Australian Politics Forum - first past the post voting

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

first past the post voting
Oct 8^th, 2008 at 10:09am

Taken from the republic thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173182998/356#356

Revenant thinks we should go back to the bad old system of first past the post vote countg.

First past the post with no preference deals means that the elections are decided by the people.

So do other vote counting methods.

Not by parties making deals with each other.

You are confusing preferential voting with above the line voting in the senate.

Couple that with my suggestion to grant the 6 most popular parties the same level of funding for election campaigns and I reckon we'd have a much more democratic country.

Why discriminate against the party who came seventh? What's so special about the top six?

If people don't vote for who they truly want because they think that they can’t win, and therefore take the lesser of two evils approach, so be it.

That's your answer to a fundamental flaw in your system? 'So be it'? Why not just use the superior system? Why put up with an electoral system that forces honest voters to lose their opportunity to directly impact the election outcome, and directly impact their short term future? Why force them to choose between having a short term and a long term impact?

Personally I don't relate to people who think like that.

Even if you do waste your vote by voting for a minor party, you still don't eliminate the problems. You just swap one set of problems for another.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

locutius

Gold Member

Offline

You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male

Re: first past the post voting
Reply #1 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 11:28am

I would like to see a proportional voting system. If 3% of the population votes Green as a first preference the Greens hold 3% of the parlimentary seats. etc etc.

Not sure about the mechanics to get this to work. South Aust had a workshop on this many years ago I believe. (heard about it on either ABC or radio national) but have not ever been able to track down the details or conclusions. Anyone???

Back to top

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: first past the post voting
Reply #2 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 11:57am

That's sort of what we have in the Senate, except that there are only 6 seats up for grabs each round.

Why not take it one step further and instead of giving the greens whatever number of seats corresponds most closely to 3%, actually give them 3% of the voting power in parliament. That is, your power in praliament is not down to haw many bums on seats you ahve, but how many people voted for you. Effectively then there is one 'seat' or vote per person, but they are represented in parliament by whoever they voted for.

The whole idea of seats is just a way to solve a problem that doesn't exist any more - inability to communicate quickly with the people.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

tallowood

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4230

Re: first past the post voting
Reply #3 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 12:04pm

locutius wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 11:28am:

I would like to see a proportional voting system. If 3% of the population votes Green as a first preference the Greens hold 3% of the parlimentary seats. etc etc.

Not sure about the mechanics to get this to work. South Aust had a workshop on this many years ago I believe. (heard about it on either ABC or radio national) but have not ever been able to track down the details or conclusions. Anyone???

IMHO, system of parliamentary representation should stay the way it is while HOS can be chosen by a proportional voting system.

Back to top

Reality is a figment of imagination

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47366 At my desk.	Re: first past the post voting Reply #4 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 12:23pm That doesn't make any sense. A HOS is be definition a single person, so you can't have proportional representation.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

tallowood Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4230	Re: first past the post voting Reply #5 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 12:32pm freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 12:23pm: That doesn't make any sense. A HOS is be definition a single person, so you can't have proportional representation. My wrong. By First past the post.
Back to top	Reality is a figment of imagination IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47366 At my desk.	Re: first past the post voting Reply #6 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 12:37pm Why do you prefer FPTP?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

tallowood

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4230

Re: first past the post voting
Reply #7 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:01pm

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 12:37pm:

Why do you prefer FPTP?

I prefer FPTP only for HOS because HOS represents state which is a sum of constituencies while parliamentarians represent their constituencies themselves each one individually. In this way there is a balance of interests between say urban and rural interests as well as balance of power between individual (HOS) and and collective (parliamentarians).

Back to top

Reality is a figment of imagination

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47366 At my desk.	Re: first past the post voting Reply #8 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:13pm How does that differentiate FPTP and preferential voting?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

Revenant

Junior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 82

Re: first past the post voting
Reply #9 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:25pm

Freediver,

The 6 parties was just a hypothetical number. The point is the election coverage shouldn't be monopolised by two parties. Especially when you consider that they’re both very similar. Democracy should be all about choice, real choice, not the lesser of two evils. Christ, is that the best we can do?

I'm also a bit unsure about what you think the superior voting system would be. Do you want it run it by me, again?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:32pm by Revenant »

IP Logged

tallowood

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4230

Re: first past the post voting
Reply #10 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:34pm

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:13pm:

How does that differentiate FPTP and preferential voting?

As I understand it these are two fundamentally different methods of counting votes. For example let's assume that there are 100 votes and three candidates who get 40 votes for 1, 35 votes for 2 and 25 vote for 3. In non preferential counting method candidate 1 is winner but in preferential system it can happen that candidate 1 gets his 40 and no preferences 2 gets his 35 and no preferences while 3 gets his 25 plus 20 preferences, which makes 3 winner with 45 after preference allocation.

Back to top

Reality is a figment of imagination

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: first past the post voting
Reply #11 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:38pm

The 6 parties was just a hypothetical number.

In that case we already have a very similar system.

The point is the election coverage shouldn't be monopolised by two parties.

Why not, if that's what the people want? A two party system is not necessarily the result of flaws in the democracy. Rather it reflects the will of the people. People put far more faith in political parties as institutions than they do in individual politicians. This has nothing to do with naivite regarding political parties, but reflects the fact that it is much easier to hold institutions accountable and that bring the interests of in institution in line with the public will.

Of course, replacing our system with a first past the post system will give a huge aritificial advantage to the two major parties. But your response to that was 'so be it'. If you really oppose an aritificial two party system, why do you want to go back to FPTP voting?

Democracy should be all about choice, real choice, not the lesser of two evils.

But your system would make it all about the lesser of two evils by effectively reducing choice, or at least punishing people for exercising their choice.

I'm also a bit unsure about what you think the superior system would be. Do you want it run it by me, again?

Preferential voting. That's the current system used to count ballots.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47366
At my desk.

Re: first past the post voting
Reply #12 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:42pm

it can happen that candidate 1 gets his 40 and no preferences

theoretically possible

2 gets his 35 and no preferences

also theoretically possible, but is mutally exclusive with 1 getting no preferences

while 3 gets his 25 plus 20 preferences

Not possible. 3 would be eliminated in the first round of preference distributions.

which makes 3 winner with 45 after preference allocation

Not possible, as described above, but also because you need at least 50% of the vote to win. That's why preferential voting is so much better. You can only win if the majority prefer you to whoever came second. This makes it more democratic, because it eliminates minority rule.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

tallowood

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4230

Re: first past the post voting
Reply #13 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:48pm

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:42pm:

it can happen that candidate 1 gets his 40 and no preferences

theoretically possible

2 gets his 35 and no preferences

also theoretically possible, but is mutally exclusive with 1 getting no preferences

while 3 gets his 25 plus 20 preferences

Not possible. 3 would be eliminated in the first round of preference distributions.

which makes 3 winner with 45 after preference allocation

Not possible, as described above, but also because you need at least 50% of the vote to win. That's why preferential voting is so much better. You can only win if the majority prefer you to whoever came second. This makes it more democratic, because it eliminates minority rule.

"but is mutally exclusive with 1 getting no preferences"

Why is it mutually exclusive?

Back to top

Reality is a figment of imagination

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47366 At my desk.	Re: first past the post voting Reply #14 - Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:55pm 3 gets eliminated in the first round. Each of his preferences must go to either 1 or 2. Unless of course you use a hybrid FPTP/preferential system (like QLDs 'compulsory optional'preferential voting), in which case it is theoretically possible if no preferences at all are distributed.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged