Yarra Ranges is Stuffed for Motorbikes
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: ROT IN HELL GREEK FUCKWIT....
Next: Garage Night new video: Suspension overhaul starts with Dremelon a lathe
From: theo on 10 Feb 2010 06:33 On Feb 10, 7:01 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: > G-S wrote: > > I am in favour of proportional representation when it's used without > > preferences (which I mentioned earlier :) [1] > > So you only a system which gives unfair advantage to the election of > candidates from the major political parties, and in which some votes are > never counted towards the election of a candidate. Some people (ok, > maybe just Theo) complain that the current system of voting already > gives the major parties an unfair advantage. Yours would only make it > worse. How? Proportional voting, as practiced in some European countries, has no preferences. Your party, or independent, gets 1% of the primary vote in a 100 seat parliament, you get one seat. You get 20% of the vote, you get 20 seats. You get no votes, you get to go home.What is so difficult or unfair about that? Sure, it is more likely that one party will not have an absolute majority, so they would have to learn to work together, just like they were taught in Kindy, but have long since forgotten. Would that be a bad thing? And yes, they regularly elect independents. Theo
From: Nev.. on 10 Feb 2010 06:52 theo wrote: > On Feb 10, 7:01 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >> G-S wrote: > >>> I am in favour of proportional representation when it's used without >>> preferences (which I mentioned earlier :) [1] >> So you only a system which gives unfair advantage to the election of >> candidates from the major political parties, and in which some votes are >> never counted towards the election of a candidate. Some people (ok, >> maybe just Theo) complain that the current system of voting already >> gives the major parties an unfair advantage. Yours would only make it >> worse. > > How? Proportional voting, as practiced in some European countries, has > no preferences. Your party, or independent, gets 1% of the primary > vote in a 100 seat parliament, you get one seat. You get 20% of the > vote, you get 20 seats. You get no votes, you get to go home.What is > so difficult or unfair about that? Sure, it is more likely that one > party will not have an absolute majority, so they would have to learn > to work together, just like they were taught in Kindy, but have long > since forgotten. Would that be a bad thing? And yes, they regularly > elect independents. I'm sure it works very nicely when you use natural numbers, but much earlier in this thread you said something about 6.8% of the vote going to independants. If they get 6.8% of the seats in a 100 seat parliment, where do the votes of the .8% of the voters go? Round down and you throw votes away. Round up and you're electing candidates using votes which were not cast for them. I thought you said your system was more representative and democratic? How can independants get a significant % of the vote unless they group themselves on the ballot in the same way the party candidates are grouped? If they were listed separately they would be at a far disadvantage to the parties, if grouped, how does the voter know which independant they're voting for? Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: G-S on 10 Feb 2010 14:58 Nev.. wrote: > G-S wrote: >> Nev.. wrote: >>> G-S wrote: >>>> Nev.. wrote: >>>>> Pietro wrote: >>>>>> "Nev.." <idiot(a)mindless.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:7tWdnbii84EvfvLWnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au... >>>>>>> theo wrote: >>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 3:24 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> theo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> That is part of the problem. You get the person you least >>>>>>>>>> object to, >>>>>>>>>> rather than the person you want. >>>>>>>>> It's not a problem at all. If the person you want has enough >>>>>>>>> votes they >>>>>>>>> win. See. Amazing, but true. You get the person you want. >>>>>>>>> If they >>>>>>>>> can't win, your second choice gets your vote, and so on. If your >>>>>>>>> preference, a proportional voting model was used, how do you >>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>> person you want? >>>>>>>> You can't vote for the person you want. You can only vote for the >>>>>>>> people on the ticket. A few (very few) people in the party decide >>>>>>>> which person gets on the ticket, so you may as well vote for the >>>>>>>> party. Your local person, who you voted in to look after you, will >>>>>>>> certainly vote whichever way the party says, otherwise they >>>>>>>> don't get >>>>>>>> preselection next time. If you think they can follow their own >>>>>>>> agenda, >>>>>>>> or their stated moral stance, just look at Garrett. >>>>>>> Everyone who you want to represent you or wants to represent you >>>>>>> has the opportunity to nominate themselves for election on your >>>>>>> ballot paper (subject to electoral rules). There's nothing >>>>>>> stopping the party of your choice from standing multiple >>>>>>> candidates against each other in your electorate to allow you to >>>>>>> choose which one you prefer. If they choose not to stand because >>>>>>> the organisation they belong to tell them they can't, then that's >>>>>>> a problem you have with the rules of the political party of your >>>>>>> choice, its not a failing of the electoral system, and you should >>>>>>> stop pretending that it is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem with our current system, as I see it, is that it >>>>>>>> disempowers large portions of the population. As shown in the >>>>>>>> recent >>>>>>>> past, a new party can get 30% of the vote and fugg-all seats, so no >>>>>>>> representation. In a proportional system they would have got 30% of >>>>>>>> the seats. The other problem is that a very small change in >>>>>>>> voting can >>>>>>>> make a huge difference in representation. E.g. if 51% of each >>>>>>>> electorate votes for one party then the other party gets zero seats >>>>>>>> and the 49% who voted for the losers get no representation. A 2% >>>>>>>> swing >>>>>>>> in every electorate would see the reverse. It's silly but >>>>>>>> contrived to >>>>>>>> keep a possible third party from getting any kind of foothold. >>>>>>> 51% is a clear majority. That's democracy for ya. That >>>>>>> independant candidates have been elected to parliament in the >>>>>>> past and present disputes your assertion. In fact at the current >>>>>>> time, the Commonwealth government, and every single State and >>>>>>> Territory lower house government include politicans who were >>>>>>> elected on Greens and/or Independant tickets. So much for your >>>>>>> alleged 2 party stranglehold. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Even the Senate elections ar not proportionate after the primary >>>>>>>> votes >>>>>>>> are counted. Deals can be made for the losers preferences to >>>>>>>> help, as >>>>>>>> GS wrote, another party win a seat they would not otherwise have >>>>>>>> had. >>>>>>> Every voter has the opportunity to distribute preferences on >>>>>>> their ballot paper in precisely the way that they wish so any >>>>>>> talk of preference deals between parties or candidates causing >>>>>>> voters to vote against their wishes are rubbish. If people >>>>>>> choose to follow the advice of their first preference on how to >>>>>>> distribute the remaining preferences, then that is their >>>>>>> decision. IF they are too stupid to understand or too lazy to >>>>>>> learn how the election process works I have precisely 0% sympathy >>>>>>> for them. It's not a secret, information on how elections work is >>>>>>> readily available, for free, particularly around election times. >>>>>> >>>>>> As an aside, it seems to me that many people still fail to grasp >>>>>> that if they vote for one of the top two candiadates (the ones who >>>>>> end up first and second), their preferences actually do nothing. >>>>>> So preference deals by the major parties are more about political >>>>>> advertising than about the actual voting mechanism. >>>>>> >>>>>> Only the preferences of the candidates who come last (i.e. the >>>>>> least popular) actually get used, and that sequentially only until >>>>>> one candidate get to 50% + 1 vote. >>>>> >>>>> While that's mostly true in the lower house, in the upper house >>>>> with it's quota system, there is the possibility for left over >>>>> votes which initially went to one of the two major parties >>>>> candidates flowing down to smaller parties or independants if the >>>>> major party does not field enough candidates to utilize all of the >>>>> votes cast in their favour, or if one or more of their candidates >>>>> fail to secure sufficient votes to meet a quota. >>>> >>>> Which is I understand how fundy man got elected... >>> >>> I got the impression that you were for the notion of proportional >>> representation, and now you appear to be not happy when it is put >>> into practice. It's quite puzzling. >>> >> >> I am in favour of proportional representation when it's used without >> preferences (which I mentioned earlier :) [1] > > So you only a system which gives unfair advantage to the election of > candidates from the major political parties, and in which some votes are > never counted towards the election of a candidate. Some people (ok, > maybe just Theo) complain that the current system of voting already > gives the major parties an unfair advantage. Yours would only make it > worse. The current system severely disadvantages candidates from minor parties to the point where they can almost never be elected in the lower house and are disadvantaged in the upper house compared to the major parties. That's a bigger issue than what you describe IMHO. G-S
From: G-S on 10 Feb 2010 15:03 theo wrote: > On Feb 10, 7:01 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >> G-S wrote: > >>> I am in favour of proportional representation when it's used without >>> preferences (which I mentioned earlier :) [1] >> So you only a system which gives unfair advantage to the election of >> candidates from the major political parties, and in which some votes are >> never counted towards the election of a candidate. Some people (ok, >> maybe just Theo) complain that the current system of voting already >> gives the major parties an unfair advantage. Yours would only make it >> worse. > > How? Proportional voting, as practiced in some European countries, has > no preferences. Your party, or independent, gets 1% of the primary > vote in a 100 seat parliament, you get one seat. You get 20% of the > vote, you get 20 seats. You get no votes, you get to go home.What is > so difficult or unfair about that? Sure, it is more likely that one > party will not have an absolute majority, so they would have to learn > to work together, just like they were taught in Kindy, but have long > since forgotten. Would that be a bad thing? And yes, they regularly > elect independents. > > Theo Sound much fairer to me :) G-S
From: G-S on 10 Feb 2010 15:06
Nev.. wrote: > theo wrote: >> On Feb 10, 7:01 pm, "Nev.." <id...(a)mindless.com> wrote: >>> G-S wrote: >> >>>> I am in favour of proportional representation when it's used without >>>> preferences (which I mentioned earlier :) [1] >>> So you only a system which gives unfair advantage to the election of >>> candidates from the major political parties, and in which some votes are >>> never counted towards the election of a candidate. Some people (ok, >>> maybe just Theo) complain that the current system of voting already >>> gives the major parties an unfair advantage. Yours would only make it >>> worse. >> >> How? Proportional voting, as practiced in some European countries, has >> no preferences. Your party, or independent, gets 1% of the primary >> vote in a 100 seat parliament, you get one seat. You get 20% of the >> vote, you get 20 seats. You get no votes, you get to go home.What is >> so difficult or unfair about that? Sure, it is more likely that one >> party will not have an absolute majority, so they would have to learn >> to work together, just like they were taught in Kindy, but have long >> since forgotten. Would that be a bad thing? And yes, they regularly >> elect independents. > > I'm sure it works very nicely when you use natural numbers, but much > earlier in this thread you said something about 6.8% of the vote going > to independants. If they get 6.8% of the seats in a 100 seat parliment, > where do the votes of the .8% of the voters go? Round down and you > throw votes away. Round up and you're electing candidates using votes > which were not cast for them. I thought you said your system was more > representative and democratic? > > How can independants get a significant % of the vote unless they group > themselves on the ballot in the same way the party candidates are > grouped? If they were listed separately they would be at a far > disadvantage to the parties, if grouped, how does the voter know which > independant they're voting for? Independants get a significant proportion of the vote now and don't get a seat. In Theo's example the Greens would have about 8 seats and the Dems a couple of seats and the Libs and Labor would have the rest. But it wouldn't take long before we'd have special interest parties fielding candidates representing views that are currently under represented. I can see a 'no compulsory internet filtering' party getting a few candidates up for example. G-S |