Freediver you wrote;

“Please reply to this point in detail, as it is the only way this argument can move beyond vague generalisations.”

I wrote:

“Please clarify just what you are asking.”

You didn’t!!

You said in you previous post that it is the only way that we can move on constructively….and then you just skipped straight over it. Now that’s bizarre!

“….there are huge logical flaws in your argument.”

Well, you have had all the opportunity in the world to tell me what they are. As far as I am concerned you haven’t indicated ANY flaws at all.

I wrote;

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

You wrote;

“Definitely not. This is absurd.”

I think you can see it perfectly clearly. It is an extremely simple concept. It seems that you are just not going to concede even the bleedingly obvious.

There is no point in continuing

Until I know what your position is I can't point out the flaws in it. I could try, but I would have to point out the flaws in about ten different arguments in the hope i would cover yours. I have tried to clarify a number of times already, but you stick so hard to vague generalisations that it is not possible. So, answer the questions:

Do you oppose compulsory voting in any form?

Do you oppose compulsory voting in a runoff election?

I concur with Ludwig, particularly having just completed a postal vote and found that for me 'forced ranking' was inevitable on 2 counts with the senate vote.
I chose to vote below the line because I disagreed with the preference distribution order indicated by the 2 parties for whom I wished to primarily vote.

1. There were at least 8 parties for whom I'd never vote, would rank their ideologies equally poorly, and therefore could not intellectually or preferably rank one above the other; the system therefore forced me to 'RANDOMLY ALLOCATE' these preferences which I consider a mindless action and was loathe to do. Also, there was a considerable number of candidates whom I'd never heard of, and therefore could not make any considered judgement re their qualities to rank; again, I had to randomly allocate them near the end but prior to the more disliked groups previously mentioned.

2. At the 2nd last square I discovered I'd made and error somewhere with the numbering, and yes, midway I'd skipped one..Therefore I had to
allocate a higher number to a member of one of the disliked group; again a random selection and definately not my preference.

Therefore, I havent found the notion of the possibility of 'forced ranking' to be absurd; would have much preferred not to allocate anything to those I would consider a disaster in the senate. OPV would give voters at the very least, a view that their real opinions are of value.

Option preferential voting operates (at least in the lower house) in N.S.W.
This just confuses the issue for N.S.Welshmen voting in Federal Elections.

I once taught government to a group of students (average age 35YO) all who had some previous work experience, intelligent, caring people.
Not one (of 35) could tell me the difference between State and Federal Governments.

I once helped a committed friend, standing nobly for the Democrats in the H of Reps, to give out "how to Vote" pamphlets and to scrutineer for her.

It was quite an education.
little old ladies would ask if they could vote for Mr Menzies( NO he's dead). Some would try to fill in the how to vote pamphlet and give it back to me. Others I tried to explain, the then, policy of the Democrats to split their Senate preferences.
That was beyond everybody.

Scrutineering was also a revelation. "Number each box from one to four
So we got:-
tick
tick, tick,tick,
tick,tick,tick,tick,
X,
XXX
XXXX
1,
1,2
etc
Labour and Liberal scruitieers ( a dozen each of them) would find a vote that say had a tick or a cross or a "1" next to their candidate and go to work on the Returning Officer (? Guy in Charge of polling booth). One lot lobbing for one against the vote.
I thought the RO we had was very fair and disinterested. He said as long as he was satisfied that "The voter's intention was clear", he would count it as a formal vote. So a "1" or a tick would be accepted as a vote for that candidate.
A gathered that the ROs word was final so a less disinterested RO could decree that unless all boxes were numbered, as instructed, it was an informal vote.
By the end of the day I was barracking for a dictatorship or at least an Oligarchy.
Yes 50% of the Australian Population have below average intelligence!
TOO MANY WORDS WILL HAVE TO SPLIT POST

PART TWO
Dnicolson says
"The surprising thing I often find is that people think that a proclamation like "The Greens are directing their preferences towards the ALP" actually has any affect on their (lower house) vote,"
This is not strictly true. My friend over a number of years had built her vote up to 18& in some areas of the electorate. If she got some magical % the last candidate's preferences would be distributed to her (hopefully) and so on up the ticket.

I think it could be possible to win a seat with around 20-25% first preferences depending on how many people are standing & how the preferences are directed or fall.. The Christians seem to be well aware of this with four of various colour standing in a ticket of seven in my electorate.

It will be very interesting to see how this works in Howard's Bennalong with so many candidates standing.

THE SENATE
Even I am confused here.
So, I always vote below the line dutifully filling out all 70 or 80 squares.
If I mess it up I go back and demand another.

It used to be the case that if you vote "1" above the line for your favourite party; then the preferences then flow according to a pre-ordained Vote-Preference-Allocation made by the said party and registered with the Electoral Commission.
These used to be made available posted to the wall in some dark corner of the Voting Hall.

Is this still the case?

As far as I know, that is only the case for the federal senate. Not sure about state senates. In QLD and NSW you can 'just vote 1' but then no preveferences are distributed.

If for example the left or right wing vote is split among a number of candidate and voters tend to stick to their side (ie rank all the left wing candidates first) then it is possible to win power with only a small % of the vote. Many green candidates are getting close to this for lower house seats in very left wing electorates. Labour usually wins easily on a two party preferred basis, but if it comes to close a 2-way contest between Labor and Green for second place, if the Labor candidate has the least votes, the Green candidate may get in on preference.