Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 7
Send Topic Print
Voting by delegable proxy (Read 30399 times)
Peter Freedman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #15 - Jan 13th, 2013 at 10:04pm
 
There is nothing absurd about my description of the Australian system. It is essentially FPP, with preferences. How else could you describe it?
Back to top
 

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #16 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 8:31am
 
freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2013 at 9:44pm:
Quote:
Forget that. I misread.


Both posts?

Quote:
however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.


I don't think it is any more complicated than the current system. It's just that you are more familiar with the current system.

Effective government may be even simpler, due to the fewer people that need to be involved. However, I would suggest using the system in the upper house rather than the lower house.

Quote:
I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.


There may need to be elections if that is the only practical way to do it, but I doubt that would be the case. If you can change your delegation at any time, there is no actual need for regular elections.
Quote:
Much more important is to move away from antiquated voting system to some form of PR where every vote counts.


This would also achieve that. The difference is that instead of achieving PR by adjusting the number of sitting MPs in a party, it is achieved by adjusting the voting authority of as little as one sitting MP. Why have a second or third 'hanger on' MP if one MP can do the voting. This system actually gets far closer to true proportional representation than typical implimentations of PR.

Quote:
why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things.

PR does not result in minority rule. I don't think he was referring to that with 'not counting'.

Quote:
Australia doesn't have PR.


We do in the senate.

Quote:
It has an FPP system with preferences added.


That is an absurd way to describe it. We do not have FPP, except in a few local council elections.

Quote:
A party can win government with around 35% of the primary vote.


If you are referring to the issues with single member electorates, it is theoretically possible to win office with as little as 25% of the vote.

Quote:
the only people that like PR are the minor parties because they cant compete on the level playing ground and want an artifical leg up


There is nothing artificial about it.


no need for elections?  how exactly do you plan to install or remove a sitting member? how (and when) do you expect to form executive government?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #17 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 8:32am
 
Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 13th, 2013 at 10:04pm:
There is nothing absurd about my description of the Australian system. It is essentially FPP, with preferences. How else could you describe it?


thats a tad simplistic. FPP is the opposite of preferential voting. we have preferential voting.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #18 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 8:35am
 
freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2013 at 9:44pm:
Quote:
Forget that. I misread.


Both posts?

Quote:
however the system does sound exhaustively complicated while making effective govt more difficult.


I don't think it is any more complicated than the current system. It's just that you are more familiar with the current system.

Effective government may be even simpler, due to the fewer people that need to be involved. However, I would suggest using the system in the upper house rather than the lower house.

Quote:
I cant see how it would reduce the amount of voting done by anyone since surely a delegable proxy would need to be restated at every election - the effective equivalent of voting.


There may need to be elections if that is the only practical way to do it, but I doubt that would be the case. If you can change your delegation at any time, there is no actual need for regular elections.

Quote:
Much more important is to move away from antiquated voting system to some form of PR where every vote counts.


This would also achieve that. The difference is that instead of achieving PR by adjusting the number of sitting MPs in a party, it is achieved by adjusting the voting authority of as little as one sitting MP. Why have a second or third 'hanger on' MP if one MP can do the voting. This system actually gets far closer to true proportional representation than typical implimentations of PR.

Quote:
why shoudl every vote count? a democracy is at its care decisions my the majority. if you arent part of the majority then your vote didnt count. thats just how it works. PR has its good points but in the end if it allows the minority to rul over the majority then it is a bad way of doping things.

PR does not result in minority rule. I don't think he was referring to that with 'not counting'.

Quote:
Australia doesn't have PR.


We do in the senate.

Quote:
It has an FPP system with preferences added.


That is an absurd way to describe it. We do not have FPP, except in a few local council elections.

Quote:
A party can win government with around 35% of the primary vote.


If you are referring to the issues with single member electorates, it is theoretically possible to win office with as little as 25% of the vote.

Quote:
the only people that like PR are the minor parties because they cant compete on the level playing ground and want an artifical leg up


There is nothing artificial about it.


There is plenty that is artificial about it compared to the noral way of compettive life. in PR you get to 'win' even if you didnt cross the line first (or second or even third).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38094
I like fish
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #19 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 12:49pm
 
Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 13th, 2013 at 10:04pm:
There is nothing absurd about my description of the Australian system. It is essentially FPP, with preferences. How else could you describe it?


Preferential voting. Or better yet, instant runoff voting as the yanks call it. I assume by FPP you mean first past the post? That is a different system and the meaning specifically excludes preferential systems.

Quote:
no need for elections?  how exactly do you plan to install or remove a sitting member? how (and when) do you expect to form executive government?


A sitting member gets removed when his support base drops below that of a competitor who is trying to gain entry.

Quote:
There is plenty that is artificial about it compared to the noral way of compettive life. in PR you get to 'win' even if you didnt cross the line first (or second or even third).


You don't win. You get a seat in parliament. There are about 100 of these, so the idea that they can only go to the first 1, 2 or 3 competitors is a bit silly.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Peter Freedman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #20 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 1:04pm
 
Okay, FD, would you agree that the Australian system provides for the election of a government without majority voter support?

Back to top
 

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #21 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 4:37pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2013 at 12:49pm:
Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 13th, 2013 at 10:04pm:
There is nothing absurd about my description of the Australian system. It is essentially FPP, with preferences. How else could you describe it?


Preferential voting. Or better yet, instant runoff voting as the yanks call it. I assume by FPP you mean first past the post? That is a different system and the meaning specifically excludes preferential systems.

Quote:
no need for elections?  how exactly do you plan to install or remove a sitting member? how (and when) do you expect to form executive government?


A sitting member gets removed when his support base drops below that of a competitor who is trying to gain entry.

Quote:
There is plenty that is artificial about it compared to the noral way of compettive life. in PR you get to 'win' even if you didnt cross the line first (or second or even third).


You don't win. You get a seat in parliament. There are about 100 of these, so the idea that they can only go to the first 1, 2 or 3 competitors is a bit silly.


highlghted: done by an ELECTION CAMPAIGN. so you replace one every three years with one every day... yay. it also means that the sitteing member will be defending his margin instead of implementing policy. even worse.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #22 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 4:39pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2013 at 12:49pm:
Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 13th, 2013 at 10:04pm:
There is nothing absurd about my description of the Australian system. It is essentially FPP, with preferences. How else could you describe it?


Preferential voting. Or better yet, instant runoff voting as the yanks call it. I assume by FPP you mean first past the post? That is a different system and the meaning specifically excludes preferential systems.

Quote:
no need for elections?  how exactly do you plan to install or remove a sitting member? how (and when) do you expect to form executive government?


A sitting member gets removed when his support base drops below that of a competitor who is trying to gain entry.

Quote:
There is plenty that is artificial about it compared to the noral way of compettive life. in PR you get to 'win' even if you didnt cross the line first (or second or even third).


You don't win. You get a seat in parliament. There are about 100 of these, so the idea that they can only go to the first 1, 2 or 3 competitors is a bit silly.


dont be obtuse. You aren't SOB, you know exatly what I mean. PR enables someone who would never get a majority to get a seat in parliament. Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us. I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democrcay - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38094
I like fish
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #23 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 7:08pm
 
Quote:
Okay, FD, would you agree that the Australian system provides for the election of a government without majority voter support?


In practice it seems you can win an election with slightly under 50% 2pp nationwide. I doubt it could go as low as 49%. Theoretically it could be as low as 25%.

Quote:
highlghted: done by an ELECTION CAMPAIGN. so you replace one every three years with one every day...


In practice it would be once every time an important issue came up. It would focus on that one important issue. This is a good thing, as you would be able to tell from the 'election' outcome what the public thinks of that issue, which is far from the case today.

Quote:
it also means that the sitteing member will be defending his margin instead of implementing policy. even worse


These would be one and the same thing. It would get rid of this distinction between 'a time for political promises' and 'when you find out what is actually going to happen.'

Quote:
PR enables someone who would never get a majority to get a seat in parliament.


You are missing the point, which is not some arbitrary measure of fairness based on who gets a seat, but whether the outcome (legislation, not who your 'local' candidate is) represents the will of the majority. Single member electorates theoretically allow a party to gain control of parliament with only 25% public support, even if the other 75% of the population would prefer another (single/common) party. PR requires the ruling party or coalition to have 50% support. What appears to annoy you is that this involves allowing minor parties into parliament, as if the artificial concentration of power created by single member electorates must be protected at all costs - even above the will of the people.

Quote:
Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us.


PR guarantees this. Single member electorates do not. In practice single member electorates nearly always concentrate over 50% of the seats in parliament in the hands of a party with less than 50% first preference support.

Quote:
I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democracy - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.


Nice sentiment, but you have your logic backwards. To put it another way, the 'majority' you talk of is only achieved after you exclude about one third of the population.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #24 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 7:36pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2013 at 7:08pm:
Quote:
Okay, FD, would you agree that the Australian system provides for the election of a government without majority voter support?


In practice it seems you can win an election with slightly under 50% 2pp nationwide. I doubt it could go as low as 49%. Theoretically it could be as low as 25%.

Quote:
highlghted: done by an ELECTION CAMPAIGN. so you replace one every three years with one every day...


In practice it would be once every time an important issue came up. It would focus on that one important issue. This is a good thing, as you would be able to tell from the 'election' outcome what the public thinks of that issue, which is far from the case today.

Quote:
it also means that the sitteing member will be defending his margin instead of implementing policy. even worse


These would be one and the same thing. It would get rid of this distinction between 'a time for political promises' and 'when you find out what is actually going to happen.'

Quote:
PR enables someone who would never get a majority to get a seat in parliament.


You are missing the point, which is not some arbitrary measure of fairness based on who gets a seat, but whether the outcome (legislation, not who your 'local' candidate is) represents the will of the majority. Single member electorates theoretically allow a party to gain control of parliament with only 25% public support, even if the other 75% of the population would prefer another (single/common) party. PR requires the ruling party or coalition to have 50% support. What appears to annoy you is that this involves allowing minor parties into parliament, as if the artificial concentration of power created by single member electorates must be protected at all costs - even above the will of the people.

Quote:
Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us.


PR guarantees this. Single member electorates do not. In practice single member electorates nearly always concentrate over 50% of the seats in parliament in the hands of a party with less than 50% first preference support.

Quote:
I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democracy - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.


Nice sentiment, but you have your logic backwards. To put it another way, the 'majority' you talk of is only achieved after you exclude about one third of the population.


I hate to be the one to tell you but that is PRECISELY what a majority is. you seem to be going to all kinds of lengths to provide a system that mitigates AGAINST the majority. Your simplistic definiont os 'majority' is the problem. 51% is an unequivocal majority.  46% is also a theoretical majority if the alternatives get less.  I really dont see what makes you think that 46% is somehow an intrinsic evil. it could be if the other 54% are diametrically opposed to the wishes of the 46% which in their case they need to play the game better and not run 99 different parties. But in reality that is NOT how it works.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #25 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 7:41pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2013 at 7:08pm:
Quote:
Okay, FD, would you agree that the Australian system provides for the election of a government without majority voter support?


In practice it seems you can win an election with slightly under 50% 2pp nationwide. I doubt it could go as low as 49%. Theoretically it could be as low as 25%.

Quote:
highlghted: done by an ELECTION CAMPAIGN. so you replace one every three years with one every day...


In practice it would be once every time an important issue came up. It would focus on that one important issue. This is a good thing, as you would be able to tell from the 'election' outcome what the public thinks of that issue, which is far from the case today.

Quote:
it also means that the sitteing member will be defending his margin instead of implementing policy. even worse


These would be one and the same thing. It would get rid of this distinction between 'a time for political promises' and 'when you find out what is actually going to happen.'

Quote:
PR enables someone who would never get a majority to get a seat in parliament.


You are missing the point, which is not some arbitrary measure of fairness based on who gets a seat, but whether the outcome (legislation, not who your 'local' candidate is) represents the will of the majority. Single member electorates theoretically allow a party to gain control of parliament with only 25% public support, even if the other 75% of the population would prefer another (single/common) party. PR requires the ruling party or coalition to have 50% support. What appears to annoy you is that this involves allowing minor parties into parliament, as if the artificial concentration of power created by single member electorates must be protected at all costs - even above the will of the people.

Quote:
Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us.


PR guarantees this. Single member electorates do not. In practice single member electorates nearly always concentrate over 50% of the seats in parliament in the hands of a party with less than 50% first preference support.

Quote:
I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democracy - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.


Nice sentiment, but you have your logic backwards. To put it another way, the 'majority' you talk of is only achieved after you exclude about one third of the population.


it guarantees the exact opposite by enfranchising parties with even LESS support. You might not like giving control to parties with less than 50% support but it craps all over giving it so people with 10%. I have a better idea...

run-off elections. in each electorate where there is not a winner with over 50%, conduct a second election between the two top vote-getters and winner gets the seat. this is not the same as Prop Rep which some call 'instant run-off' but isnt. then with a genuine two-man race we get the legitimate majority. That way the REAL majority winner gets in.

I know you wont liek it because it doesnt give the artificial leg-up to minority parties that barely get 10%. The solution is simple: If you want to be in power then you need to get at least the second-highest votes .
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gold_medal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #26 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 7:44pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2013 at 7:08pm:
Quote:
Okay, FD, would you agree that the Australian system provides for the election of a government without majority voter support?


In practice it seems you can win an election with slightly under 50% 2pp nationwide. I doubt it could go as low as 49%. Theoretically it could be as low as 25%.

Quote:
highlghted: done by an ELECTION CAMPAIGN. so you replace one every three years with one every day...


In practice it would be once every time an important issue came up. It would focus on that one important issue. This is a good thing, as you would be able to tell from the 'election' outcome what the public thinks of that issue, which is far from the case today.

Quote:
it also means that the sitteing member will be defending his margin instead of implementing policy. even worse


These would be one and the same thing. It would get rid of this distinction between 'a time for political promises' and 'when you find out what is actually going to happen.'

Quote:
PR enables someone who would never get a majority to get a seat in parliament.


You are missing the point, which is not some arbitrary measure of fairness based on who gets a seat, but whether the outcome (legislation, not who your 'local' candidate is) represents the will of the majority. Single member electorates theoretically allow a party to gain control of parliament with only 25% public support, even if the other 75% of the population would prefer another (single/common) party. PR requires the ruling party or coalition to have 50% support. What appears to annoy you is that this involves allowing minor parties into parliament, as if the artificial concentration of power created by single member electorates must be protected at all costs - even above the will of the people.

Quote:
Im not against minorities. I just think they need to become a majority before inflicitng their viewpoint on us.


PR guarantees this. Single member electorates do not. In practice single member electorates nearly always concentrate over 50% of the seats in parliament in the hands of a party with less than 50% first preference support.

Quote:
I beleive that that is the essential nature of true democracy - rule by the majority without the Special Olympics cheap seats.


Nice sentiment, but you have your logic backwards. To put it another way, the 'majority' you talk of is only achieved after you exclude about one third of the population.


so only 10 times a year instead of the current once every three years? you are still demanding and exceptionally high input by an already jaded electorate. and what will actually take place is that about 10% will take interest and the rest will register their preference and not change it from one decade to the next.

It is probably the only option that could possibly be worse than voluntary voting.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Peter Freedman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #27 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 9:06pm
 
Thanks FD. Two more questions:

Is it possible for a party to gain the most primary votes, yet lose the election?

Has this ever happened?
Back to top
 

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38094
I like fish
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #28 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 9:18pm
 
Quote:
46% is also a theoretical majority if the alternatives get less.


No it isn't. Get yourself a dictionary.

Quote:
I really dont see what makes you think that 46% is somehow an intrinsic evil.


It is not about good vs evil. It is about democracy - rule by majority.

Quote:
You might not like giving control to parties with less than 50% support but it craps all over giving it so people with 10%.


You can't gain control with 10% under either system.

Quote:
I have a better idea... run-off elections


We already have those. You just don't realise it. It still does not guarantee majority rule in a system with single member electorates. PR does.

Quote:
this is not the same as Prop Rep which some call 'instant run-off' but isnt.


True, it is a lot slower, more expensive, and means you have to return to the polls.

Quote:
then with a genuine two-man race


What if the first election gives you 3 candidates with about 30% of the vote each?

Quote:
so only 10 times a year instead of the current once every three years? you are still demanding and exceptionally high input by an already jaded electorate.


There is no demand. You can vote once every ten years if you prefer. It is up to you how involved you get. This is the benefit of voting by delegable proxy.

Quote:
and what will actually take place is that about 10% will take interest and the rest will register their preference and not change it from one decade to the next.


You are not making any sense GM. I think you should read it again.

Quote:
Is it possible for a party to gain the most primary votes, yet lose the election?


Yes it is possible under all systems except FPP for a party or candidate with the plurality (most first preference votes) to end up losing.

Quote:
Has this ever happened?


I think it happens regularly. It depends how divided one side of the political spectrum is. That is why the Libs and Nats don;t compete against each other, even with rpeferential voting. At the moment with Labor and the Greens competing against each other directly, many of the victorious Labor canddiates probably have fewer first preference votes than the competing Lib or Nat candidate.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Peter Freedman
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 5275
Wellington
Gender: male
Re: Voting by delegable proxy
Reply #29 - Jan 14th, 2013 at 9:33pm
 
FD it is perfectly possible under First Past The Post for a party to gain the most votes nationwide, yet be soundly defeated in the election. This happened several times in NZ.

Back to top
 

God grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and, above all, the wisdom to tell the difference.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 7
Send Topic Print