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???

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


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

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 12:23pm:


My wrong.

By First past the post.

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


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).

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?

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.

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


"but is mutally exclusive with 1 getting no preferences"

Why is it mutually exclusive?

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:55pm:


For the example I was using a preferential system where nobody gets eliminated till all preferences are counted and allocated.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 2:21pm:


The system in my example is purely theoretical and I admit freely that I devised it myself without any reference to real world also it may exist or existed unknown to me.
The criteria for this design was to look at and to compare two opposites, 1-non preferential again 2-preference-at-will that would allow a voter to choose what they want with minimal compulsion. I think everything else is combination of this two.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:


Give me definitions for both so we are sure that we talk about same things.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 3:33pm:


That is a bit vague.
Does it mean that FPTP is system where voters can vote only for one candidate and say if there are three candidates and 100 voters closest distribution can be 34-33-33?
Is preferential voting the system where every voter must indicate preferences for all candidates or alternatively a number 1 candidate would do it for them?

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 1:38pm:


In that case go for the proportional voting system. As  locutius suggested. I think the Greens are in favor of that idea too.  


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

Easier for politicians to confuse voters by creating bogus parties.

A bogus party will be far more likely to influence the outcome of an election under FPTP, due to the spoiler effect.

How can you get a spoiler effect in PV?

Why is preference distribution a bad thing?

The same way it does in FPTP.

That is not possible. A major advantage of PV over FPTP is the elimination of the spoiler effect.

It is not a bad thing it is complicated and increase of complication increases confusion.

Actually it is less confusing for the voter. The instructions are to rank the candidates in order of preference. There is no motivation for ranking them in any other order. On the other hand, under FPTP, the nominal instructions are to mark your favourite candidate, but it gets confusing because there are competing motivations that lead to different votes and it becomes rational for people to select a candidate who isn't their favourite.

Perhaps you should try to demonstrate with an example.

Optional preferential voting is the best method. That way, people don't have to put in preferences they don't care about, nor does anyone who does value other parties waste their vote.

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2008 at 10:18pm:


Cleverly calculated abuse of PV system.

"The upper house ballot paper that had 81 groupings and 264 candidates, and measured 1m x 0.7m!"

Antony Green
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3359&page=2


Voting Capers (And Some Interesting Trivia)
http://www.thepigsareflying.org/archives/2004/10/voting-capers-a.html

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 9:40am:


All over the place.

locutius wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 10:02am:



It should be conditional that "greens" don't enrol in concrete jungles.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 10:07am:


Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect

I am not saying that PV is inherently SE factor but rather that it does not cancel it.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 10:27am:


Sure, it is spoiler effect by different mechanism. Where did I say that FPTP and PV have the same mechanisms?

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 10:38am:


Quote:


Exactly what happened in 1999 NSW election.

No, we are free not to do anything so if you don't want to discuss it any further you don't have to.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 10:44am:


Not so according the definition above.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 10:53am:



Here is the full definition then:
Quote:


And it still fits with the historical example of the real world I gave above.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 11:07am:



Where is full generic definition then and how does this "partial" definition contradict my example?

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 11:19am:


That's vote splitting according to the 1st link.
Quote:


Then they proceed making conclusions not other definitions. Spoiler effect they have separately anyway.

Even in conclusions that FPTP is susceptible to VS, which can be argued they don't deny that PV can be affected by it as well.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 11:42am:


Looks like I won the battle as well as campaign.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 11:56am:


I have demonstrated it above.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 12:08pm:



In 1999 NSW election minor party candidates had the SE on the election, in which their candidacy resulted in the election being won by candidates dissimilar to themselves rather than candidates similar to themselves by taking votes away from the viable candidates with similar views.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 1:02pm:



There were 264 candidates, you don't expect me to remember them after nearly 10 years do you?

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 1:35pm:



I gave you links, go and read them before getting yourself in the corner of confusion.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 1:44pm:


How do you know if you did not read them?

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 1:55pm:


No, your own inability to comprehend is at fault, don't blame me.
As I say before I won the polemic because you started slide to personal accusations instead of concentrating on the subject.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 2:11pm:


You did not read links so your claim is false more so as I explained it both in my interpretation, without inventing my own words of course, and by linking to authority.

I won, I won

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2008 at 2:30pm:


Few posts above you said that you did not read them so if you looked at them later it was in a hurry and with great deal of prejudice. Therefore your claim is false. Furthermore I reckon you don't even know what my claim is judging by your luck of attention to details and inability to comprehend a text.

So here it is again:
I claim that PV system does not guarantee  100% protection against spoiler effect.  If you believe it can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 10:33am:


Yes you did. When I wrote “How do you know if you did not read them?” you replied “That, plus…”

But that is just a minor insignificant issue. Your refusal to prove your point shows that you know that it isn’t possible. Lame excuse about “I would have to spend a few pages of pointless argument…” paints you further into loser’s corner.

So, all your argumentation errors above make me the winner of the discussion.

Now, if you wish “to spend a few pages of pointless argument” trying to deny that and involuntary proving that I am right “go ahead, make my day”. I will enjoy it.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 4:25pm:


That's the theory and like any theory it holds true for certain set of conditions or to be more specific in this case when voter is not confused. However when number of minor parties reaches critical proportion like it was in 1999 NSW election a voter's mental concentration breaks down and his/her action become random rather then purposeful. That is well known psychological effect. BTW, golden rule of web page design is to never exceed 12 meaningful objects on one page if you want to keep user's attention comes from the same psychological phenomenon.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2008 at 9:49pm:


No and it isn't called FPTP either just as PV isn't called guarantee against the spoiler effect.