Yes an optional preferential system is certainly preferential to a first-past-the-post system. But a compulsory preferential system certainly is not.

I think it is highly antidemocratic for voters to be forced to choose the least liked candidate. The compulsory preferential system does this, for voters who don’t like either of the two major candidates and specifically wish to vote against them. They simply can’t, as their vote will effectively count, by way of the filtering down of preferences, for whoever they put second last.

There are quite a few rotten things about our brand of (pseudo)democracy. But this is the worst.

We should all have the choice of making our vote count where and only where we want it to. This means being able to mark as many boxes as we wish or to formally mark no box if we think that no candidate deserves our vote. In fact there should always be a box labelled ‘no candidate deserves my vote’.

The optional preferential system operates in Queensland and New South Wales. There is no reason why it can’t operate in every state and territory and federally.

"The compulsory preferential system does this, for voters who don’t like either of the two major candidates and specifically wish to vote against them.

If you don't rank the major candidates, you might as well not vote anyway. A vote for minor candidates without ranking the major ones is a wasted vote.

"In fact there should always be a box labelled ‘no candidate deserves my vote’.

Effectively there is. It's called a donkey vote.

"The optional preferential system operates in Queensland and New South Wales.

No it doesn't. All that happens is that you assign the right to distribute your rpeferences to whatever single party you vote for.

My mistake. I just checked out the OPV rules here:

http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/12942001126163592578.pdf

“If you don't rank the major candidates, you might as well not vote anyway. A vote for minor candidates without ranking the major ones is a wasted vote.”

Not at all freediver. The optional preferential system allows the voter to opt to not rank the major candidates. It works perfectly well.

There is no such thing as a wasted vote if the voter gets to vote for just who they want to vote for. The very principle of voting is that the voter gets to exercise their choice freely. Anything else is a rort.

If they are forced to rank candidates when they don’t wish to do so, then one of the fundamental principles of democracy has been violated. And by crikey, if their vote ends up counting for the candidate that they put second last or for one somewhere down the list that they really don’t want it to count for, then the system is fundamentally flawed.

This is exactly how the compulsory preferential system operates. And it is indeed a rort and a total affront to democracy.

“Effectively there is. It's called a donkey vote.”

Yes. But it is not legal. As a fundamental principle of democracy, voters must surely have the right to vote for no candidate if they wish to, in a proper and formal manner. To not be able to do this amounts to a rort, because a portion of the voter base will be either forced to vote for a candidate that they really don’t want to vote for or lodge an illegal null vote.

I detest this aspect of our system as much as the compulsion to mark every box. It is also part of the optional preferential system.

“No it doesn't. All that happens is that you assign the right to distribute your preferences to whatever single party you vote for.”

No, no. Preferences are entirely up to the voter in the optional preferential system. Parties/candidates can only suggest how voters should allocate their preferences.

"Not at all freediver. The optional preferential system allows the voter to opt to not rank the major candidates. It works perfectly well.

You kind of missed the point here.

"There is no such thing as a wasted vote if the voter gets to vote for just who they want to vote for. The very principle of voting is that the voter gets to exercise their choice freely. Anything else is a rort.

So if a voter decided to exercise their choice to fart on the ballot paper rather than writing anything down, that wouldn't be wasted?

"If they are forced to rank candidates when they don’t wish to do so, then one of the fundamental principles of democracy has been violated.

No it hasn't. And they are not forced to do anything.

"And by crikey, if their vote ends up counting for the candidate that they put second last or for one somewhere down the list that they really don’t want it to count for, then the system is fundamentally flawed.

This is where most people misunderstand preferential voting. If their vote counts for their second last preference, that means that they succeeded in preventing their last preference from getting elected. The voter got what they wanted.

"Yes. But it is not legal.

Yes it is.

"As a fundamental principle of democracy, voters must surely have the right to vote for no candidate if they wish to, in a proper and formal manner.

Proper and formal? You just don't vote. Do you expect the vote counters to sit there and ponder the meaning of a blank sheet?

"To not be able to do this amounts to a rort, because a portion of the voter base will be either forced to vote for a candidate that they really don’t want to vote for or lodge an illegal null vote.

You do not vote for someone you don't want. You merely indicate that you dislike them less than the candidate at the bottom. You do not reduce the liklihood of your favourite candidate getting elected.

Some more problems with this scheme:

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