OK this post limit thing is really pissing me off. I will respond to the earlier posts first. Can I suggest we take it up here instead?

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

"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?

In the short term yes. In the long term you may help the minor party or independent, but you can have a short term impact without losing your ability to have that long term impact. So you are wasting an opportunity.

"Your vote counts if it goes where you intend it to go, end of story.

No, that is only the beginning of the story. It is at best a rather vague introduction to voting.

"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!!

If you detest your second last preference less than your last preference, then it is in your interest that he gets in instead of your last preference. There is no logical way that this can work against you. Failing to rank the last two candidates will in no way help your third last preference, or anyone else get in. Your vote still counts against the last two candidates up until the point that they are the only two remaining candidates. Only then does it count for your second last and against your last candidate. Which is what you want. Basically, you did intend to vote for that person in the sense that you prefer that person to your last ranked candidate. That is the only way in which it is ever used.

"Provided you rank candidates according to your REAL intentions!

If you rank -- ALL -- candidates according to how your eally rank them, it is not possible for this to work against your interests.

"This forms the core of many working democratic easy to follow systems.

Not any that I am aware of. Care to give an example?

"freediver, this is getting interesting. you may have a few practical points there.

Another practical reason for opposing OPV is that it is more likely to be misinterpretted than interpretted correctly. This is because on the surface it is identical to the senate system. Yet there is nothing on the ballot paper to inform people that it actually works completely differently and that if you assume it is the same you may waste your chance to have a say. The how to vote cards to not clarify the issue, but tend to reinforce the misunderstanding.

Freediver

I wouldn’t be worried about the post and word limits. Up to 4 posts and 1400 words on one general thread and 15 posts and 5250 words on OLO in 24 hours. That’s pretty good really.

I’d prefer to keep the discussion on OLO rather than jump to a whole separate forum.

.
I wrote;

"Your vote counts if it goes where you intend it to go, end of story.”

You replied;

“No, that is only the beginning of the story.”

Alright then if you insist. The point is that having your vote count where you intended it to count is an absolute prerequisite for an acceptable voting system, end of story.

Your beloved compulsory preferential voting system is democratically fatally flawed because it does not uphold this most fundamental principle. No matter what else may be said about either system, it comes down to this point. And this, far above all else, is what makes OPV much much MUCH better than CPV.

“If you detest your second last preference less than your last preference, then it is in your interest that he gets in instead of your last preference”

Well that says it all doesn’t it. You obviously don’t believe that the voter has a right to vote where they want to and to be confident that their vote will count there and only there. It is completely bizarre to think that it would be alright for anyone’s vote to count for a candidate that they detest.

“Basically, you did intend to vote for that person in the sense that you prefer that person to your last ranked candidate.”

NO! Forced ranking is not necessarily a true indication of a voter’s sequence of choices. Many voters would think equally badly of the candidates that they put last and second last, or perhaps last and second, third, fourth and fifth last. If they feel this way, they have no way of expressing it within CPV. You can’t leave any squares blank and you can’t put the same number in two or more squares.

"Your beloved compulsory preferential voting system is democratically fatally flawed because it does not uphold this most fundamental principle.

Does any form of compulsory voting? I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that it is only the combination of compulsory voting with preferential voting that makes it undemocratic. Such a stance cannot stand up to logical scrutiny. Please reply to this point in detail, as it is the only way this argument can move beyond vague generalisations.

"NO! Forced ranking is not necessarily a true indication of a voter’s sequence of choices.

Well, that's the voters problem.

"Many voters would think equally badly of the candidates that they put last and second last

Then it makes no difference to them which of the two is elected. Thus it is not possible for it to work against their interest. Of course, in practice it is always possible to distuinguish the two leading candidates.

“Does any form of compulsory voting?”

I presume you are asking; is any form of compulsory voting not fatally flawed?

OPV has no significant flaws that I can see. FPTP is flawed, but not fatally. Similarly with others. CPV and any other system that steals your vote and makes it count where you don't want it to is fatally flawed.

“I'm not sure, but you seem to be implying that it is only the combination of compulsory voting with preferential voting that makes it undemocratic.”

What?! It is perfectly clear that we have been comparing optional preferential voting and compulsory preferential voting…. and have not been discussing the merits of optional vs compulsory voting or preferential vs first past the post voting. So let’s not get sidetracked.

“Please reply to this point in detail”

Please clarify just what you are asking.

“Well, that's the voters problem.”

YES! And there is NOTHING they can do about it under CPV!

So you agree then that forced rankings can occur under CPV. And you agree they are not necessarily the voter’s choice. So you agree that CPV can force voters to rank candidates in a way that they would not freely choose…..and that their vote can therefore end up counting where they don’t want it to. Good.

And you also presumably agree that optional ranking, which occurs under OPV is a true reflection of a voter’s choice, and cannot lead to their vote counting where they don’t want it to.

Given that you’ve strongly made the point that;

“If you rank -- ALL -- candidates according to how you really rank them, it is not possible for this to work against your interests.”;

you must surely now concede that CPV is the product of forces of democratic corruption and OPV is democratically sound, and should be adopted universally in Australia.

"OPV has no significant flaws that I can see. FPTP is flawed, but not fatally. Similarly with others. CPV and any other system that steals your vote and makes it count where you don't want it to is fatally flawed.

You seem to be ignoring the actual question and focussing on the voting systems, not whether they are compulsory.

By FPTP, you mean compulsory FPTP?

What about a compulsory runoff election. (FYI/eg France uses runoff elections, but I don't think they are compulsory).

"What?! It is perfectly clear that we have been comparing optional preferential voting and compulsory preferential voting…. and have not been discussing the merits of optional vs compulsory voting or preferential vs first past the post voting. So let’s not get sidetracked.

I know it is clear, but if that is the case then there are huge logical flaws in your argument. There are no additional issues created by combining compulsory voting with preferential voting. Each issue can be separated and considered on it's own.

"YES! And there is NOTHING they can do about it under CPV!

If a voter votes different to how they actually want to vote, there is nothing you can do about it under any system.

"So you agree then that forced rankings can occur under CPV. And you agree they are not necessarily the voter’s choice.

No idea what you mean by forced rankings. Of course a voter can vote differently to how they actually want to vote, but again that is entirely their fault and not a fault of the system. Anyway, we are getting off track. Please answer the questions about compulsory voting in detail. Then this other stuff willall become clear.

"So you agree that CPV can force voters to rank candidates in a way that they would not freely choose

Definitely not. This is absurd.