Grendel do you support the requirement for people to turn up to the polls?

Muso, optional preferential voting only makes sense if voting is totally optional. If you are going to compel people to vote in any way, then it doesn't make sense to compel them to only vote in the least important round of the election.

If you only want to vote for a minor candidate and leave the other squares blank, you are wasting your vote anyway and you might as well vote informally.

Quote:


This is not intentional. Otherwise it would be legal to promote it. It is only legal because it is impossible to enforce a compulsion to vote properly without violating the privacy of the secret ballot.

Also I have heard of people getting fined for not voting even though they turned up to the polls and got their name marked off. They basically made a point of not voting.

Is this meant to be some kind of justification for supporting the compulsion even though you oppose compulsion?

Do you know that voting itself is an irrational act, and that if voting was optional, only the irrational people would do it?

Quote:


You are advocating that they only be compelled to vote only in the least important round of the election.

Quote:


You deprive them (collectively) to the same extent even when you rank all candidates. Under OPV, when you deprive them of a vote, you also reduce the number of votes needed to win. The only person it costs is you, because you reduce your voice. You make it easier for the major parties to ignore you, because they no longer risk losing your vote to their main rival. Whatever message you think you are sending, that is the message they will recieve - don't bother trying to satisfy or represent me, because I am more than happy to throw my vote away.

Voting is irrational. The effort required compared to the potential benefit and the liklihood of an individual having an impact, means it is not in the interest of the individual to vote. They would be better off spending the time more productively. That is why voting should always be viewed as a responsibility rather than a right.

Quote:


Even if you do find both ALP and Liberals anathema, it does not cost them (collectively) anything if you do not rank them. The only person it costs is you. It is impossible for you to end up worse off because you rank them. It is only possible for you to end up better off.

Quote:


How so?

Quote:


There is nothing wrong with that.

Quote:


That is not true. This is the myth perpetuated by the OPV folk. I never rank the major parties first, but I have every intention of my vote going towards a major candidate in the later round of th election. Anything else is irrational. Obviously I had no intention of voting for them in the first round, if that's what you mean. But my vote never counts for them in the first round election, only in later elections.

You cannot be ceratain how candidate will be eliminated. Thus people's intention is irrelevant. What matters is that the outcome reflects what they want. Preferential voting achieves that. It gives them the greatest possible say in the outcome. Failing to fill in all the boxes does not send a stronger message. It can only send a weaker message. It can only disadvantage you as a voter. Perhaps you think that failing to rank all candidates sends a stronger message about your support for the minor parties you do rank. It doesn't. The only message it sends is that you are prepared to throw away your voice at the one time when it must be heard. It sends the message that it is safer for the major aprties to ignore you, not less safe. OPV benefits the major parties, not the minor parties.

I understand that people may not like either major party. There is no need to build a scenario.

Quote:
.

There is no catch-22. Ranking the major parties does not decrease the chance of a preferred minor candidate getting elected. It cannot possibly work against the interests of the voter. OPV favours the major parties, not the minor parties. It is impossible for a voter to improve the outcome by not ranking all candidates. They can only possibly make the situation worse for themselves.

Rather than speaking in broad generalisations, try to give a specific example of how the outcome can be better than if the voter ranks all candidates. I guarantee you will not be able to do this.

Quote:


So? Are you suggesting we should make it even more irrational?

Quote:


Only because you misunderstand the system. It is the reality of the situation that matters, not the fact that people feel bad because they mistakenly think the system has wronged them. Your compulsory 5th preference could have only made the outcome more to your liking. It could not possibly have made it worse. It could not possibly have caused your preferred candidates to lose.

Quote:


Again you misunderstand. If he did contribute, then the outcome is better from his perspective, not worse.

Quote:


He would have indicated that either way. Failing to indicate a preference does not change the indication of minor party support. That's the whole point of preferential voting.

Quote:


That is not possible. Any contribution you make will always be better than not making that contribution.

Like I said, rather than speaking in broad generalisations, try to give a specific example of how the outcome can be better than if the voter ranks all candidates. I guarantee you will not be able to do this.

In fact it's the same argument for and against not voting at all. You cannot possibly improve the outcome by not voting, you can only make it better, even if you still don't get exactly what you want. It may appear that because it involves ranking rather than 'voting 1' that it is a different issue, but the issue is in fact exactly the same. You just have to realise that it is a number of elections, not just one. You still only ever vote for your favourite of the candidates in each election.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/optional-preferential-voting.html