The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > In praise of preferential voting > Comments

In praise of preferential voting : Comments

By Helen Pringle, published 28/3/2011

Voting pests who vote below the line shouldn't be allowed to cloud the arguments on voting method.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Hi Helen, The title of your article should be: In praise of simplicity and uniformity of voting systems in Australia. Your own liking for preferential systems reflects a very, very small minority. I am a great opponent of preferential voting. Let us examine real meaningful reform. It is amazing how Australian political scientists writing about this move in a vicious circle apparently unable to look beyond the customary discourse and the fundamental problems. Now this nonsense looks like being exported to the UK. God help them. It'll be the end of the LibDems. I have written to them and warned Nick Clegg directly and on Facebook. It would be a BIG mistake in terms if what they hope to achieve with it. It is quite unbelievable really as they have all the European PR systems to look at, including Ireland! How insular they still are!

The current Australian electoral system, at federal level is a disgrace. The combination the 1918 and 1924 acts totally ensures that the system is dominated by two major parties. The redeeming factor of a perverted PR (hare-Clark) system in the Senate is also overshadowed by the dominance of the major parties, indeed a two-party tyranny, in the House of representatives and also nationally, including the states.

As a feminist you need to take a good look of what P. R.( Open Party List System) has done for women! Surely you must be aware of that.

With ONE vote, for a listed party and a particular candidate diversity and democracy is achieved. The choice is in the plurality of parties participating. An entirely different political culture is the result. Simplicity and uniformity delivered. Read on below.

Dr. Klaas Woldring
A/Prof Southern Cross University (ret)

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/voters-power-is-immense-so-lets-use-it-20100818-12epf.html?comments=28

http://www.facebook.com/notes/klaas-woldring/a-big-mistake-to-adopt-the-australian-vote/188184951222435

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11751

_________________________________________
Proportional representation is the key to all political reform:
http://www.republicnow.org/proportional-representation/
Posted by klaas, Monday, 28 March 2011 8:37:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< So here's my modest proposal: we should work to bring the requirements for a formal vote into close alignment throughout Australia, so that the same group of voters is not faced with conflicting requirements in different elections.>>

I absolutely support that, Helen. It is just ludicrous that we can’t have one system that everyone understands, for every federal, state and local government election.

<< My additional proposal, as a joyful 'below the line' voter, is to do away with 'optional preferential' voting. >>

Eeegh, I’ve got to very strongly disagree. Optional preferential voting is the ONLY system with merit.

First past the post is oversimplistic and works against minor parties/candidates, by suggesting to the voter that a vote for a minor candidate is a wasted vote that will effectively not count for anything if that candidate has no real chance of winning, whereas with a preferential system, such a vote will count for a major candidate after the allocation of preferences.

This makes preferential voting MUCH more democratic and realistic that FPTP in terms of how a voter wishes to vote.

Optional preferential voting, that is. NOT compulsory preferential voting.

Compulsory preferential voting is a COMPLETE AND UTTER AFFRONT TO DEMOCRACY! It compels the voter to mark every square. Consequently, a vote can trickle down and end up counting where the voter has no intention of it counting! The very concept of compulsory preferences is just oxymoronical!! It is completely bizarre to me that anyone in the know cannot outrightly condemn CPV.

Again, optional preferential voting, where the voter can just mark one square or allocate preferences if they wish and to the extent that they wish, is the OBVIOUS system that we should be using.… and the only really democratically correct system.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 28 March 2011 1:51:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
k and h - the lib-dems have had it in the united kingdom, whatever system of voting is used (so long as it's democratic!). there will be huge transfers of 'lib-dem' votes to other parties after their departure from ethics, principle, etc etc through linking themselves with the conservatives for the sake of gaining access to those great white cars ... signed: a cynic! every good wish, jas
Posted by jocelynne, Monday, 28 March 2011 2:47:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My gripe with the Australian system is not that it is preferential – I support that – but the requirement to number every name if voting below the line. This provides a strong incentive to vote for a party ticket, which hands control of the voter’s supposed preferences to party hacks and their deal-making, and can deliver into office candidates that almost nobody wanted. If we could number as many or as few boxes as we wanted when voting below the line, then the so-called preferential system might actual deliver a candidate preferred by voters.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 28 March 2011 3:44:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like your style, I also number every square, and start from the least favoured, and work backwards.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 28 March 2011 3:49:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Should have also added, that consecutive numbers never appear for the same party, but are randomly spread.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 28 March 2011 3:52:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig is absolutely right:
Optional Voter preferencing is the most democratic form of voting (while compulsory preferences being by far the least).

I'm glad that changed in NSW.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 28 March 2011 10:07:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks King Hazza. I’m pleased that someone can appreciate what I am saying.

I’ve condemned CPV and espoused OPV a number of times on OLO over the last five years. While a few people have agreed, the level of interest has been miserably small! And yet it is of fundamental importance that we have the right voting system in place – a system which gives the voter the best democratic expression of their wishes, without biasing the whole system towards the big parties and away from newcomers and political diversity… and without.. for goodness sake.. STEALING some peoples’ vote and making them count WHERE THEY DON’T WANT THEM TO!!

Helen and Klaas, are you interested in discussing this matter further?
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 30 March 2011 8:37:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I am interested in that. No doubt optional preferential voting is slightly better than compulsory preferential voting but this is only a minor improvement in a system that is basically flawed on two counts: 1. Most of all, the system is based on single-member districts. This is the main reason why we have a two-party system. 2. We have compulsory voting in Australia. Essentially that compels people to vote for either the one or the other major party regardless of how many minor parties and Independent candidates may throw their hat in the ring. 3.25 m. people who could have voted in the 2010 federal election did not vote, in spite of compulsory enrollment and compulsory voting. What does that tell you? People are sick of this system. Would either of the major parties ASK the people if they want proportional representation? NO, they will not ask, will not explain it, so this society will just battle on with a dysfunctional, undemocratic, costly electoral system pretending it to be a great system. Ah you'll say an evenly balanced Parliament of two major parties that's a great thing. No longer in NSW, far from it. Moreover, a great Opposition leader is rarely a government leader. It requires entirely different skills. But look at the federal sphere. The spectacle of childish, infantile, combative discourse that passes for parliamentary debate there is the direct result of the single-member district system. I rest my case.
Posted by klaas, Wednesday, 30 March 2011 9:54:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed Ludwig and Klaas, you point out even further flaws of our system.
Personally, another for me is the merging of our Parliament and our executive House in the ballot paper.

I find it fundamentally wrong that we are not allowed to explicitly declare who we want in the ministries (if we could elect the separate ministers for a job it would remove the waste of voting in a party solely for one or two fields of credibility at the expense of others).

Worse is that the 'local representation' of a parliament falls down when it means:
1- I am not allowed to vote for a candidate I like because he/she happens to live outside my electorate.
2- The 'local representative' will become a Minister over the entire country- who have absolutely no rights to vote for/against him so long as his own constituents are happy.
3- On the flipside, a party collapses if its one popular member outside the electorate, is put at risk within the electorate (why Labor decided to put that useless news reporter in Bennelong during the election, just to fade into the background afterwards).

It's a screwy system that rather fails to put the will of the people into our governance, but turns politics into some ridiculous game of manipulation.

And don't get me started on redrawing electorates.

Needless to say, I prefer that the two bodies be separated and scrutinized by voters on their own supposed merits (though I would personally scrap the Parliament altogether if we already have an elected senate and hypothetically, a directly-elected Ministerial executive).
Posted by King Hazza, Wednesday, 30 March 2011 10:58:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Klaas

I'm intrigued by your 3.25m figure, where did it come from? The AEC reports 14,086,869 enrolments and 13,131,667 votes at the 2010 election, implying 955,202 enroled people did not vote. Are you saying over 2 million eligible people are not enrolled?

http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/HouseTurnoutByState-15508.htm
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 30 March 2011 11:06:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, here we go.

Costar and Browne, two seasoned academics.

http://inside.org.au/missing-votes-the-2010-tally/

Klaas
Posted by klaas, Wednesday, 30 March 2011 11:53:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thanks Klaas - interesting analysis

I'm not sure all the informal votes and no-shows are disenchanted, but the growing trend of these can reasonably be attributed to disenchantment or at least indifference
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 30 March 2011 11:57:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< No doubt optional preferential voting is slightly better than compulsory preferential voting but this is only a minor improvement in a system that is basically flawed on two counts: >>

Klaas, I agree that there are some other pretty huge flaws in the system, but all else being equal, I can't imagine how OPV could be only slightly better than CPV.

I’d say they are absolutely poles apart. CPV is basically a RORT. We just simply should not be having a system where for many voters, their preferences as marked on the ballot paper are not their preferences at all!

In the last election wanted to put Liberal and Labor at the bottom, to make sure that my vote didn’t count for either of them. But if I’d lodged a formal vote, it would have ended up counting for which ever major party I put second last!! How despicable is that?

So for any voters who specifically wanted to vote for a minor party or independent, because they didn’t want to vote for either of the two big dinosaurs, simply couldn’t, in most cases, without their vote being STOLEN and placed exactly where they didn’t want it to count. CPV is just UNBELIEVABLY bad!!

<< Most of all, the system is based on single-member districts. This is the main reason why we have a two-party system. >>

Sorry, I don’t get the connection.

<< We have compulsory voting in Australia. Essentially that compels people to vote for either the one or the other major party regardless of how many minor parties and Independent candidates may throw their hat in the ring >>

Why would compulsory voting compel people to choose between the Libs or Labs? CPV basically forces us to do this, but OPV certainly doesn’t. So, compulsory voting with the OPV system, as we have in Qld and NSW, doesn't compel people to vote for the majors at all.

I’m not sure what you mean regarding proportional representation, Klaas. Isn’t our electoral system a pretty reasonable type of proportional representation? How would you like it to be organised?
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 31 March 2011 11:32:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for comments, very helpful!

I agree with Klaas that one of my arguments is for simplicity and uniformity of Australian voting systems. But I also support compulsory preferential voting, although I asserted that position here without arguing for it, ie my broader position is that Australian voting systems should be made as uniform as possible - AND that the central feature of that uniformity should be compulsory preferential voting. I don't mean that people should be prosecuted for not marking every square, but that a vote should be counted as informal unless every square is marked so as to indicate preference. This doesn't mean I am voting for people I dislike, eg say P Hanson is on a ballot of 6 candidates, I am indicating clearly that I prefer that she not be elected by assigning her the number 6. It is quite mistaken in that case to say that I am voting FOR her.

I fail to see how preferential voting leads inevitably to a 2 party system. Eg, check out the 2011 results in Balmain (http://vtr.elections.nsw.gov.au/la/la_district_summary-Balmain.htm). There are 3 parties with similar counts: Firth ALP 10392 (30.7%), Falk Libs 10942 (32.3%) and Parker Greens 10306 (30.4%). This is not a 2-party result, rather it reflects the strength of the Greens for various non-electoral reasons. Now imagine that we have first past the post voting. If above were the final count, Falk would be elected – despite the fact that he has only a third of the vote. If this were a French presidential election, there would be a run off between Firth and Falk, and Firth would win because she would probably pick up Parker voters who don't like her, but like Falk even less. A way of explaining preferential voting is that it is like an instant run-off, the result being the candidate who is least disliked by the majority of voters. I think that is a better result than a victor who is disliked by over 60% of the voters, eg in the Balmain case.

So I'm wondering what the problem is here?
Posted by isabelberners, Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:38:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, I couldn't sign the preceding post because of the word limit. I wanted to add a couple of points.

First, unless I'm mistaken, Klaas seems to assume that proportional representation is an alternative system to preferential voting. In fact, of course, PR is often used in conjunction with some form of preferential voting (eg in the Australian Senate, and other Australian upper houses).

Two party systems are not the inevitable result of preferential voting at all, and non-preferential systems regularly (re)produce a two party system – as in the US, which was the point of my final note about Gore and Nader. If preferential voting (or even the innovative "fusion voting" argued for by my friend Sarah Siskind, see http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Sarah_Siskind) had been in place in 2000, Gore would have been elected, even without considering the voter fraud etc so well detailed in other analyses of that election.

Klaas cites the valuable article of Costar et al. that 3.25 m. people who could have voted in the 2010 federal election did not vote, and asks, "What does that tell you? People are sick of this system." The Costar article does not tell you that at all, but advances various reasons for the shortfall, most to do with the enrolment roll not actually being comprehensive.

Finally, I believe the introduction of optional preferential voting will effectively lead to the institution of first past the post voting in Australia, and part of my evidence for this is looking at how to vote cards of the ALP and Libs in NSW in 2010: the HTVs I saw all indicated only one marked square, that of the party candidate. In those circumstances, the emerging bud of a three party electoral system at least in inner city Sydney could be nipped very quickly. I think there is a clear link between first past the post and two party dominance of the political system (with some exceptions, which I don't have enough words to analyse here!)

thanks again for an intelligent debate on this! Helen
Posted by isabelberners, Thursday, 31 March 2011 12:55:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further commentary in response to recent questions.

The principle cause of the two-party system is the single -member-electoral district, NOT preferential voting. Where only one candidate can be successful the race tends to between the two strongest parties. These parties were formed from the late 19th century onwards representing capital and labour. By 1910 this situation has chrystalised although there were some other minority interests. Even geographical representation - the states in the Senate was also dominated by the two party system. The introduction of the alternative vote (or the Australian vote so called, provided an ILLUSION of greater democratic choice. Minor parties and Independent would therefore seem to have a small chance of being elected as the one candidate for an electoral district. This VERY RARELY happened, the two major parties dominated the scene ever since 1910 although at times the Conservative parties split and reinvented themselves as in the beginning of WWII. The financing of these two major parties also was far more substantial than that of any smaller party that wanted to have a go. The smaller parties that did get up after WWII were essentially split offs of one of the two dominant parties. Corporate donations basically always flowed mainly to the major parties, in recent times even the ALP takes huge donations from business corporations who are not much interested in supporting minor parties that will not be represented in Government. Optional preferential voting is not much different than "first -past-the-post, if you only vote for your first minor party choice. Compulsory preferential means that your preferences will all be declared and will end up finally with one of the major party candidates (which they would missed with optional preferential voting. Real diversity is only achieved with multi-member electoral districts where small parties can realistically achieve a quota, that essential the number of seats available divided by the number of candidates to be elected. I'll provide a sample of the Dutch Parliament elected on the basis of P. R in July 2010 if there is room here:

There is not. I'll make a separate post.
Posted by klaas, Thursday, 31 March 2011 1:44:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< …I also support compulsory preferential voting… >

But WHY Isabel, erm… Helen??

<< …the central feature of that uniformity should be compulsory preferential voting >>

Why do you tie CPV to uniformity? We could have uniformity within our national, state and local government elections just as easily with OPV, or FPTP.

<< … a vote should be counted as informal unless every square is marked so as to indicate preference >>

Wow, I so strongly disagree.

<< This doesn't mean I am voting for people I dislike >>

Oh yes it can mean that. If you like only one candidate and dislike the rest, but your candidate gets a small vote, then as well as counting for that candidate, your compulsory preferences will mean your vote will count where you specifically don’t want it to.

If you really dislike the major parties and put them last and second last, then no matter who else you might vote for, your vote could very well end up filtering down and counting for one of the parties that you are specifically voting against! Yeah, I repeat myself, but hey, how amazing it is that within a so-called democracy, such a thing can happen?

I’ve used strong words about CPV – ‘steal’, ‘rort’, ‘despicable’, ‘complete and utter affront to democracy’.

No one’s disagreeing. So if people can see that CPV is strongly flawed, then what on earth is its advantage over OPV?

So, why would you not advocate optional preferential voting??
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 31 March 2011 1:48:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
below is a table. Not sure if it holds its formate. If not, it will be difficult to read. I can put it on the Republic Now website. his is what creates real diversity, not what we have in Australia, a two party tyranny of look-alike parties!

Parliamentary parties (Lower house 150 seats)
Parties with representation in the First Chamber (Senate), Second Chamber (House of Representatives) and European Parliament, as of July 2010:
Lower House Senate Euro
Peoples Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD, Rutte) 31 seats 14 3
Labour Party (PvdA, Cohen) 30 seats 14 3
Party for Freedom (PVV), Wilders) 24 seats 0 5
Christian Democrats (CDA, Verhagen) 21 seats 21 5
Socialist Party (SP, Roemer) 15 seats 11 2
Democrats 66 (D66, Pechtold) 10 seats 2 3
Green Left (GL, Sap) 10 seats 4 3
Christian Union (CU, Rouvoet) 5 seats 4 1
Reformed Political Party (SGP, Van der Staay) 2 seats 1 1
Party for Animals (PvdD, Thieme) 2 seats 1 0
Independent Senate Fraction (OSF, ten Hoeven) 0 seats 1 0
_______________________________________________________________
Posted by klaas, Thursday, 31 March 2011 1:51:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The proportional representation system (Hare Clark) includes the preferential option for the Senate. It is only in English-speaking countries and then only for small councils that Hare-Clark is used. The PR systems elsewhere, most European countries, Argentina New Zealand, South Africa mostly use the Open Party List system. The task of the voter is to cast a vote, ONE VOTE only for the party of his or her preference and the particularly candidate on that party's list. The preference exist in the number of parties/Independents who contest the election. That choice is real and meaningful. It is not an illusion - what it is here.

You all know that the ridiculouslly elaborate choice for the Senate paper is avoided by 96% of the voters. It is impractical but the other option is actually a perversion of Hare Clarke and has given rise to horse trading and electoral crookery to mislead voters. I have been a Senate candidate three times and I know what i am talking about.
Posted by klaas, Thursday, 31 March 2011 2:03:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pfff, you’ve got to be so vigilant about refreshing the thread before you post anything!! I hadn’t seen your second post Helen when I posted my last one.

You had addressed my question about OPV to some extent. But I still cannot see how it would be preferable to the antidemocratic CPV system.

We’ve had OPV in Queensland for a long time, without any tendency towards FPTP or without anything having happened that would be worse than if Goss hadn’t changed the system from CPV to OPV in the early 90s.

Now Ludwig, remember to refresh the thread just before you post. Oh look, there’s a new post from Klaas!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 31 March 2011 2:03:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ludwig, No problem, I've done that myself!
I picked a pseudonym when I first went on opinion online, but I now only post on the internet under my own name.
Helen
Posted by isabelberners, Thursday, 31 March 2011 2:23:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all,

I have posted this information on the Dutch election of July 2010 on the blog of the Republic Now! website here:

http://www.republicnow.org/blog-republic-and-other/

The formatting is still not perfect but there is some more information about how the two party tyranny in Australian is fooling the Australian voters believing that they can really express preferences resultng in a democratic outcome!

Enjoy.
Posted by klaas, Thursday, 31 March 2011 3:00:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Klaas and Helen for continuing this discussion. But I feel that I’m not getting any real understanding as to why you don’t strongly support OPV and condemn CPV.

This is a pretty crucial factor I would have thought, and totally relevant in this discussion following an article titled ‘In praise of preferential voting’.

I see CPV as a tool of unscrupulous governments and oppositions which have colluded to keep it in place, because it is to their advantage compared to OPV which opens up the arena somewhat more to minor parties and independents.

But, I don’t understand how they get away with! Why haven’t journalists or political analysts jumped on this and driven home the message to the community that CPV is fundamentally democratically outrageous and that OPV works very well, as it has in Qld and NSW for a long time.

Why is there so much apathy in the general community and disinterest amongst academics and journalists?

Thanks for the republicnow link Klaas. I’ve had a bit of a look. Will read thoroughly later.

Now, must remember to refresh the thread bfor posting….
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 1 April 2011 10:28:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy