Quote:


I don't think I'm promoting opv out of misunderstanding of the system. If you want to encourage open discussion its better not to be so condescending.

You fail to address key issues:

1. Most people genuinely do not understand the system, or how preferences work, or the concept of multiple elections in one.  (Saying they don't have to isn't really good enough sorry)

2. Most people believe that a correct vote for 'their' party requires them to use the how to vote card.  

3. A preferential system is supposed to be an extension of a simple (not sure what its called) single vote system.  The argument against such a simple system is that the winning candidate isn't elected by majority, but by the largest vote.  It gives candidates an opportunity to vote again after their candidate is knocked out.

4. You can't separate the arguments of preferential voting and compulsory voting because they are both intimately tied in to arguments about maximising democracy.  The argument for/against opv is one such argument.

I'm simply saying that since people don't understand how the voting system works, and since the complexity of the system has led to how-to-vote cards (which is a ridiculous notion and proof that the system must be too complex) and since, as you say yourself, most people voting with how to vote cards don't need their second preferences, the system would be more democratic if numbering all preferences was optional because people wouldn't not be forced to allocate a vote to a candidate or candidates they truly didn't want (if those candidates got in power anyway their mandate would be less meaningful), you would avoid almost all the problems touted about non-compulsory voting (like no-one would be bothered to get off the couch), and people who currently use how-to-vote cards would still be able to go in and just number 1 for their candidate and if they thought their candidate was not likely to win they could feel free to number more boxes.

Finally OPV is not complicated.  Nobody would understand it as optional and compulsory at the same time.  They would just understand that they could number as many people as they like.


Also, OPV could work in the senate in exactly the same way, only you don't need to number all the way up to 60 or whatever, you could either say number as many candidates as you wish, or make the minimum number be the number of senators for your state.

Edit: P.S. I was not suggesting people act illegally, but that the law be changed so that not marking the ballot paper represented a legitimate non-vote.

Marc wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 11:39am:


I'd agree with most of your post. I've edited what I think should be corrected.

It reminds me of the Northern Ireland Joke You're an atheist? - would you be a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?

Sometimes it's not easy being Green.

I've made my choice, so now you're telling me I have to choose again? How many times do you have to vote in this country?

Now those people who want to vote again are quite entitled to do so by OPV.

Another analogy - you go into a restaurant:

-I'll have the Fettucini Napolitana please.

- Sorry - we don't have any of that- it wasn't very popular. We only have beef or pork.

- OK, in that case I'll leave.

- Sorry you can't leave - you have to choose beef or pork.

freediver wrote on Jul 28^th, 2010 at 8:49pm:



I don't think it's ok that we're forced to vote. I think that it's a democratic right not to vote, but that's a separate issue.

The point is that there is no way to register a vote for the Greens without helping to elect one of the major parties. Without OPV, if you just number one of the boxes  (which we can already do for Legislative Assembly elections in Qld)  it's an informal vote.

Going back to the restaurant analogy, a vegetarian would have a problem with choosing between beef and pork.

Quote:


Nah.  If she is vegetarian, she won't eat either.  She is denied choice, or is that what you said in this cork screwed discussion?

She can always write on the voting document, 'freediver is a skunk.' yes?

freediver wrote on Jul 29^th, 2010 at 8:15pm:


It's not about the final result. It's about the right of the voter not to contribute to voting in a party that is anathema to their principles. Everybody deserves that right.

We're talking about freedom here -  The right to vote for whoever you want, which includes the right not to vote for a major party if you don't want to.

I regard voting as primarily a right and believe that the process should be made as flexible as possible so that people can exercise that right as they see fit, if they see fit. 

I also see 'how to vote' cards as an infringement of individual rights and an insult to the intelligence of people in general. 

I think our differences of opinion are not reconcilable.

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2010 at 6:46pm:



Actually freediver, voting hasn't been a right for many decades, it is an obligation.

You will do what you are told, when you are told and how you are told. 


God forbid, we should embrace voting as a right just like the rest of the democratic world, then as right you would have the option to exersise that right or not.

But since party funding is directly tied to the amount of votes scammed that means we will NEVER get the right to vote. never get between a pollitician and their 'free' money.

OPV:

MOPV?

Manditory Optional Preferential Voting.

well the title confused me anyway, some refer to optional as the option to cast any vote or turn up at all.