Auggie wrote on Nov 22
nd, 2019 at 5:59pm:
Assume that we would elect a leader, there are two ways that said leader could be chosen:
1) One vote per person - each person casts one vote and the person elected as leader would be the person who obtains an absolute majority
2) Divide the country into equally populated districts (say of 100,000 each) and the people vote for their candidate in each district, much like we elect MPs. Let's say there's 150 districts - the person chosen as leader is the one who gets a majority of votes in a majority of districts - a double majority - i.e. 76 districts.
Whilst 1) seems more democratic, this is actually misleading because we need to look at VOTE VALUE. The value of each vote in 1) is 1/10 million (assuming there are 10 million voters in Australia); whereas the vote value in 2) is 1/100,000 (assuming each district has an equal number of people). Therefore, a person's vote has more power under 2) than in number one, and would have more say over who becomes a leader.
A one-man one-vote system (number 1) would benefit the Eastern States because they are the more populated areas. Candidates for President would have no incentive to campaign in Tasmania because of the smaller population. In fact, the combined populations of SA, TAS and WA doesn't even equal the total population of Greater Metropolitan Sydney. With 2) system, a candidate for leader would have a greater incentive to campaign across as much of the country as possible, since each person's vote is equal in value, thereby creating a more democratic system.
Yes we would have an awful problem if we were stupid enough to want to elect a president.
In system 1) the voter has 1/10M across Australia. in 2) the voter also has 1 vote in 10M across Australia no real difference except that the influence of his/her vote extends well beyond the scope of the value of the vote they cast.
In comparison also if Sydney had 2 million people that would be 20 voting districts.
I.e. a region of say 7 townships say in SA would have 1/100,000 where Sydney would have 1/(20 X 100,000) The bias effectively remains it is just better hidden. Effectively Sydney gets 20 votes as does Melbourne and Brisbane almost as many.
By far the biggest disadvantage of 2 is that things change and politicians are dishonest. Rorting boundaries has been a long term favourite and has determined the result of many elections.