I think any "tribal" voters are wasting their vote to the detriment of Australia and our future.

Yes "tribal" voters is the common term used to refer to people that vote for the same party year after year generation after generation just because they are that party, regardless of policy.

Do you support the current (QLD state) system where voting is still compulsory, but 'partially' optional. That definitely supports the major parties.

Also, you seem to be confused about whether ranking a candidate last is a statement of support or opposition to them. Any rank behind one of the two major candidates is a vote against, not a preference for.

Quote:


Do you mean they go to the third preference of some voters, or to a 'third party' - ie not one of the two leading candidates?

Quote:


Not entirely true. Only so long as you like some of them. That is why it is not really optional preferential voting, but optional compulsory voting, or compulsory optional voting. Essentially, you are forced to participate in some of the runoff elections, but not others, and the ones you are forced to participate in definitely help the major parties.

Quote:


Do you mean personally, or just have a staffer mail you out a form response?

At some stage politicians have to get down to the job of running the country. It's not all about talking to people.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:09pm:





freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:10pm:





longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:13pm:




longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:15pm:





freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:28pm:

freediver,

i have read your article briefly. it seems you have a solid understanding of how the preferential voting system works in this country but i'm sure even you would admit that many people (likely an overwhelming majority) do not understand it.

Democracy is about people having a say in the way their country is run and voting is the way they do that so having a voting system they don't easily understand hampers their ability to excercise their say.  It is not enough to say that it is too confusing compared to the current system when surely OPV is the simpler of the two (you nominate as many preferences as you wish).

The reason i started reading about this (and first found your article) is because i only recently realised how many people use how to vote cards (a lot!).  I find this to be a problem, clearly the majority use how to vote cards because of apathy, or laziness and not because of party faithfulness.  Because the major parties know that the apathetic vote is going to either wind up with them or their opposition they are forced to have neutral middle ground, go-nowhere policies and elections are less based on policy and more on personality (this election is a great example of an election "about nothing" -- waleed aly)

If people could vote as they felt, most people would stop using the how to vote cards i believe, and as was correctly said by kalin(?) leave the remaining election rounds up to the rest of the electorate.

In fact, despite what you say there is not much of a distinction between non-mandatory voting and OPV because effectively the voters are only voting in the election rounds they wish to participate in.  By making it compulsory to attend the polling booth you at least get people to make a choice to do something, and you can still have optional voting by saying that if you don't want to participate in the election simply don't fill out the card -- but then i guess people could do that anyway.

Marc

P.S. the reason for my interest follows Senator Brown's comments about his own party's preference allocations.  OPV could be used to greatly simplify senate vote casting and could finally remove the top line completely.

Welcome to Ozpolitic Marc.

OPV does not just benefit the major parties over the minor parties. It can also favour one major party over the other depending on what the minor parties are up to. It introduces a degree of arbitrariness to the outcome that has nothing to do with the will of the people. It forces some voters to particpate in every round of the election, including the final two candidate runoff, but does not do this for others.

Quote:


True, but they don't need to. They just need to rank the candidates in order of preference. The beauty of the system is that it removes any need or motivation for strategic voting.

Quote:


I think it is complicated. It makes voting both compulsory and otpional at the same time. It means that people who misunderstand the system will make mistakes due to their misunderstanding and unnecessarily disenfranchise themselves. In fact every single person I have encountered who promotes OPV does so from a misunderstanding of the system.

Quote:


But only a minority of votes go to a second preference. It is these that matter. If you vote for one of the leading two candidates, it really doesn;t matter how you rank the rest.

Quote:


The middle ground is a good thing. This is a result of preferential voting, not just compulsory voting. If government policy shifts around the middle ground, it shifts both ways. It causes unnecessary instability.

Quote:


But they can do that. I do.

Quote:


Not true. There is a huge difference. With OPV, they are still forced to aprticipate in one round - the first. For many voters this ends up being every single round that they are forced to aprticipate in. The system thus favours those parties whose voters fall into this category. It adds a level of arbitrariness to the outcome that has nothing at all to do with the will of the people.

Quote:


Technically that is illegal too. In practice, most people do what they are told and rank at least one candidate. Saying that people can avoid the problem by acting in a way that is technically illegal and against the written instructions they are given is not a reasonable excuse. It has to be a good idea, not a bad idea people can work around.

Quote:


Can you explain how the vote counting would work if OPV was introduced to the senate?

muso:

Quote:


Not just the major parties over the minor parties. It can also favour one major party over the other depending on what the minor parties are up to.

Quote:


Actually you are, you are contributing to whoever you would have voted against under a compulsory system. Also, when it comes down to a two horse race, the fact that you contribute to one of them is no harm because you only benefit one major party over the mother major party - not over a minor party.

Quote:


Likewise there are people who would like to say they didn't help any of the candidates. It makes no sense to facilitate some voters but not others. This should really be about whether voting is compulsory, not about making it both compulsory and optional at the same time.