"Why can't I just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose, and that be a valid vote?

Because voting is compulsory.

"What sensible rationale can you present that would illustrate that such a vote is invalid (other than the fact that the electoral-system says it's informal)?

See the other thread i just started on this issue.

"I don't want to vote for them but end up being FORCED to do so, just so I can vote for my guy. This is not about sour grapes.

Either way, your guy loses. It is no disadvantage to him or to you if your preference gets distributed.

"This is about the fact that my democratic wish, which is supposedly a right, cannot be expressed in this system without giving the major parties my imprimatur against my wishes.

Compulsory voting is not undemocratic.

freediver,

Tao: Why can't I just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose, and that be a valid-vote?

Freediver: Because voting is compulsory.

Tao: What kind of answer is that? You seem to be saying that voting is compulsory therefore I can’t just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose?

---

Tao: What sensible rationale can you present that would illustrate that such a vote is invalid (other than the fact that the electoral-system says it's informal)?

Freediver: See the other thread i just started on this issue.

Nothing in your other thread illustrates that a vote for 1 candidate only is inherently invalid. You appear to be more concerned about the fracturing of the vote, particularly on the left. This is no reason to deny someone a democratic right NOT to vote for a major party. There is a definite-reason why I don’t want to vote for Labor, yet by your logic I must anyway. This is not democratic.

---

Tao: I don't want to vote for them but end up being FORCED to do so, just so I can vote for my-guy. This is not about sour-grapes.

Freediver: Either way, your guy loses. It is no disadvantage to him or to you if your preference gets distributed.

But it is a direct denial of my right NOT TO VOTE for someone that I don’t want to vote for. It IS a disadvantage to me.

---

Tao: This is about the fact that my democratic-wish, which is supposedly a right, cannot be expressed in this system without giving the major-parties my imprimatur against my wishes.

Freediver: Compulsory voting is not undemocratic.

You have not offered any argument at all to support your statement. By your logic, someone forcing me into a polling-booth by gunpoint is not undemocratic.

What is also notable about your logic, freediver, is that you frequently fall into a circular-argument – the major parties are the major parties because most people vote for them, therefore everyone must vote for them under the preferential-voting-system even if they don't want to vote for them.

"What kind of answer is that? You seem to be saying that voting is compulsory therefore I can’t just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose?

Exactly. If you look into how preferential voting works, you would say that voting 1 is the same as not voting in an election.

"Nothing in your other thread illustrates that a vote for 1 candidate only is inherently invalid.

Irrational, not invalid.

"But it is a direct denial of my right NOT TO VOTE for someone that I don’t want to vote for. It IS a disadvantage to me.

Then you should be campaigning to remove compulsory voting, not instate compulsory optional voting. BTW, voting is a responsibility, not a right.

"You have not offered any argument at all to support your statement.

It comes down to a definition of democracy. Get out a dictionary if you need to.

"the major parties are the major parties because most people vote for them

Duh, that's the definition of a major party.

"therefore everyone must vote for them

Wrong. This just reflects your misunderstanding of preferential voting. You must rank them, not vote 'for' them.

Freediver,

This is the full text of my question about validity:

“I asked a question which you chose not to answer - Why can't I just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose, and that be a valid vote? What sensible rationale can you present that would illustrate that such a vote is invalid (other than the fact that the electoral-system says it's informal)? Perhaps the real question you might ask yourself is - In a truly democratic system, why would anyone want to invalidate my vote if I didn't preference someone else?”

To which you answered:

“Why can't I just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose, and that be a valid vote?”

“Because voting is compulsory”

To which I responded:

"What kind of answer is that? You seem to be saying that voting is compulsory therefore I can’t just vote 1 for the party or candidate I choose?

To which you answered:

Exactly. If you look into how preferential voting works, you would say that voting 1 is the same as not voting in an election.

"Nothing in your other thread illustrates that a vote for 1 candidate only is inherently invalid.

Irrational, not invalid.

My question specifically asked you to provide a sensible rationale OTHER than the fact that the electoral system says its informal. Your response that a single vote is IRRATIONAL relies on the fact that voting is compulsory and the preferential system says its informal.

As you state, a vote for 1 person is not inherently invalid. You claim it is irrational in a compulsory voting system. What you are in effect saying is that in a compulsory system, a vote which is not inherently invalid, is made irrational. In a compulsory system, a vote which is not inherently invalid is made by the system to be invalid.

Cont…

…cont

I return to the question I asked earlier: In a truly democratic system, why would anyone want to invalidate my vote if I didn’t preference someone else?

To be more specific- In a truly democratic system, why would anyone want to invalidate my vote if I didn’t preference a major party?

It is not the vote for one party which is invalid, or irrational, it is the system which transforms a legitimate vote for a single opposition party into an invalid vote. The system is irrational and anti-democratic.

You have to ask why it is necessary in a supposed democracy for a vote for an opposition to the two major parties to be invalid. But I suspect that is exactly what you don’t want to do, or you don’t want me or anyone else to either.

- - -

"But it is a direct denial of my right NOT TO VOTE for someone that I don’t want to vote for. It IS a disadvantage to me.

Then you should be campaigning to remove compulsory voting, not instate compulsory optional voting. BTW, voting is a responsibility, not a right.

Where did I say that I wanted to instate compulsory optional voting? You are misrepresenting my argument.

I made the comment that compulsory preferential voting is anti-democratic. You are the one who is trying to argue (unsuccessfully in my opinion) that I am wrong, and that compulsory preferential voting is democratic.

If voting is a responsibility, and not a right, why then have various groups throughout history had to actually FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT to vote? Non property holders, women, aboriginals, negroes?

It is a responsibility of every person to think every issue through carefully and exercise their RIGHT to vote accordingly. If thinking every issue through carefully leads to the conclusion that the major parties, or anyone else, cannot be trusted, then it is the responsibility of a voter not to vote for them. And it is the RIGHT of a voter not to vote for them.

Cont…

"My question specifically asked you to provide a sensible rationale OTHER than the fact that the electoral system says its informal.

I did. In the other thread on OPV.

"What you are in effect saying is that in a compulsory system, a vote which is not inherently invalid, is made irrational. In a compulsory system, a vote which is not inherently invalid is made by the system to be invalid.

It is the combination of OPV and compulsory voting that is irrational.

"Where did I say that I wanted to instate compulsory optional voting? You are misrepresenting my argument.

No I'm not. Youa re pretending it has something to do with preferential voting. It doesn't. If it was compulsory voting that was your issue, you would focus on that, not rpeferential voting. The fact is you have to misrepresent preferential voting to make any kind of case.

"You are the one who is trying to argue (unsuccessfully in my opinion) that I am wrong, and that compulsory preferential voting is democratic.

Of course it is democratic.

"If voting is a responsibility, and not a right, why then have various groups throughout history had to actually FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT to vote? Non property holders, women, aboriginals, negroes?

The fact that black people etc were previously denied a vote does not support one argument or the other. The fact that it has been treated like a right does not mean it isn't a responsibility.