From: F Murtz on
theo wrote:
> 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
Also voters deliberately vote differently in the senate as a safeguard
to keep the brakes on for stupid legislation.
From: Nev.. on
G-S 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.

Not true at all. I think you don't know how preferential voting works.
The preferences give you a second chance, and a third chance, and a
fourth chance. If your preferred candidate didn't get enough votes to
win the seat outright, why wouldn't you want your second choice getting
your vote, and if they can't win, why wouldn't you want your third
choice to get your vote? The least voted against candidate wins. In
all cases the person you least want to get your vote cannot get your
vote, and your vote will always count against that person, and so on up
the ballot paper. Your representative is directly reportable to you,
and at the end of their term, you can vote them out of office if you
feel they haven't been performing.

The problem with a lower house full of proportionally voted
representatives, is that you have no single politician who can be held
directly responsible for you, and at the next election, how can you hold
anyone accountable for their individual performance and act on that?

Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
From: G-S on
Nev.. wrote:

>
> Not true at all. I think you don't know how preferential voting works.
> The preferences give you a second chance, and a third chance, and a
> fourth chance. If your preferred candidate didn't get enough votes to
> win the seat outright, why wouldn't you want your second choice getting
> your vote, and if they can't win, why wouldn't you want your third
> choice to get your vote?

You're describing how the system used to work before the numbers above
the line system was introduced.

I actually vote below the line and so does a very small percentage of
voters and our votes work exactly as you describe.

The vast majority of voters vote above the line and have no idea where
there preferences are being directed by the party they chose as number 1.

There were radio discussions were a large number of people rang in after
the last election complaining that they weren't aware that their
preferences were going to end up helping elect the fundy that eventually
got in (the one I mentioned in another post).

So in theory you are correct, in practice it no longer works that way
for the vast majority of people.


G-S
From: Nev.. on
G-S wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
>
>>
>> Not true at all. I think you don't know how preferential voting
>> works. The preferences give you a second chance, and a third chance,
>> and a fourth chance. If your preferred candidate didn't get enough
>> votes to win the seat outright, why wouldn't you want your second
>> choice getting your vote, and if they can't win, why wouldn't you want
>> your third choice to get your vote?
>
> You're describing how the system used to work before the numbers above
> the line system was introduced.
>
> I actually vote below the line and so does a very small percentage of
> voters and our votes work exactly as you describe.
>
> The vast majority of voters vote above the line and have no idea where
> there preferences are being directed by the party they chose as number 1.
>
> There were radio discussions were a large number of people rang in after
> the last election complaining that they weren't aware that their
> preferences were going to end up helping elect the fundy that eventually
> got in (the one I mentioned in another post).
>
> So in theory you are correct, in practice it no longer works that way
> for the vast majority of people.

If people don't know what they are doing when they enter the polling
booth that is not a problem with the voting system. If it is a failing,
it is a failing of the education of voters, not of the system of voting.
I'm pretty sure they do have information on how to fill out a ballot
paper if people don't know what they're doing. There is always a
massive newspaper campaign before each election which explains it. If
people are not interested to learn that is not a failing of the system.
Voting above the line isn't compulsory. I have never voted above the
line.

AFAIR above the line wasn't introduced to make it easier or harder for
the big parties to get more votes, it was to make life easier for people
who were just going to follow the how to vote cards distributed by the
parties,... ie, people who weren't going to make an independant decision
on where there preferences were given anyway. It actually looks like
the system is working perfectly.

BTW you still seem to be struggling with distinguishing preferential
voting and proportional representation.

Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
From: Marts on
G-S wrote...

> I don't really think I'm part of the supersports rider demographic
> you're making me out to be (and nor to be honest are any of the regulars
> I've met from this newsgroup).
>
> Some do ride sports/tourers, does that count?

Hope not...


--
Two rules for success: 1. Don't tell everything you know.