I've said a lot about optional preferential voting, both here and on OzPolitic:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187572706

I suggest you take it up there as I am butting up against that stupid 10 post limit.

"The compulsory preferential system so obviously can make your vote count where you don’t want it to.

No it can't. For example, your vote can only end up with your second last preference when only the last two candidates are left in the race. When this happens, all your earlier preferences are no longer participating so your vote cannot possibly count against them. It only benefits your second last preference relative to your last preference. however, you ranked that candidate ahead of your last preference so that was obviously your intention. Provided you rank the candidates according to what your real preferences are, your vote cannot possibly count where you don't want it too.

The only possible exception to this is that it is a form of compulsory voting. However, the same argument against compulsory preferential voting would also apply to making voting completely optional. To use this argument against preferential voting misses the point a bit. Compulsory vs optional voting is a completely different choice to preferential voting vs the other options.

Furthermore, the form of OPV we have in some states actually increases the liklihood of your vote counting in a way you did not intend, because the preferences still get distributed.

Dammit, I should have checked before In hit submit. Now I've wasted another post.

Anyway, a correction - the form of OPV we use does not result in preference distribution. OPV is effectively a form of optional voting by stealth, and has all the problems associated with optional voting. The choice is not really relevant to the choice between preferential voting and other voting methods.

I think Ludwig has a MAJOR point.
Optional could make the system better.
And thanks for the reply, freediver. I don't usually past my opinion;-) last election looked up electoral info, since listened to a doco on subject.

360! factor? Stand my ground on this. One vote one series of numbers, true. But the choice from which to select is that astronomical. Given that about 10% is known to decide on the spot, and no one wants to spend years doing it - that's a no choice. So folks either go with the party preference, in which case you DON'T KNOW who you voter for (Family First, Victoria, case in point) or put first 10 numbers in order and the rest just to make up the numbers. Where mistakes WILL happen. This is not and Exam. Folks should not be disadvantaged for loss of focus (we have a huge and growing number of elderly and impatient youth.) Lost votes directly attributed to a flawed system are serious no matter what the percentage is. (It's no punched or half-punched cards here ...)

The point is this. Preferential deals between minor parties and major parties seal the fate of your vote even before you cast it. It may have a logic, it is possible, though no one seems to be overly willing to educate us about it in a concise easy to understand way. It should be YES/NO simple 1,2,3,4,5 then no thank you, not like a Futures Exchange.

I am in favor of a voting system where simple minded, young and old people alike (and tell me this is not the majority) can cast intentional votes with the knowledge that they did cast it where they wanted it when they leave the boot.

On 24th Nov for a lot of folks the opposite will happen unless they cast Greens first and Labor or Liberal Second.

But tell me how many of those who don't read this thread will know that. Should they be disadvantaged just because they don't or can't google up the intricacies of preferences and follow political broadcasts regularly?

Ok freediver, I have read your piece on optional preferential voting before and commented on it in some detail a while back on OLO.

I admire the trouble you have gone to with all this stuff and I admire your cool head and tactful manner of debating it. But really, some of your comments just seem to be crackers to me!

For example;

“If you do not rank at least one of the two major parties, your vote will probably not end up counting.”

You seem to be implying that if your vote is exhausted before preference distribution make it count for one of the two major candidates, then it is effectively wasted?

Your vote counts if it goes where you intend it to go, end of story. This happens in optional preferential voting but can easily not happen in compulsory preferential.

“It only benefits your second last preference relative to your last preference.”

YES!

But if you detest both your last and second last ranked candidates, then your vote would end up counting for a candidate that you loathe and had no intention of voting for!!

I keep repeating myself on this point.... and you keep brushing over it.

“Provided you rank the candidates according to what your real preferences are, your vote cannot possibly count where you don't want it too.”

YESSSSSSSS !! !! !!

Provided you rank candidates according to your REAL intentions! And that is the fundamental problem with compulsory preferential voting and the reason why optional preferential voting is a hundred times better!! !!

Needless to say; I think you are profoundly off-track with your interpretation of the significance of the two systems of preferential voting used in Australia.

"But the choice from which to select is that astronomical.

When you go to a supermarket and buy 100 items you have an equally astronomical choice, but you do not sit there and consider the relative merits of each possible combination of 100 items do you? Well, this decision is even easier than the shopping example, because you have a far more limtied number of options and you only have to consider the relative merits of each one.

"So folks either go with the party preference, in which case you DON'T KNOW who you voter for

The information is available and widely publicised in the media prior to the election.

"The point is this. Preferential deals between minor parties and major parties seal the fate of your vote even before you cast it.

No they don't. You still have to choose that option.

"Should they be disadvantaged just because they don't or can't google up the intricacies of preferences and follow political broadcasts regularly?

Should people be disadvantaged because of their ignorance? Isn't that a bit of a naive question?

"What I would support is a scheme that allows people to rank the parties, lists and independents rather than the candidates in order of preference. But that would just confuse people. The reason we have above the line voting in the senate is because it is the simplest way and drastically reduced the number of incorrectly filled out ballots.

"It should be YES/NO simple 1,2,3,4,5 then no thank you

You ask for a simple method. You have it with above the line voting. You can;'t ask for simplicity then complain that the simple methods create other problems.

I think you too are confusing preferential voting with optional voting. There is no point having partially optional voting where it is compulsory to turn up but you are encouraged to vote in a way that your ballot gets discarded. First you have to justify optional voting. You are trying to link in the choice between optional and compulsory voting with preferential voting, with which it has nothing at all to do.

"What I would support is a scheme that allows people to rank the parties, lists and independents rather than the candidates in order of preference." This forms the core of many working democratic easy to follow systems.

"The reason we have above the line voting in the senate is because [...] drastically reduced the number of incorrectly filled out ballots."

freediver, this is getting interesting. you may have a few practical points there. nothing better then clear thinking and persistence ;-)