Quote:


Yes. But not on the level of an individual electorate.

Under FPP you could theoretically win with less than 1% of the vote.

Quote:


Actually I think it would be highly likely under PR, given the number of parties represented.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2013 at 9:44pm:


FD, it's not the indivual seats that concern me. It's the final result.

When a system allows one party to govern when it receives fewer votes than another party that system is rotten and needs to be changed.

In NZ a group of concerned citizens with very little money started a campaign for PR. they were opposed by business interests, with wads of cash, and beat them

Kiwis voted first for PR, then for the current system of MMP. And last year, they voted to keep it. Sensible people we Kiwis.

Under MMP parties can stand candidates in seats, but also provide a party list of candidates numbered in order of party preference.

Electors get two votes - one for their local MP, who is elected by FPP. The other vote, and by far the most important one, is for the party they want to govern.

The percentage of the party vote determines how many seats each party gets in Parliament. If this is more than the seats they have won, then their total is added to from people on the list.

It's not a perfect system, but it works and is much fairer that  FPP or preferences.

Quote:


It removes the need for elections, but you could still have them if you enjoy wasting the Saturday morning of every Australian adult.

Quote:


They still need to come up with the bills to vote on, but when it comes to voting you are right - they do not represent their own views or the views of a party, but the views of the voters.

Quote:


The same way they are in every other system. You just need to get a group that represents over 50% of the population. The only difference between this and other systems is that it does not require 50% of sitting members to be in that group.

Quote:


Can you be more specific? Are you talking about first preference votes, or the 2PP votes under a preferential system? Or is this a mangled way of criticising coalition governments?

Quote:


The problem I have with what you described is that local members are elected on a FPP basis. Perhaps that is necessary in order to get MMP without adding a huge number of extra seats. Some people think their local rep is important. If the majority of your electorate thinks another candidate should have gotten in instead, the majority should have their way.

Quote:


Why is it unacceptable? It is an artificial concentration of power in the hands of a minority. It happens regularly in Australia under our current system. The Liberal party rarely gets an absolute majority without the Nats. Combining these two parties like they did in QLD is a bad thing for democracy, because it reduces voter choice - it is probably the main cause of Katter's success.

Quote:


She was not forced. There is always a choice. People who complain about this seem to forget that the major party has a lot to loose in making such deals and there is a clear path for the public to punish them.

FD, of course I am talking about first preferences. I find a system that gives your vote to someone you don't want to win antiquated.

In researching this, I found an election where FIFTH preferences had to be counted to get a result! If there were only five people in the race, then some votes went to the candidate voters wanted least.

This system cannot be tinkered with, it should be thrown into the dustbin of history where it belongs. It was only dreamed up because in the 1930s two conservative parties split the vote and let Labor win a particular seat.

Peter Freedman wrote on Jan 15^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:


thats because under the PR system, getting a mandate is next to impossible. That doesnt mean that a mandate isnt there, but rather that it is impossible to prove in the Special Olympics voting system.

Quote:


Preferential voting never does that. This is a common misunderstanding.

Quote:


Sure, if it goes down to the wire, then all preferences need to be distributed - how many merely depends on how many candidates there are.

Quote:


This is never possible.

Quote:


Sure. Why is that so silly? Under the proposals MPs do not have equal weighting. Some may have 10 times the voting power of current MPs. You appear to be confusing this with minority government under our current system. The MPs that form government, whether they are a minority or majority of MPs, would have to have majority power in the house and be able to rule.

Quote:


You keep making vague statements along these lines, but you are wrong. I have no idea why you are wrong. Perhaps you should elaborate on why you think it depends on involvement of voters. It could depend less on voter involvement than our current system.

Quote:


What do you mean by 'impossible to prove'?

Quote:


You are confused GM. People still vote under the proposal. You can even have elections where everyone has to vote on the same day. The point is, it is not necessary.

I think the biggest problem is who becomes accountable to whom? Take health  ... if on every major issue , the health ministers proxy changes to a new player, who takes responsibility for health? You cannot change ministers every few months or nothing gets done.

I like the idea in theory, just don't see it working in practice.