The Forum > General Discussion > the Mathematics of Australian politics
the Mathematics of Australian politics
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 5 February 2019 4:22:24 AM
| |
Must have missed a post here found the 2016 Senate numbers thought I put them in a post
However we are not going to talk about the subject But will do so in depth after the election Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 5 February 2019 3:43:14 PM
| |
Belly,
One vote one value is about the most undemocratic system of voting that exists, if you mean first past the post, if you mean the one vote one value system that already exists in Australia then I don't see the point of your argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_vote,_one_value Unless there are runoffs, with one vote one value/fptp, 'till one contestant gets more than 50% and that is expensive and time-consuming. Australia used first past the post from 1901 'till 1917 when the undemocratic system was thrown out and the much fairer Preferential system was introduced. Example: A gets 28%, B gets 26%, C gets 24% and D 22%. A is declared elected, even though 74% of the electors hate his guts and wouldn't put their own water on him if he was on fire. Is that the sort of democratic vote that you have in mind? Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 8:52:08 AM
| |
is mise yes ok your figures are right, but, some one first past the post with 23 percent of the vote, is not different than my one vote one value
Or is it IF we stopped preferencing soon after the very small party,s would no longer exist As voters understood they had no chance Labor gains seats, as do LNP from second or third past the post. Both may still win them when smaller tooth acre party's no longer stand The senate stands alone, it will always be my view the party controlling the lower house should control that house If they go over board we can remove them next election Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 11:23:45 AM
| |
Belly,
So you think that the majority rules is bad; why don't you like democracy? The Senate is a House of Review, if the party that controls the Reps also controls the Senate, then out goes any meaningful review. See:http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP0708/08rp05#preferential This explains the whole system very well. Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 1:44:39 PM
| |
http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/she-is-a-federal-senator-but-her-new-books-says-she-remains-a-voiceless-wife-20190205-p50vso.html
is mise mate! how please tell me, do you come to that conclusion First past the post CAN NOT BE ANY DIFFERENT than one vote one value The one with the most votes, without preference wins! Look now at the link, tell me some thing is not dreadfully wrong here. How did this woman end up in the house of the chooks Elected [if you insist] by one party, that then merged with another She betrayed those who voted for her [very few] by joining yet another Our system stinks Back on subject If the one with the most votes wins under first past the post and one vote one value, what is your concern Posted by Belly, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 3:35:53 PM
|
And end to preferences is what I want
Most do not need to think about who they place second
Some, far to many, do not understand after voting for a small party they in fact, via preference, vote for some one else
I am told time after time this is undemocratic, but why
If the one with the majority of votes wins in both houses surely that is ok