From: Kevin Gleeson on
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:44:46 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:

>Nev.. wrote:
>> G-S wrote:
>>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> >
>>> .. The least voted against
>>>> candidate wins. You really can't respect the intent of all of the
>>>> voters much more than that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the house of representatives that's probably the case, but in the
>>> senate preference deals and 1 box above the line voting can see
>>> candidates that are much less popular (both in the voted for and voted
>>> against senses of the term) elected.
>>>
>>> I can't remember the exact numbers but a fundie got elected to the
>>> senate last election with something like 50 or 60 thousand votes and a
>>> green candidate with several hundred thousand votes standing against
>>> him didn't get elected.
>>>
>>> That's an artificial distortion...
>>
>> I'm quite confused now, because in this very thread when Theo said "I'm
>> for proportional voting" you said "Yah me too..." and proportional
>> voting is indeed the method of voting which the Senate uses, and yet now
>> you seem to think that this is a bad thing. Please explain.
>>
>
>I'm for proportional voting and against preferential voting.
>
>So I'd like to see a government with proportional voting and without
>preferences, because preferences distort the result so that the largest
>proportion of voters chosen representative doesn't get elected.
>
>I'm also against small regions being used to elect members, I'd rather
>see state based numbers used. That way minor parties who have (as an
>example) 10% of the vote end up with 10% of the seats.
>
>In the current system a 3rd party can get well over 10% of the vote and
>not win a single seat in the lower house.
>
>That also seems an artificial distortion to me.

Checked out the Hare-Clark voting system used in Tas? It balances out
things nicely without giving the financially big parties too much
leash.
From: Kevin Gleeson on
On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:47:32 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:

> >
>> The same roads which more rational, non-adrenalin addicted
>> motorcyclists avoided on weekends because of the distinct possibility
>> of being taken out by a hoon.
>>
>
>I don't avoid them! I used to enjoy those roads.
>
>I consider the small risk of being taken out of a hoon as part of the
>risk of riding a motorbike.

I do recall a certain ride with you, me and Tim across the Lake Leake
road about a decade ago. You hoon you!
From: theo on
On Feb 6, 11:44 am, G-S <ge...(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
> > G-S wrote:
> >> Nev.. wrote:
>
> >> .. The least voted against
> >>> candidate wins.  You really can't respect the intent of all of the
> >>> voters much more than that.
>
> >> In the house of representatives that's probably the case, but in the
> >> senate preference deals and 1 box above the line voting can see
> >> candidates that are much less popular (both in the voted for and voted
> >> against senses of the term) elected.
>
> >> I can't remember the exact numbers but a fundie got elected to the
> >> senate last election with something like 50 or 60 thousand votes and a
> >> green candidate with several hundred thousand votes standing against
> >> him didn't get elected.
>
> >> That's an artificial distortion...

I'm confused. From http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/faq.htm
2. Why are the minor parties more successful in having candidates
elected to the Senate than the House of Representatives?

Independents and members of minority parties have a better chance of
election to the Senate than the House of Representatives because a
different electoral system is used. In Senate elections, a system
called proportional representation voting secures the election of a
number of candidates, each of whom has obtained a required quota or
proportion of votes necessary for election. The quota is worked out by
dividing the total number of formal votes in the election by one more
than the number of places available for election No one candidate
needs to obtain a majority of votes, as is the case in House of
Representative elections.

Votes received in excess of the quota by successful candidates are
redistributed to those candidates who have been ranked second by the
voters on the excess ballot papers. If insufficient candidates reach a
quota after this distribution, the preferences of voters for the least
successful candidates are progressively distributed until enough
candidates reach a quota to fill the available seats. Independents and
members of minority parties, who would not hope to receive enough
first votes to achieve a quota, are usually elected on the preferences
of voters who gave their first vote to another candidate.

This method of electing senators to the Australian Parliament results
in a representation which more closely reflects the wishes of voters
than that used by the House of Representatives. In the 1996 election
for example, the Australian Democrats received 10.8% of the vote and
secured 12.5% (or 5 ) of the 40 available seats in the Senate. They
received 6.8% of the vote for the House of Representatives, but were
not successful in having a candidate elected. Proportional
representation is designed to ensure that the number of seats won is
in proportion to the number of votes received.

Please explain the 50 thou over the several hundred thou. I can't see
that.

> > I'm quite confused now, because in this very thread when Theo said "I'm
> > for proportional voting" you said "Yah me too..."  and proportional
> > voting is indeed the method of voting which the Senate uses, and yet now
> > you seem to think that this is a bad thing.  Please explain.
>
> I'm for proportional voting and against preferential voting.
>
> So I'd like to see a government with proportional voting and without
> preferences, because preferences distort the result so that the largest
> proportion of voters chosen representative doesn't get elected.
>
> I'm also against small regions being used to elect members, I'd rather
> see state based numbers used.  That way minor parties who have (as an
> example) 10% of the vote end up with 10% of the seats.
>
> In the current system a 3rd party can get well over 10% of the vote and
> not win a single seat in the lower house.
>
> That also seems an artificial distortion to me.

That's pretty much how I see it too.

Theo
From: G-S on
Kevin Gleeson wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 14:47:32 +1100, G-S <geoff(a)castbus.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> The same roads which more rational, non-adrenalin addicted
>>> motorcyclists avoided on weekends because of the distinct possibility
>>> of being taken out by a hoon.
>>>
>> I don't avoid them! I used to enjoy those roads.
>>
>> I consider the small risk of being taken out of a hoon as part of the
>> risk of riding a motorbike.
>
> I do recall a certain ride with you, me and Tim across the Lake Leake
> road about a decade ago. You hoon you!

Tasmania doesn't count... it's not really part of Australia :)


G-S
From: G-S on
theo wrote:

>
> Please explain the 50 thou over the several hundred thou. I can't see
> that.
>

Labor made a deal with one of the fundies for preferences instead of
with the greens.

The 5th? Labor senator failed to secure the numbers to be elected and
his preferences went down the line and ended up in the hands of the
fundy that they made the deal with earlier.

Add together the several hundred thousand ALP preferences and the 50000
fundy preferences and it was enough to defeat the green? (I think it was
green) senator by a bit despite the disparity in primary votes being
something like 4 or 5 to 1 against the fundy compared to the green senator.

And no... I'm not a green voter, I just happen to think a situation
where that occurs is grounds for altering the system (although I admit
the number of times this sort of thing has happened is low).


G-S