QLD and NSW have Optional Preferential Voting (OPV) for electing local representatives to the lower house of state parliament. In most Australian elections you have to rank all candidates in order of preference. If you vote for a minor candidate, your vote will eventually be passed on to your lower preferences until one candidate has over 50% of the ballots.

In the senate, you can vote abouve the line by choosing one party, however this just means that the party effectively fills the preferences out for you. For QLD and NSW state elections, you are allowed to choose one candidate or rank some or all of them. This should not be confused with the senate system. If you do not rank at least one of the two major parties, your vote will probably not end up counting.

People argue that they shouldn't be forced to rank the major parties, but in my opinion it is only laziness and stubbornness that prevents them from distinguishing the two.

Some possible impacts of Optional Preferential Voting on a democracy are:

• The spoiler effect - minor parties can ruin the chances of major parties, meaning that the outcome of an election can be affected by whether someone with no chances of winning chooses to get their name on the ballot. Many minor parties encourage voters to only choose them and not rank the other parties. This could confuse people who think the system works the same way as the senate and that the party will distribute preferences.
• More extreme policies from the two major parties - as the major parties try to counter the spoiler effect, they will be forced to appeal to extremists who would normally vote for them via a lower ranking, rather than focussing on the middle ground and the other party's supporters. This can lead to instability in government, as policy changes significantly every time government changes hands.
• Lower chances of minor parties being elected, as they don't pass preferences onto each other.
• Increased chances of minor parties getting elected. I know this contradicts the above point, but there is a mechanism that can cause the opposite effect. If for example all the left wing voters do not distribute preferences, it increases the chance of a far right candidate gaining 50% of the now diminished pool of ballots. Rather than being a four way contest between left wing extremists, right wing extremists, and the centre-left and centre-right party, it becomes a  three way contest between the centre-left and centre-right party and the right wing extremists. If the centre-right candidate happens to come third out of these three, many of his votes could go to the far right candidate, giving him power, even though the majority of citizens would prefer the centre-left candidate.
• People's votes don't count the way they expect because they assume it works the same way as the federal senate. Without a clear way to indicate the difference on the ballot, it is inevitable that many people will be mislead.

Optional Preferential Voting appeals to people's ignorance of how preferential voting works. It is promoted by people who object to having to rank all candidates because they see this as being forced to 'vote for' candidates they don't like. But that is not the case. Ranking all candidates is not a vote 'for' someone you like less. It does not reduce the liklihood of your favourite candidate getting elected. It merely increases the liklihood that you get a say in the outcome of the election, by preventing someone you like even less getting elected. By ranking all candidates, you are not 'voting for' all candidates, you are voting against the ones you like least. As an example, if you dislike both major parties, there is no way that ranking them both last will give them any more of an advantage against the minor parties than not ranking them. It can only disadvantage them. Compared with not ranking all candidates, it can only work in favour of all the candidates you rank above the major parties.

The same argument that applies for compulsory voting also applies against optional preferential voting. If you are going to make the ranking of the major candidates optional, you might as well make all voting optional, as you are really only giving people more opportunities to get out of making a decision.

Optional Preferential Voting will either mislead people about how their vote will be counted or appeal to their ignorance about how their vote will be counted. In exchange, the only benefit recieved is the freedom to be lazy with the ballot paper.

But surely you must agree that it is a flaw to have a system which requires people to choose between candidates they know nothing about.  I understand the purpose of the preferential system, and do not share Ludwig's robust objection to having to rank parties I "hate" but those aren't the rankings I'm concerned with, it's picking between candidates I have no interest in.

With regard to senate elections where you have to rank 70 candidates or simply vote for one party, making it compulsory to fill in all 70 boxes is tantamount to bullying voters to give up their preference votes to the parties.  The fact that something over 90% of people just nominate the party above the line is indicative of just how easily people can be pursuaded to part with their full voting rights. In this case, making preferences compulsory, whilst allowing an "easy out" has effectively induced people to hand their preference rights over to parties.  This is a significant anti-democratic effect which in my view demands some reform.

Effectively, allowing a great number of candidates and then giving people 2 alernatives:  either give your voting preferences to a party, or, rank 70 candidates, is a sham.  With less than 10% actually determining their own preferences, the preference system is effectively being hijacked, as effectively the preferences are being distributed in a fixed pattern based on the single first preference. 

I also have reservations about a senate preferential voting system which elects multiple candidates based on a  formula that is just plain too hard for the average punter to comprehend.  I studied political science years ago and had it figured out back then, but have since forgotten it.  I think any electoral system which is sufficiently complex that voters don't really understand how their votes are being used to determine the outcome, is inappropriate.

Now I'll go check your colour scheme link.

Freediver,

Sorry, no time to address everything at the moment, but I will reput one point in a different way.

Making the determination of your own preferences an unduly tedious task (such as having to rank all 70 candidates) has exactly the same effect as any other barrier, legitimate or otherwise.  Think about it.  If our ballot papers said, hey, you can either vote liberal or labour, but to vote liberal you just have to tick the liberal box, but to vote labour you have to rank all 70 of their candidates.  Do you really think labour would win many elections?

Now I accept that the above example is artificial, but my point is that our system effectively induces the vast majority of voters to give up their right to allocate preferences to their first preference party (so that in effect they are really only casting one vote themselves).  While the system invites people to actually use their preferences, it makes it so inconvenient that the application of the preferences in a meaningful democratic sense, is illusory.  Yes democracy is maintained because our first preferences get up, but it is all the minor parties which get to hand out their preferences and arguably decide many of the elections by their preference decisions about which most of their supporters have no real knowledge.  To me this is a significant flaw in the system. 

If you were fair dinkum about CP then you ought to be endorsing a system where people are not allowed to allocate their votes to a party but should have to allocate their preferences themselves.  As you said to Ludwig, there is no rational reason why people would want to give up their right to choose between the lesser of two evils.  That is exactly what 90% of people do when they hand their preferences over to a party.  In that sense I can see no rational difference between Ludwig's belief you should have the right not to indicate a preference beyond the point you are happy to, and having the right to nominate a party to allocate your preferences for you. In either case, you are giving up some of your voting rights because of laziness or ignorance.  To support one and not the other seems hypocritical.

On another totally different point, but noting your interest in establishing a sustainability party, what are your thoughts on ethanol as a transport fuel?

The argument that voting above the line is giving up your right to rank all candidates only makes sense if you disagree with the how the party you vote for ranks the candidates

Most people don't disagree, the sad truth is most people don't know and probably, because so few undersand preferential voting, don't care. 

While your point that the whole point of democracy is to choose who you give up your right to make decisions for you is a valid one.  Nevertheless, i still see no difference between people who give up their decision making power to a party (by ticking the party box) and people who choose not to allocate any preferences beyond the first.  They are simply choosing to give up their right to make decisions, not to a party, but to the rest of the electorate.  Why do you think one choice is more objectionable than the other?

Ultimately though I accept it is a minor point and changing the system of preference allocation is unlikely to effect many election results. 

What are your thoughts on the rather different problem that arises out of compulsory voting, which is the quality of voters it produces. Don't you think it is a real problem that compulsory voting tends to increase the relative involvement of uninformed voters?  In an ideal world making people vote would induce them to all take an interest in our democracy, and that is true to some extent, but there can be no doubt that making people who have no interest in politics vote, ensures a less informed (on average) electorate and thus, an electorate which makes less informed decisions.

It seems to me this is a rather powerful argument against compulsory voting.

I don't understand why you think one choice has 'valid' reasons and the other not.  Could you elaborate on that a little.  Surely giving up your vote to the Electorate (the ultimate authority in the land) is more appropriate, not less, than giving up your vote to a party.  Both of them are almost exclusively options of the lazy.

-----

The higher the turnout would indicate the health of the democracy if the turnout was voluntary. You can't make a democracy healthy by making people turn out.  Happy people may smile, but you can't make people happy by making them smile! (actually this was a bad analogy since there is evidence that smiling can in fact make you happy but you get my point I'm sure).

-----

Well by uninformed voter, I meant that all too numerous group of people that hardly know anything about what any of the parties stand for, and pretty much cast their vote based on the 'look' of the PM or opposition leader, or in accordance with whoever Mum or Dad always voted. Obvously i's not a binary concept, perhaps then I should have used the term "less informed". 

That we all live in the real world only establishes that we are all affected by politics, not that we are all political.  Some people, like you, spend a great deal of their mental energy and life thinking about the political world, why things are as they are, and how they ought to be, etc.  Many people, sadly, hardly think about it at all.  Doesn't it irk you that people who haven't given an issue a moments thought get to have as much say in those issues, which affect your future too?

By the way, how old are you, what do you do for a living, and where abouts in Oz are you? This place seems just a little TOO anonymous for me.  You should include a few more personal details for people to include in their profiles.  Oh yeah, and I'm a sticky beak and unapologetically so.

The whole problem is that voting is not a rational exercise. The effort required to vote compared to the liklihood of it making a difference to you makes it not worth your while, by a long shot. Voting is a responsibility, not a priviledge. Making it optional means that only irrational people vote.

VERY GOOD POINT.  Might just use that argument myself.

As to your anonimity, you cannot build a party whilst staying anonymous.  How is the sustainability party coming along anyhow?Many people signed up? 

Why do you think people aren't particularly interested?

Your sustainability party fits the middle ground between the rape and pillage of unrestrained capitalism and 'mad' hippies who would see us all living in grass huts and walking to work.  It seems to me there are a great many people who are looking for that and are stuck with the two major parties, for whom environmental issues are just a sideshow.

What have you actually done to promote the party beside post on this website?  I like some the ideas I've read.  How much interest have you actually had?

I think the main problem here is that people are using OPV as a back door to optional voting. If voting was optional, OPV would be a sensible choice. If voting is compulsory, then making it compulsory to rank all candidates is the sensible choice - to follow through on the logic of this, remember that preferential voting effectively gives you a series of runoff elections, so OPV allows you to not vote in the later runoffs.

There are two separate choices:
1) preferential voting vs other options like first past the post
2) compulsory vs optional voting

The problem is that the people promoting OPV take advantage of the public's misunderstanding of how preferential voting works. They make up flaws in preferential voting in order to promote optional voting, even though there is no real choice between the two. They do this to avoid having to justify preferential voting and overturn compulsory voting. They try to turn their opposition to voting in the later runoffs as a problem with ranking candidates. However the same argument should apply to whether you have to rank your favourite candidate, not just your less favoured ones. They can only justify optional voting by confusing the issue by making people think it somehow gives an unfair advantage to any candidate you don't like but don't rank absolute last.

The same discussion, with Grendel this time:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227070867/30#30

Is that supposed to clarify the issue Grendel? Do you hold your hands over your ears when you insist that other people are wrong?

Thanks muso.

If in the last election round there are only two parties left, then obviously you have to vote for one of them, even if you are not particularly fond of either. There are only two left. This is the same situation faced in any election where no candidate matches your views exactly. It does not in any way disadvantage the parties you ranked above the last two candidates.

The issue of mandatory preferential voting is no different to the issue of mandatory voting. Combining mandatory voting with preferential voting does not introduce any new issues. This is why the people who support OPV but still support mandatory voting are irrational. Optional preferential voting is just a way to take advantage of people's misunderstanding of preferential voting in order to bring in optional voting. In the end the major parties are the ones who benefit, even though the loudest supporters think it benefits the minor parties.

Quote:


It is not possible to ensure that people also vote properly without violating the privacy of the secret ballot. This is only a technical distinction, as the law in practice cannot always act exactly as intended. I was not confusing anything. I was talking about mandatory voting. Technically the system we have/had is not mandatory preferential either. But I'm not going to insist on making that distinction as it doesn't shed and light on the issue.

The issue of mandatory preferential voting is no different to the issue of mandatory voting. Combining mandatory voting with preferential voting does not introduce any new issues. This is why the people who support OPV but still support mandatory voting are irrational. Optional preferential voting is just a way to take advantage of people's misunderstanding of preferential voting in order to bring in optional voting. In the end the major parties are the ones who benefit, even though the loudest supporters think it benefits the minor parties.

They are the same thing. No-one is forcing you to rank all candidates. You are more than welcome to vote informally. Now, if you don't mind we can get back to the real issue and stop getting hung up on whether it is technically mandatory or not.

Grendel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2008 at 12:40pm:


I think I know what you're trying to say. Let's say I wanted to vote Green with no preferences (accidental support) to the other parties, there is no way I could do that with our current system. Like whoops I just helped to vote in Liberal/ALP whether I wanted to or not.

If I don't want to give any support to the major parties, but do want to register a primary vote for say Green, I can't do that. My only option is not to register a vote (either informal, or don't turn up and get fined) in which case, I don't get any vote.

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

Quote:


I'm not saying it makes no difference. I'm saying that the voters are better off because of it. Those 78 voters preferred candidate B to candidate A. Thus they improved their outcome by ranking candidates. It did not cost candidate C anything.

It is 57 votes, not 77.

60% of voters think candidate B is a better choice than candidate A. Thus the outcome is a better reflection of the will of the people than the OPV scenario where people do not vote. But that is obvious. If people don't vote, then the outcome will be less likely to reflect what they want.

Quote:


This is no different to CPV.

Quote:
 

The seat is marginal either way.

Quote:


Only if B is deluded.

That would be a lie.

OK then, have another go at thinking up a specific example where people are better off under OPV. Surely if it is better then you could demonstrate with one example. I guarantee you can't.

Grendel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2008 at 4:36pm:


B did not win 78 votes to 1. Do the actual maths. Don't take silly shortcuts.

Now that we've got that little detail sorted out, how about you go back to trying to come up with a single example where people are better off under OPV?

This article lists several of the flaws with OPV:

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

In addition, it causes many voters to accidentally vote informally in federal elections. This, combined with the different meaning to the same voting method in the senate, makes it far too confusing. People can not be expected to understand the three different ways that 'vote 1' can be interpretted.

So why do people support OPV? They fall into one or more of the following groups:

1) They mistakenly think OPV will benefit the minor parties.

2) They support the major parties and fear the minor parties. They want to give the major parties an unfair advantage over the minor parties. They can do so by taking advantage of the ignorance of group 1.

3) The want to make voting completely optional, but settle for OPV as second best because the public rejects optional voting. OPV has a better chance of getting through because groups 1 and 2 will support it.

4) They support first past the post voting, but settle for OPV as second best because the public rejects first past the post voting. With OPV, they can take advantage of the voting patterns of group 1 to achieve the same outcome. Again, they can take advantage of the other groups of supporters to get the change through.

Quote:


So?

Quote:


I already suggested we move on. I have no intention of embarassing you even further with it.

Quote:


No they don't. Which is why you have given up on specific examples and gone back to broad generalisations. You dipped your toe in the waters of rationality but didn't like the temperature.

Quote:


No they can't. At least, not if people rank the candidates in order of preference. In fact it is OPV that has the unintended consequences, as I explained with the 3 different ways that 'vote 1' can be interpretted.

freediver wrote on Nov 21^st, 2008 at 5:26pm:


Once you get down to 5th or 6th preference, it is obvious that the voter (most voters) don't really want to vote for those parties. To give that vote an equal weighting as a first preference vote is distorting the result.

The point is that with Mandatory Preferential Voting, it's not a question of just putting them in order of preference, you have no choice but contribute to voting a major party past the post, especially in a marginal seat which is where I vote. There is no escape. You have to effectively vote for one major party or the other. By the way, I never follow how to vote cards. I prefer to think for myself.


The only way you can get around that is with OPV. A lot of people I know have complained about the Federal system here in Qld for that reason.

Grendel succeeded as has Muso...  seems to me you're the only one that doesn't get it fd.

Quote:


Why not? Does he not matter?

Quote:


Why are you explaining it this way? Are you saying 10 people voted for candidate C? And 75 for D and E?

Quote:


30 of them are just disgruntled because they lost. Their least favourite candidate won. It sucks, but that's democracy for you. Not everyone wins. The other 45 still got to have a say, and because they had a say, the outcome changed for the better, from their perspective. This is a good thing, not a bad thing as you seem to argue.

45 people are better off because they voted in the election between A and B. Like I said, ranking all candidates cannot possibly work against your interest. Not a single voter in your scenario ended up worse off because they ranked all candidates.

Quote:


That is totally absurd. The outcome is worse. The same logic would say that these people would be just as happy with a dictatorship, so long as they didn't actually help the dictator gain office. It is irrational to rpefer a worse outcome specifically because you didn;t have a say in the matter. It is some kind of logical fallacy.

A candidate won who is less favoured by the general public than his main competitor. You argue that the people are happier because of this, even though the outcome is worse, because they didn't have a say in the matter. Their response is irrational. No-one in their right mind would prefer a worse outcome just because they missed their opportunity to make it better. And either way, one of the two main candidates wins, so your argument that MPV helps the two main candidates is wrong. If all you care about is the two main candidates vs the minor candidates, then it makes no difference. No-one is worse off. If, as is the case in reality, you also care about who actually wins office, then the people are better off.

The people who are disgruntled in the first example are only disgruntled because they don't understand how the system works. They think it was a single election in which they helped B win over C. that is wrong. It never happened. It was four elections. Their favourite candidate lost the first 3 elections. Then there was a fourth election between A and B. In that election, the more popular candidate won.

In an election with 5 candidates, not everyone is going to see their favourite candidate win. This is not a flaw. Not everyone can win.

Quote:


No. Why would I say that? The system requires people to rank honestly.

Quote:


No. That is not how it works. It doesn't matter whether they value voicing their support for C or D most or having a say in the real battle between A and B most. What matters is that they voted in all 4 elections, and had their say in all 4 elections. This is the beauty of preferential voting. If people understood it better, the whole OPV thing would disappear overnight. The fact that C, D and E lost an election is not a sound argument for not voting in an election where only A and B are candidates.

In this case, people want two things. They want to voice their support for a minor candidate (C, D or E). They also want to have a say in whether A or B wins. There is no tradeoff between these two things. They can do both. They can vote in an election where only A and B are candidates. Doing so in no way diminishes their support for the other candidates.

Note however that OPV can actually benefit the two main candidates. OPV can cause one of the two major candidates to win, even though the majority of the public would have preferred a third candidate. OPV benefits the major parties.

Arguing for OPV is no different to arguing that you shouldn't have to vote at all because you don't like C or D either. The principle is the same. People just get confused and think it is a different principle because they rank candidates rather than voting for a single candidate. However, even with preferential voting, you still only vote for one candidate in each election, and that candidate is always your favourite out of those on the ballot. The only difference is you don't have to turn up to the polls a dozen times.

I think it would be easier for you to understand if you viewed it as a number of completely separate elections. That is what it is. It's just that you only have to turn up to the polls once.

It is very confusing FD - but Muso is almost right in this regard.  No matter who votes for who - one of the two major parties will always win - although I think in the future we will see more coalitions - not just the Liberals/Nationals.

OPV is really what we should all be doing - the big problem is - most people haven't got a clue where the preferences are going from the party they voted for.  They could put Liberal last and the Marijuana party first - yet through elimination from the bottom up - their vote could still go to the Liberals.

I might have this wrong - but for example - the Marijuana Party might give their preferences to the Shooters Party, who might pass it onto the Christian Right who then give it to the Liberals.

It's a stupid system, and so entangled that no-one can really understand it thoroughly except the politicians and those involved in the electoral process or counting the votes.  I just wonder how many counters are involved to check & double check each vote properly.

Plus our system is open to rort.  Everything is done manually.  You can go to 5 or 6 different voting booths in your area and vote for the same party and who has the manual ability to ensure that people only vote once.  Occasionally there's a random check, but not often.

Quote:


No matter who votes for who? The major parties win because so many people vote for them.

Quote:


Actually the candidate you rank last is the one candidate your vote cannot possibly end up with.

Quote:


That only happens with above the line voting in the senate. If you are in NSW or QLD and you 'vote 1' for a state election, it means no preferences are distributed. On the other hand, if you do that in the federal lower house, your vote is tossed out and doesn;t count for anyone. Yes that is confusing, and you can blame OPV for it.

Quote:


I'll try explaining it to you. Suppose there are ten candidates. There will be nine elections. In each election, the candidate who comes last is eliminated, until only one victor remains. Your vote in each election goes to whichever of the remaining candidates you have ranked higher. Rather than thinking of it as preference distribution, it's easier to think of it as separate elections.

Quote:


That's the price of a secret ballot.

Quote:


Then argue for optional voting. Not for compulsory optional preferential voting, which is an absurdity. That way fewer people will be confused into thinking there is a flaw in instant runoff voting. The reason that OPV gets passed, but not optional voting, is that people understand the issues surrounding optional voting. But they get all confused about OPV, because they think that distributing preferences can work against them.

Quote:


Even if they don't, it does not harm them to have to rank them. Of course in practice, there is always some difference between the major candidates. You don't have to like one to be able to tell the difference between them. This is no different to saying you don't want to vote at all because they are all politicians. Voting is a civic duty, even if you don't like politics.

I have less of an issue with optional voting. At least people can make a rational argument for it. Just as you may resolve never to vote for one party, or a group of parties, some people may resolve never to vote at all, or not to vote for any of the running candidates. It's when they try to mislead others into thinking it is somehow a different issue to not voting where it becomes irrational, and where I object, because it promotes a misunderstanding of instant runoff voting.

Because of this misunderstanding, the major parties in QLD and NSW have managed to trick people into supporting optional voting after the least important round of elections. They tricked people into thinking it was a scheme that would beneift the minor parties, when in fact it benefits the major parties. It also reintroduces the spoiler effect and a degree of randomness to the outcome of an election.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 2:35pm:


Tell me what you mean by the spoiler effect. It sounds like democracy at work.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2008 at 10:22am:


At this very moment I would.

Lots of minor party candidates win and so do independents.

The world isn't just liberal or labor and we shouldn't be forced to give votes to anyone we don't wish to vote for.

Some people just vote for their candidtate choice at 1 and donkey vote the rest...  this is an obvious distortion of the vote.  Luck of the electoral draw nominates who gets their preferences not educated decision making.

Neferti wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2008 at 7:00pm:


Slumming it nef?

I don't think you mean Aboriginal tribes somehow.

Do you mean voters who would vote for a cow if they tied a red ribbon on it and called it the ALP candidate?

What do you mean?

This is an interesting thread altho obviously hijacked by those with a political opinion they wish to push. The idea that OPV is undemocratic or supports the major parties over the minor parties is absurd and says a lot about those who claim that. OPV DOES support the major parties and hurts the minor parties but ONLY in comparison to our current system. The notion that our current system - which demands that we give a preference to a candidate who we despise - is fair is a wrong assumption. in fact, OPV is an opportunity for us all to withhold a preference from candidate(s) we find totally unacceptable. I am a long-term Liberal supporter, but I would give my preference to labor happily as I believe they can also do a reasonable job (most of the time). But I am required to give a preference to the Greens who I loathe, to the communists and to the other long list of crazies. it is undemocratic for me to be required to give ANY of these people my vote - even as a long-shot preference.

Democracy is all about personal choice and preference. And my preference is to give my voting preferences optionally. OPV is most definately the most democratic way to vote.

Elections still go to third preferences at times so your view of what a preference means is essentially wrong. Optional preferential voting allows voteres to preference the candidates they woudl accept - not all the losers that stand.

I don't know why you spend so much time and effort on this subject, after all it hardly makes any difference which party is in power.
Australia is not a democracy but a plutocracy.
The majority of the people are rather apathetic and ignorant of politics, and the politicians know it, as well as
the media.
What would make the country more democratic would be, if politicians
were compelled to answer all the correspondece sent to them, which may not be be in the politicians interest.
Long time ago Jo Bjelke Peterson was the only politician who did not answer my correspondence, yet now I,am waiting for at least a dozen answers to my letters, probably in vain.
It makes on wonder why we pay politicians such high wages, particularly the backbenchers, which are in there only as numbers.

The answer will definitely come from a staffer, but the MP should be informed by the staffer of the content of the question and the MP should give the staffer instruction of how to answer any question.
If any constituent wishes to contact his/her MP personnally, the MP should grant such a request, and if it is to trivial the MP should not bother with it.
The MP's spend most of their time to get re-elected and not running the country properly.
I have over time asked more than 200 people, if they ever contacted their MP in any way and not one them answered that they did, so if any MP tells me that his office is bombarded by mail, he is most likely telling a fib.
I heard once from a newly elected MP saying that being 6 month in office he did not receive a single letter or e-mail.

Here is a question I asked more than a dozen time of politicians from all the parties and so far have not had an answer:

Question: Which western country means tests the basic pension"

The means-tested, flat-rate; non-contributory targeted welfare system in Australia is different to that of any other western country… The contradictions in the Australian welfare state will unravel over the next few decades, and may create a crisis that will force policy makers to rethink program fundamentals.

This is from submissions to the Jones Inquiry.

freediver wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 7:40pm:




longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:08pm:





mellie wrote on Jul 21^st, 2010 at 10:46pm:



freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2010 at 8:36pm:

Regardless of whether it favours the major parties or not, I still have a preference for OPV.

If you just vote for (say) the Greens with no preferences, and the Green candidate fails to get enough votes for the first round, then at least you are not contributing to either of the major parties, and you're not making a call as to which you prefer.

If you want to preference a major party, then you number all boxes.

I would prefer to say that my vote did not help to elect a major party candidate.

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.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 9:13am:


That means that it's mandatory to vote, but optional whether or not you allocate preferences.

FD - How to vote cards promote flock mentality. If you want to vote  for our party then follow the instructions on who to allocate preferences to.

Some people can easily be persuaded that if you mix and match preferences, you're not voting properly. It's a form of coercion.

I never collect how to vote cards.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 11:43am:


Well no - I didn't actually say that anybody was being denied the right to vote. I am saying that people are being coerced into making certain preferences and towing the party line for the reasons I gave earlier.

I'd prefer it if politicians and their support workers were not permitted to distribute how to vote cards, but I state that as a personal opinion only.

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2010 at 8:02pm:


I can live with How to Vote Cards, but I find them irritating. Is that clearer?

I just think that they unduly pressurize voters into voting in a particular way (re allocation of preferences)

Yeah - if you prefer to split hairs, perhaps 'compromised' is a more accurate reflection of how I think rather than infringed.

Reading what some ex-politicians like Downer, Latham and others had to say about Rudd, and the language they use and apparently the so called pious Rudd uses, the democracy is rather on shaky grounds.
Then again, read recently, 'The tyranny of a Prince in a Oligarchy is not as dangerous to society as the apathy of the voters in a Democracy.

Great news:

Anna Bligh may dump optional preferential system as LNP accuses her of trying to rig poll

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/anna-bligh-may-dump-optional-preferential-system-as-lnp-accuses-her-of-trying-to-rig-poll/story-e6freoof-1225943913346

ANNA Bligh has sought advice on whether informal voting is on the rise in a clear sign she is mounting the case to dump Queensland's optional preferential system.

The Premier yesterday revealed she had asked Attorney-General Cameron Dick to assess whether confusion over different voting systems was driving a growing number of informal votes.

Her comments sparked instant condemnation from the Liberal Nationals, who accused Ms Bligh of attempting to "rig" the next state election.

But Ms Bligh said the Australian Electoral Commission had raised concerns after the federal election about the high number of informal votes in Queensland compared with other states. She said she wanted to ascertain whether this had increased when compared to past elections.

"That is what I have asked for the advice on," she said.

"Are we seeing a growing confusion that is leading to this, not just at the last election which has prompted the comments, but over the last few elections?

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

"Is this a growing trend? And if it is I don't think we can ignore it."

Queensland has an optional preferential voting system, allowing voters to mark only the box for the candidate they want or allocate preferences.

However, allocating preferences is compulsory at a federal election.

There was concern raised after the recent federal election that informal voting spiked in Queensland when state and federal elections were held close to each other.

Ms Bligh said it was not in the interests of democracy for people's votes to be wasted because of confusion between the two systems.

Labor in Queensland has long profited from the optional preferential system since it was introduced in the 1990s, particularly under former premier Peter Beattie's "Just Vote 1" strategy.

However, with the Greens polling at record numbers, the optional system could cost Ms Bligh seats at the next election.

Opposition Leader John-Paul Langbroek said Labor had decided to rig the electoral sys-tem because it was out of ideas.

"The Premier's cute and evasive words and her silly games on this issue confirm that Labor has embarked on a path to try and rig the next state election," he said.

Mr Beattie has recently advocated for all voting systems to be optional preferential so people are not effectively forced to vote for candidates they don't want.