.

Link please? And the name of the electorate. It's rude to make people go looking for your sources.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2007 at 7:59pm:

Take away preferences and you take away 30% of the vote for the two major parties. No you don't. Many people would vote strategically for the major parties. Even if you did take away 30%, that's still 70% for the major parties and 30% for all the minor parties to share, which still means they don't get elected. The only difference then is that the major parties do not court the preferences of the minor parties.

Liberal 30%
Labour 40%
Greens 22%
One Nation 8%

as an example.

I think once people see another party closing the gap they will also see that their vote wont be wasted by voting for a party that really has their issues at heart.

Eventually we would probably see;
Liberal 18%
Labour 22%
Greens 21%
Democrats 16%
One Nation 13%
Enviro Party 10%

As an example.

Your argument is based on assumption and so is mine. People have been brainwashed to believe that 2 party's is it. Any smaller party is generally ganged up on by both majors. This is what taking away preference voting will stop. The two major parties have a monopoly on power over this country.

Consider me rude but Zoso placed it on another thread which I had presumed you read as you were in the debate.

the most preferred candidate.

Sort of the most popular overall.

enviro wrote on Apr 19^th, 2007 at 7:25pm:

I feel preference voting makes voting a fast.

Do you mean farce? Or are you saying that you are fasting from voting until the party you like has a chance of holding the balance of power?   :-/

enviro wrote on Apr 19^th, 2007 at 8:27pm:

Liberal 18% Labour 22% Greens 21% Democrats 16% One Nation 13% Enviro Party 10%

Where did the National Party disappear to?

I cant ever see the Greens gain 21% of the vote, it was around 7% in the last election. If anything, they will go south, just like the Democrats, because the major parties will hijack their policy. Also, the environment will become a larger issue in future elections (perhaps the prime issue) therefore the major parties will continue to "green up".

All other parties gained about 1 or 2% of the primary vote last time around, so how will they get enough traction and reach double digits?

Liberal 30%
Labour 40%
Greens 22%
One Nation 8%

Maybe I missed the point. I thought you were arguing that the greens 'deserved' to win and lost because of preferences.

Eventually we would probably see;
Liberal 18%
Labour 22%
Greens 21%
Democrats 16%
One Nation 13%
Enviro Party 10%

That is not how it pans out overseas and it doesn't make sense. If you take away the right of greens or one nation supporters to choose between Labor and Liberal, that makes them less likely to vote for the minor party, not more.

Your argument is based on assumption and so is mine.

Mine is based on reason and backed up with experience. Yours is based on assumption.

Consider me rude but Zoso placed it on another thread which I had presumed you read as you were in the debate.

I don't think that example backed up your argument either. But I am very glad now I didn't bother looking for it as you suggested.

I cant ever see the Greens gain 21% of the vote, it was around 7% in the last election.

In some electorates they get that.

If anything, they will go south, just like the Democrats, because the major parties will hijack their policy.

Fine by me. I care about policy, not politicians.

Preference voting should be scrapped... and compulsory voting should be scrapped. The two-party system needs to be scrapped... big time. Too much of stranglehold over the country.

These two so-called different parties are what you'd call 'catch all parties.'
They only do what they have to to get votes. Other than power... they couldn't gve a rats about what the average Aussie thinks.

Preference voting should be scrapped

And replaced with what?

The two-party system needs to be scrapped

And replaced with what? Mandatory seats for the minor parties?

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Apr 20^th, 2007 at 3:35pm:

Preference voting should be scrapped... and compulsory voting should be scrapped. The two-party system needs to be scrapped... big time. Too much of stranglehold over the country. These two so-called different parties are what you'd call 'catch all parties.' They only do what they have to to get votes. Other than power... they couldn't gve a rats about what the average Aussie thinks.

Donald -well said.!!

Quote:

The two-party system needs to be scrapped And replaced with what? Mandatory seats for the minor parties?

No. There can be more than two major parties.

Quote:

Preference voting should be scrapped And replaced with what?

Preference voting s when you put.. 1234 in each box right?  :-?

No. There can be more than two major parties.

There already can. There already is.

Preference voting s when you put.. 1234 in each box right?

Yes.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html

Quote:

There already can. There already is.

I wouldn't call the national party a 'major party' would you?



Quote:

Preference voting s when you put.. 1234 in each box right? Yes.

Then why don't we just do it the same way as in Qld then? Juist stick a #1 next to the party you want?

(Apologies... I cant read yur link yet.)

I wouldn't call the national party a 'major party' would you?

Yes. You can't expect to have 3 or 4 major parties of almost equal size.

Then why don't we just do it the same way as in Qld then? Juist stick a #1 next to the party you want?

That is still preference voting. What happens then is that the party effectively fills in the rest of the numbers for you. Of course, they have to tell the EC how they do this before the election.

You really should read that link. There is a lot to this issue.

Quote:

That is still preference voting. What happens then is that the party effectively fills in the rest of the numbers for you. Of course, they have to tell the EC how they do this before the election.

If that's true.. then I've been greatly misinformed.

I don't understand though...  on why we can't just vote one party in... and just that one vote counts. Why all this preference bullkr@p? Can't we just do it the old-fashioned way? Stdyng the voting system.. it sees to me that ever since the preferential voting system was introduced... the two major parties have dominated... while the weaker parties have dwindled.



Quote:

Yes. You can't expect to have 3 or 4 major parties of almost equal size.

Are yiou sure about that freediver?  :-?  What about Israel's system? They have about 15 parties of equal size. As well as Indonesia... who have three major parties who have the potential to win office.

Can't we just do it the old-fashioned way?

It has some serious issues in practice - the spoiler effect and strategic voting. Look at how poorly the minor parties do in US elections. That is because they do it the old fashioned way (FPTP).

Stdyng the voting system.. it sees to me that ever since the preferential voting system was introduced... the two major parties have dominated... while the weaker parties have dwindled.

Stats? Links?

What about Israel's system? They have about 15 parties of equal size.

The largest has 29 seats, the next 19, then 12, 12, 11, 9, 7, 6, 5.....

They do have more powerful minor parties, but this is via proportional representation, not FPTP.

Your main study area is obviously 'voting,' freediver.

Thanks for your stats on Isreal freediver because you have proved that many parties can still have an opportunity of winning an election. When I say, not being educated in this area like you, preference voting I also mean that parties cannot give their votes to other parties because this is where and how deals are made. All running parties should be given the same budget and exposure as it is the media at the end of the day that convinces us who to choose. This next federal election will be fought between Fairfax an Murdoch.

Getting rid of preferential voting, or whatever high tech word you want to use, means that we vote for the party that has policies that we agree to and not find out that all we did was vote through the back door propping up Labour and Liberal who have a definitive monopoly on Australian politics.

Freedive, you wanker, you have the hide to call me rude and you won't even take time out to read the link that Zoso put up showing you facts. It just proves you are not interested in anyone elses opinion only your own. Go F yourself.

enviro said
Quote:

Consider me rude but Zoso placed it on another thread which I had presumed you read as you were in the debate.

freediver said
Quote:

I don't think that example backed up your argument either. But I am very glad now I didn't bother looking for it as you suggested.

You don't think? Did you even attempt to look for this link? You were in a heated debate with Zoso and this particular link was evidentual fact which you completely ignored and still kept going on with your verbal diahrea. Real wanker material freediver. This is two debates you have entered refusing to accept any other factual information that relates to the argument and blatantly brushing it off.

dt and enviro  - yes, I guess in the end the preferential system does favour the major parties.

The media has a MASSIVE influence on voters. I have seen 2 elections where the media have  been beyond acceptable limits for my comfort.
One was keating, other was peter beattie up here, I think.

I like compulsory voting.

There's no need to start throwing insults enviro.

When I say, not being educated in this area like you, preference voting I also mean that parties cannot give their votes to other parties because this is where and how deals are made.

You mean abolish above the line voting in the senate, and the QLD system? Deals will be made regardless because parties hand out how to vote cards. Even under the senate or QLD system people still have a choice to fill out their own preferences. To me, that is a major role of minor parties - to negotiate with the major parties and let their supporters know which of the major parties are more supportive of their views. The 'deals' are a good thing.

All running parties should be given the same budget and exposure as it is the media at the end of the day that convinces us who to choose.

So I could get a bunch of mates together, start a party and get given a heap of money by the government to spend on special promotional beer?

Getting rid of preferential voting, or whatever high tech word you want to use, means that we vote for the party that has policies that we agree to and not find out that all we did was vote through the back door propping up Labour and Liberal who have a definitive monopoly on Australian politics.

Are you saying that people who vote for a minor party should not get any say in whether Labor or the coalition rules?

You don't think? Did you even attempt to look for this link?

The stats you described are nothing like that link. If I had tried to find them I would have just wasted my time. That is why custom dictates that the person using the stats provides backup for them.

This is two debates you have entered refusing to accept any other factual information that relates to the argument and blatantly brushing it off.

The stats you made up were wrong. Of course I refused to accept them.

dt and enviro  - yes, I guess in the end the preferential system does favour the major parties.

It depends what it is replaced with.

---

Direct democracy in Australia

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1175406277

the need for political parties

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173261822/0

Should preference voting be disabled

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1176974719

Republic discussion vs Monarchy (?)

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1174963616

A different Political System  ?

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1175233421

Liberals trying to gag voters..sneaky deceitful.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1175730573

Rock Enrol

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1171784399

Politics Online

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1176680937