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.

brace yourselves: none of you has a clue about what democracy is.

as all of us who took the trouble to acquire classical greek while you lot were watching the races on pub tv know, 'democracy' is rule by the people. ozzies are excused from knowing this, since oz schools and media leave it out when quoting from the gettysburg address.

opc, and cpv, are manifestations of a different political society, that aristotle would have called 'oligarchy'(look it up). in more modern terms, westminster monarchy. say it a few times, quickly, to break the conditioning that oz schooling has imposed: "we are a monarchy, not a democracy, we are a monarchy, not...".

orwell wrote '1984' to save people like you from subjection to thought control. on present examples, he failed miserably.

We are a democracy. The people voted to keep the role of GG and Queen. Just because you don't like what the people voted for doesn't mean it isn't a democracy.

Bring in the first past the post pommie system.

All finished and done with within a day.

Those who care, vote, those who couldn't give a rats, don't.

Why should I have to stipulate where my 'n' th preference should go?

"Bring in the first past the post pommie system.

This would create a lazy, unresponsive dupoly similar to the US and destroy minor parties.

"All finished and done with within a day.

Like Bill vs George? Why would you want the cheapest possible democracy?

"Why should I have to stipulate where my 'n' th preference should go?

Because in the later elections, it could be your first preference.

freediver
I would add another negative to your list
* Confusion between Federal and State Systems (in NSW at least)
many believe they can optionally preferentially vote in Federal as well as state elections.

Of course you are assuming that people know the difference between State, Fedral and Local governments. Often they do not.
remember that 50% of the Australian population has below average intelligence. A point bought home to me when I gave out how to vote pamphletes and scrutineered for a friend.

and, who apart from graduate mathematicians, can work out the Senate System of PV?

I like PV, as guessing on the outcome of an election, I can have two votes instead of one
I always PV in State elections as is my right.
Your (The/) answer might be better civics and politics training in school?
Although a recent ACER report said 50% of Australians could not comprehend you average magazine or newspaper article (Which are usually written for those with a reading age of 8).
So, if we can't teach half the population to read, we don't have much chance of teaching them to vote do we?
(Long live Oligarchy :))

"many believe they can optionally preferentially vote in Federal as well as state elections

Thanks. I'll add that to the article.

"who apart from graduate mathematicians, can work out the Senate System of PV?

I am not a graduate mathematician. I have no trouble understanding it. Anyone who is actually interested would be able to get their ehad around it. laziness is the only real barrier.

"Your (The/) answer might be better civics and politics training in school?

The good thing about PV is that people do not have to understand how it works in order to vote correctly and rationally. They just have to rank all candidates in their real order of preference. However it is unfortunate that the major parties were able to push through OPV, to their own benefit, without adequate public discussion.

"Although a recent ACER report said 50% of Australians could not comprehend you average magazine or newspaper article

Would you mind posting a link to that?

freediver,
The ACER guy was being interviewed by Richard Glover on 702 Local Radio Sydney.
Glover was amazed by the ACER research and asked for more detail.
The ACER guy did not seem to have the research at his fingertips.
But there where questions which involved medicine bottle instructions which many could not comprehend.
If you can't understand one sentence medical directions; what chance of Senate Voting?

Subsequently I tried to find the ACER research on ACER web-seite with no luck.
You could ask Richard Glover on his email "type-back radio" site; he may have the link to the research or the ACER press release.

I may have given the wrong idea.
People could READ the articles; they just could not UNDERSTAND them.

MA