Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
preferential voting = instant runoff voting (Read 1483 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52776
At my desk.
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #30 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 11:40am
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 24th, 2025 at 2:49pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 24th, 2025 at 2:39pm:
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 24th, 2025 at 2:23pm:
That depends - who defined the apples and who defined the cats in this case?

Thinking cap ... what if someone arbitrarily defined a cat as an apple or vice versa to suit their ideology... dost that make an apple transiton ino a cat? 

You are striking a well worn trail of illusion here, Greg... and you know where that leads...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pull-the-wool-over-eyes


https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/skibidi-toilet-fanon-v2/images/0/08/AppleCat.g...



That, my son, is the borders of your reality shaking in uncertainty.... Big Brother may have told you that a cat is an apple ... do you feel the influence of 1984 all around you in the modern theologies of social science? The State (Big Brother) has told you that preference voting is the only real voting... therefore your lack of ability to think it through says those oranges are apples and those apples are cats...

Do you now see the very real peril the young minds are in when their entire perception of what is real and what is not can be handed to them without blending with the ability to think clearly (I will not say critically - since some imagine that to be a 'learned' course which runs the same perils) ... when told from their first entrance into a pre-school that a cat is an apple........... then they will arrive at the doorstep of voting as an 'adult' without ever once having tested that hypothesis to ensure it is valid...

If that kind of indoctrination is permitted, some of them will show up at the doors of voting without tits or balls to speak of.. and still in a daze... social dysphoria is a trained state of mind - trained for the benefit of the few with their hands on the puppet strings.... surely you know that by now...

Well may you ask how I understand this haze in which people function these days.... since my heart failure and triple bypass I LIVE in a haze ... but something I learned at a very young age was the skill of retaining my thinking capacity even when unable to see and when my body is failing temporarily ... it has yet to take the long drop...

My medications and after effects of major surgery at my age lead to a haziness that most would think impossible given what I state here and elsewhere... try it from my side....


... Eric Liddell has just taken the 400m by storm in the Paris Olympics.... he won because he gained a little more of that 400m than the other runners did in the time ... not 50% +1 or just over 200m between himself and the next runner..... he won because he was first past the post ....now the judges will sit down and work out which runner is preferred as winner by the crowd.... or by the judges anyway.... and that will be imposed upon Liddell and supporters ... no appeal...


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Eric_Liddell.jpg


Speaking of haze, if 51% of the electorate prefer candidate A over the next most popular candidate, who should win, in a democracy?

Why do you think it matters whether they are presented with 2 options or 10 options on the ballot paper?

Would it make more sense to you if we had to turn up to the polls twice like the French do in order to have a runoff election between the two leading candidates, if neither get 50% of the vote?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 89966
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #31 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 12:17pm
 
51% wins in a photo finish ...

....now in a House with 52 Labor, 46 LNP and 52 Other all on Primary Vote - there would have to be wide open deals made to form government - not all these shady deals down at the Neo-Fascommunist Club over a beer or wine ...

Surely such a thing would create far greater Transparency and thus trust in government processes?  Surely that could not be worse than a third of the primary vote holding two thirds of the seats through shady deals that nobody outside their group ever heard of..

Only a government bent on tyranny tries to keep its deals secret...and only a despotic government keeps deals behind closed doors that affect the public, such as 'land deals' with distant Abo groups as in Toobeah(that it?), where a back room deal was made to hand over 93% (or something) of the area to some Abo group from a thousand miles away with no connection of note to the land.

If you can't see it - I can.
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52776
At my desk.
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #32 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 12:51pm
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 25th, 2025 at 12:17pm:
51% wins in a photo finish ...

....now in a House with 52 Labor, 46 LNP and 52 Other all on Primary Vote - there would have to be wide open deals made to form government - not all these shady deals down at the Neo-Fascommunist Club over a beer or wine ...

Surely such a thing would create far greater Transparency and thus trust in government processes?  Surely that could not be worse than a third of the primary vote holding two thirds of the seats through shady deals that nobody outside their group ever heard of..

Only a government bent on tyranny tries to keep its deals secret...and only a despotic government keeps deals behind closed doors that affect the public, such as 'land deals' with distant Abo groups as in Toobeah(that it?), where a back room deal was made to hand over 93% (or something) of the area to some Abo group from a thousand miles away with no connection of note to the land.

If you can't see it - I can.


That is nothing to do with preferential voting Grapps. Your problem is with single member electorates. To which the alternative is proportional representation, which is what you have described. Or something even better like voting by delegable proxy.

Single member electorates and preferential voting allows a party to win 100% of the lower house seats if only 51% of the population prefers them to the next most popular party.

Single member electorates and FTPT voting allows a party to win 100% of the lower house seats with a much smaller fraction of public support. Could be 11% if there are 10 parties.

You are confusing your issue with single member electorates by assuming the resulting problem is a result of having preferential voting instead of FPTP, but FPTP would make it worse, not better.

By the way, we have sort of have proportional representation in the Senate, except that each state is given an equal weighting, not each voter, and the proprotions are rounded off to the nearest 17% (100/7), or 33% for the territories.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 89966
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #33 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 1:25pm
 
Can't agree, freed - 51% indicates that it is not a single member electorate - meaning there is only one candidate ... any number of candidates can compete - only one can win ... or in the event of a tie ... hmmm couple of options there.

Proportional representation, as in Switzerland, means there must be a certain number/percentage of seats for the three major ethnic groups - Italian, German, French (and Romanysh) ... to ensure at least an approximation of equal representation and thus to avoid despotism of one group over another or others...  not perfect but it kind of works....

MY point is - though the argument is that 'preference voting' permits those 'alternative' views to get some input to the electoral process - the same applies with first past the post - look at the 52/46/52 ... out of that last 52 - the other groups have some representation, and thus a government, in establishing the now needed 'coalition' (not Coalition) must accommodate to some degree their ideas and 'needs' .. same with an Opposition....

It's a big step away from the system designed to guarantee the total dominance of the major parties here... but so is the idea of splitting the States and revamping the Senate etc...  the vast area of NSW - for example - did not vote for Labor candidates... yet they predominate massively due to the City Slicker Vote... so Sydney or the Bush?... and should the Bush be given the right to go its own way in smaller and more contiguous states?

Labor's 'at least 51% of winnable seats' means we could have a government 100% sheilas.... essentially a single candidate election .................................anyone really want that?  Since they invaded the schools the kids are chopping up their minds and their bodies and coming up with utter garbage... since they got dopey blokes (pussy struck) to vote in 'affirmative action' - that highly illegal preference for specific groups...................... they started off the whole process of faulty thinking ..... oh, but preference for some means equality in 1984-speak.... and now look at the utter dominance of that style of 'thinking'... with every dope parroting what the tame media tells them ... and every group demanding 'equality' by demanding special rights and privileges.

I just watched a video of a girl arguing Gaza with a Jewish guy - he laid out EVERY step Israel had taken to give a Gazan state a fair go to develop etc... she nodded at each one..... body language indicating automatic agreement since she KNEW he was right - but then instantly Newthink took over and she came back with the same empty phrases against Israel....

These are VERY dangerous waters for the West - continuing to live in Delusion (small town with very thin air - affects the brain) - is what is permitting every barbarian on this planet to sneak up on us while the New-Chums squander their intelligence on rubbish handed to them at school and in the media.

They BELIEVE - despite KNOWING differently in their water - in 'climate change', nuclear costs more, renewables at 9 trillion (see my post from NSW government) is far cheaper, Gaza is good/Israel bad, trannies are victims while beating up women, immigration of hostiles is a good thing, waving your national flag is a crime, every Abo is oppressed regardless of every fact that says differently, all men are stupid and women are better at everything, that old people are selfish and hoard every thing to themselves greedily, that Labor has them all in its heart ......

No wonder the country is in such a mess... if we could FORCE politicians to negotiation openly and fairly and actually take into account all those varying views to even form a government - we might get a better result than the current downward spiral.

Just going to look at this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvRIQhc0Cok
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 25th, 2025 at 1:30pm by Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM »  

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52776
At my desk.
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #34 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 1:42pm
 
Quote:
Can't agree, freed - 51% indicates that it is not a single member electorate - meaning there is only one candidate


A single member electorate means there is only one winner per electorate. It says nothing about the number of candidates.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 89966
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #35 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 4:44pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2025 at 1:42pm:
Quote:
Can't agree, freed - 51% indicates that it is not a single member electorate - meaning there is only one candidate


A single member electorate means there is only one winner per electorate. It says nothing about the number of candidates.


Well - every electorate only has one representative - I fail to see the semantic point here.

"Order... ORDER!  Would the Members for Gladbanger take their seats and permit the Members for Wattamuckup to reply in synch!"


Any 'balance of views' appears - at first glance, to be better served with a first past the post which allows all kinds to gain a seat on the Primary Vote - and THEN any deals have to be made in public.  Transparency ... (nothing to do with transgenders having parents) ...

"In today's news - the Independent for Maykabungl has thrown hir vote in with the Fantagonists on the proviso that they support hir push for blender equality of all races so as to attacin true equality for all ......."


Now I'm just throwing up ideas here - same as I did with Aborassic Park that upset a few losers here - Usual Suspects - the kind who can't see the trees for the forest all around them... and they fail to see that such a gift to whining Abos is what those Abos demand etc... and that as time goes by - you must remember this  ..... there is a growing need for a true maximum security facility for the really evil people growing in number these days in our 'economic climate' that (as predicted) is creating a genuine criminal underworld again... only a much nastier one that in times past here... would YOU give a lunatic Musso a gun licence?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 25th, 2025 at 4:51pm by Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM »  

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52776
At my desk.
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #36 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 4:56pm
 
Quote:
I fail to see the semantic point here.


My point is that the problems you attribute to preferential voting over FPTP are actually caused by single member electorates. That's why you make no sense.

Quote:
Any 'balance of views' appears - at first glance, to be better served with a first past the post


At some stage you have to look at it longer than a first glance Grapps. You spend an awful lot of time sharing your opinion on the matter, but apparently not much time forming that opinion.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 89966
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #37 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 6:50pm
 
But all electorates have a single member... there is no point.... you must not confuse sitting member with candidates. They can't all wi - only one can no matter which way you twist it ... so is it not better to have open and transparent dealmaking to form a government instead of the current opaque deals made behind the people's backs?

Just got me certificate of appreciation for delivering democracy... add it to me name on the glass wall - and I ain't even dead yet, though reported as such twice!
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52776
At my desk.
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #38 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 7:01pm
 
Quote:
But all electorates have a single member... there is no point.... you must not confuse sitting member with candidates. They can't all wi - only one can no matter which way you twist it ... so is it not better to have open and transparent dealmaking to form a government instead of the current opaque deals made behind the people's backs?


No idea what you are talking about now Grapps.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 89966
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #39 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 8:26pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2025 at 7:01pm:
Quote:
But all electorates have a single member... there is no point.... you must not confuse sitting member with candidates. They can't all wi - only one can no matter which way you twist it ... so is it not better to have open and transparent dealmaking to form a government instead of the current opaque deals made behind the people's backs?


No idea what you are talking about now Grapps.


Every single electorate has only one sitting Member as its representative - that doesn't mean there is only one candidate like some fully Third World shot-hole (yet).  The member has been elected, winning the race, and there is till one member ONLY no maxtter if it is FPTP or preference voting.  Easy

So - when people vote, mostly they have no idea what deals have been made to give preferences ...on the other hand - if a luralistic government is elected - let's say 52 Lorbor, 46 Lybrel, and 52 Others - a government can only be formed with deals being made - either with the largest opposing bloc party - or with some of the Others ... and any such deal AFTER an election will be transparent.

It's not hard.

So either we have a government where the two major parties work more together, or we have a government of one major party having deals with sufficient of the Others to form government - and since the large number of Others were elected, that means that most of the issues to people will be represented, and can be addressed in some way through a coalition government.

It's really not hard to follow... the difference - once again - is that any deals done AFTER the election are open to public scrutiny.
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52776
At my desk.
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #40 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 8:28pm
 
Quote:
So - when people vote, mostly they have no idea what deals have been made to give preferences


You have to list the preferences yourself when you vote Grapps.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 89966
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #41 - Aug 25th, 2025 at 10:30pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2025 at 8:28pm:
Quote:
So - when people vote, mostly they have no idea what deals have been made to give preferences


You have to list the preferences yourself when you vote Grapps.


Above the line - number one to six -OR below the line number every candidate.

If you do as I did and exclude the majors in your six above the line - they don't get your preferences direct.  Thing is - if one of those that you chose gives them preferences, they still go the some party you did not vote for.

It's a sneaky system and far too busy for the ordinary person to think much about.

...

Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52776
At my desk.
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #42 - Aug 26th, 2025 at 8:26am
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 25th, 2025 at 10:30pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2025 at 8:28pm:
Quote:
So - when people vote, mostly they have no idea what deals have been made to give preferences


You have to list the preferences yourself when you vote Grapps.


Above the line - number one to six -OR below the line number every candidate.

If you do as I did and exclude the majors in your six above the line - they don't get your preferences direct.  Thing is - if one of those that you chose gives them preferences, they still go the some party you did not vote for.

It's a sneaky system and far too busy for the ordinary person to think much about.

https://i.imgflip.com/a42qle.jpg



Federal senate voting rules have changed Grapps. If the 6 people you voted for (above the line) get excluded from the race, your vote does not go to anyone. It is discarded. Until fairly recently you could vote for one single candidate above the line, and yes they would distribute your preferences, and yes there would be a whole lot of wheeling and dealing over those preferences. But not any more.

I used to publish an above-the-line voting guide to raise awareness of where people's vote might end up.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 89966
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #43 - Aug 26th, 2025 at 12:00pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 26th, 2025 at 8:26am:
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 25th, 2025 at 10:30pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2025 at 8:28pm:
Quote:
So - when people vote, mostly they have no idea what deals have been made to give preferences


You have to list the preferences yourself when you vote Grapps.


Above the line - number one to six -OR below the line number every candidate.

If you do as I did and exclude the majors in your six above the line - they don't get your preferences direct.  Thing is - if one of those that you chose gives them preferences, they still go the some party you did not vote for.

It's a sneaky system and far too busy for the ordinary person to think much about.

https://i.imgflip.com/a42qle.jpg



Federal senate voting rules have changed Grapps. If the 6 people you voted for (above the line) get excluded from the race, your vote does not go to anyone. It is discarded. Until fairly recently you could vote for one single candidate above the line, and yes they would distribute your preferences, and yes there would be a whole lot of wheeling and dealing over those preferences. But not any more.

I used to publish an above-the-line voting guide to raise awareness of where people's vote might end up.


Yeah - I know - I worked at the last election - so my preferences didn't go anywhere near the major parties.  Still a lot easier to just go FPTP and save people from the kind of government and opposition we currently are enduring.

Fascist Labor and the Disorganised Rabble.. Ley your weary heads down while Albo's sheilas ruin the country with their silly ideas... look at what's happened to schools since the dopey sheilas took over there because men are all potential rapists - kids go on chemicals to neuter them; cut off their tits and balls; academic standards are way down; discipline is down the toilet; propaganda replaces school larnin'; discrimination and racism become paramount; boys are shoved aside into non-professional jobs and are marked down and turned into labourers of the sweat in the lesser work classes or groomed to become drug lords and part of the criminal classes; young men suicide at a high rate nowadays for all these reasons; lots of young guys reckon they'd be better off as sheilas; little Miss Sally who knows it all gets all the goodies and tells us everything we need to know about every issue; drugs are sold at schools; kids are knifed; schools are burned; gang wars persist; social values are thrown out the window; hatred of others is taught under the guise of DEI and 'inclusion' .... you name it...

Every hare-brained poof or sheila thought now governs your schools.... any pipe dream designed over a heavy night out will do... as long as it suits the dopey sheilas who now think they run this country because of their affirmative action and imagine themselves to be better at it while the country hits the walls of reality on every front.

I think any change is a good change.... as long as it forces out the major parties.
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52776
At my desk.
Re: preferential voting = instant runoff voting
Reply #44 - Aug 26th, 2025 at 12:12pm
 
Quote:
Still a lot easier to just go FPTP and save people from the kind of government and opposition we currently are enduring.


What makes you think that would happen?

In the USA they use FPTP. In their last lower house election, the two major parties got 97.3% of the vote between them. This is not because they are popular or doing a good job. In fact it allows them to get away with far more than our major parties can. It is a result of minor candidates withdrawing from the ballot, and people not voting for minor candidates, because without preferential voting you are throwing your vote away.

Even if Americans insist on voting for who they actually prefer, it does not help them if there are only two candidates on the ballot, or if there is a third, they only get 3% of the vote and no-one pays them any attention anyway.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print