http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/optional-preferential-voting.html#only-rational-if-entirely-optional

In NSW state elections for the lower house and in QLD state and local government elections, voters do not have to rank all of the candidates. This is called optional preferential voting (OPV), even though it is still compulsory to turn up and vote. OPV is a way to get rid of compulsory voting by stealth, without actually saving people the trouble of voting. Most people who promote it have a fundamental misunderstanding of how preferential voting works. They tend to think that being forced to rank the two major parties somehow works in their favour. In fact, the opposite is true. Optional preferential voting is a dream come true for the major parties and will help them hold on to power.

Optional preferential voting misleads most voters and is often promoted on fundamentally undemocratic principles. It is based on misidentifying the source of the two party duopoly, which is single member electorates rather than compulsory voting or preferential voting. Finally, optional preferential voting is likely to benefit the coalition above the Labor party in the short term, by fragmenting left wing voters under a ‘divide and conquer’ strategy.

Confusion with the federal Senate system
OPV is only rational if voting is entirely optional
Misrepresenting preferential voting
Optional voting and preferential voting are completely different issues
OPV helps the major parties, not the minor parties
The laziness argument
OPV is promoted on undemocratic principles
Single member electorates cause the two party duopoly, not compulsory voting
Optional preferential voting will benefit the coalition

If OPV works more to the advantage of the larger parties, then why haven’t they moved to convert the system from CPV at federal and all state levels?

They could easily gain majority support for this from the community. All they need to do is publicise the fact that OPV is democratic whereas CPV or any system that compels you to declare preferences that you might not want to declare, and hence risk having your vote count where you don’t want it to, is clearly fundamentally democratically flawed.

So, if OPV benefits the Coalition above the Labor party, then why haven’t we seen this push in states that don’t have it, given that they all have Labor governments?

We can expect a push by Rudd for its implementation at federal level well before the next election, yes? MMMMMmmm. Yeah, sure!

Regarding the Ozpolitic article; who wrote it? It has no citation of authorship, let alone the qualifications of the author, which I find extremely odd!

"If OPV works more to the advantage of the larger parties, then why haven’t they moved to convert the system from CPV at federal and all state levels?

Because it's such an odd idea. There are other systems (eg first past the post) that would do a much better job. Not that they could get away with that. It's possible that what happened in NSW and QLD was pushed along by the major parties. At any rate, someone is going to great lengths to mislead people about the merits of OPV.

"All they need to do is publicise the fact that OPV is democratic whereas CPV or any system that compels you to declare preferences that you might not want to declare, and hence risk having your vote count where you don’t want it to, is clearly fundamentally democratically flawed.

Do you agree with that? Do you think any form of compulsory voting is undemocratic?

"Regarding the Ozpolitic article; who wrote it?

I did.

“Because it is such as an odd idea”

That’s a strange answer freediver. What on earth is odd about it? It is very simple and straightforward. It has been utilised in Qld and NSW for years. There is nothing odd at all about it.

“Do you agree with that?”

It’s my clearly statement. Of course I agree with myself (:>/

“Do you think any form of compulsory voting is undemocratic?”

We are discussing optional versus compulsory preferential voting not optional versus compulsory voting. From our past discussions on this forum, you know what I think of OPV and CPV and OV and CV. (For other readers, I support compulsory voting as do you).

From your Ozpolitic article;

“OPV is a way to get rid of compulsory voting by stealth, without actually saving people the trouble of voting.”

Not at all!

I’d ask you why on earth you make such a statement without explaining or justifying it. But there really is no point in me continuing with this. I’ve given the debate on this and related issues with you a really good go and I’ve come out totally underwhelmed by your arguments and steadfast on my own.

Ludwig,

I agree with you that freediver's arguments are underwhelming. They are often circular and unsupported except by his own authority.

For your information, this thread seems to be a spin off of an exchange between myself and freediver here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1306&page=0#23309 which he appears to have lost the plot on.

His last unsupported statement "Compulsory voting is not undemocratic" is a doozy.

"What on earth is odd about it?

You don't think it is odd to make voting both compulsory and optional at the same time?

"We are discussing optional versus compulsory preferential voting not optional versus compulsory voting.

Aha, this is where your confusion lies. There is no difference between the discussion of optional versus compulsory preferential voting and optional versus compulsory voting. You would only think this if you didn't understand how preferential voting works.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/optional-preferential-voting.html#misrepresenting-preferential-voting

"I’d ask you why on earth you make such a statement without explaining or justifying it.

I do explain and justify it. I just can't fit all in a post. So you have to follow the link.