Preference distribution should be scrapped
by dan28 10:28pm, 22 November 2007
You will need to login
or sign up to do that
If you do away with preferences being distributed then parties would no longer get elected solely due to the deals they cut, the primary vote winner would win.
This discussion topic is closed. You can still review the discussion but it will no longer accept comments or votes.
Luther
Nov 23, 2007 12:19pm
3
3 
The candidate with the majority of the votes in an electorate should be declared the winner i.e firt past the post voting. This would eliminate the power of the major parties to do backroom deals to get their candidate elected even if he or she does not get the majority of the votes in an electorate.Candidates would then have to work hard to earn the support of voters in their elctorate and the tactic of parties putting up " dummy candidates" to split the vote and get their man elected on preferences would be over.
ballotsmith
Nov 23, 2007 03:31pm
4
1
greenade
Nov 25, 2007 11:31am
3
0
agree ballotsmith.. now just imagine if high school children were actually taught how to vote, how the preference system works, and how to formulate their OWN preferences based on their OWN values.
maybe we need to ban all those vultures with "How to Vote" leaflets at polling booths. They should not be allowed to walk up to people and shove things in people's faces.
One good service I used this year was the "GetUp" - how should I vote? website. I answered a range of questions (would like to see more though) and a personal how to vote card was generated, based on that. From there, I adjusted it a little and took that with me to the booth.
I also downloaded the senate ticket and spent a good deal of time adjusting the preferences of my preferred first party.
Perhaps if people knew more about voting, and took the time to access these kinds of things, it would actually be a fairer system. Instead of being posted a billion bits of glossy rubbish from local pollies, we could perhaps be posted a small "dummy" ballot paper (printed on recycled paper of course) to help prepare for voting. Even better, just have them in local newsagents or something, so people who want them (and don't have a computer at home to access via the net) could pick one up. Would save a lot of paper, waste and harrassment.
Another idea would be to simply have a set of pre-laminated cards present in each booth for the parties, that are left in the booth for re-use by each voter, should they wish to use them. Once again, saving paper, providing the service without the harrassment.
I would also advocate NO advertising at polling booths. The one I visited yesterday was sickening. People should not be spoon-fed their voting behaviour. What are we? A bunch of morons?? I'd hope not.
ballotsmith
Nov 27, 2007 06:11pm
2
1
Some good thoughts there greenade.
'Political sophistication' sounds high-faluting doesn't it?
But if kids learn more about it in school and we brush up our ideas, which we are now doing with this great site, progress is on the move.
Getting rid of the parties will change the face of politics as we know it.
If we get rid of preferences members could get in on thirty percent. Counting the preferences means winning must have over fifty percent.
BTW without parties in the picture a casual vacancy could be filled by the next highest vote at the last election. should save a bit of money!
greenade
Nov 27, 2007 09:58pm
4
0
you have me thinking about the party membership issue. it may be that people might be more ethical and active as politicians if they had to rely on their own merit, but the party system does simplify things for those who are not as inclined to be interested in these things, as we here seem to be. however, i still think preferential voting should stay, as if my first pref does not get in, I certainly like to have a say about my second pref, and third, etc. And i do like to be able to put a party LAST in pure protest.. LOL :)
monty123
Nov 28, 2007 08:45am
0
2
In this election I was faced with 5 parties on the ballot paper. The system means I had to give some favour to 4 of them. There were 3 I wanted to put last. Could we have a system where you can just preference 1 and 2. I think beyond that it should exhaust because if they're not in your top 2 the chances are you dont like them very much at all
ballotsmith
Nov 30, 2007 12:32pm
0
1
Monty123 you are referring to 'optional preference' voting. The parties hate it because it could deprive them of votes. Party government therefore insists on all squares filled.
If the main ones lose votes the winner may well have less than fifty percent. This is thought to diminish the legitimacy of the winner's election.
I think the main problem lies with the prominence of the parties and people wanting to exclude them. In we get rid of them we would be dealing with real candidates and then I don't think filling all the squares would be a problem. Then winners would have at least 50 % which is probably a good thing to keep.
ballotsmith
Nov 30, 2007 12:22pm
2
0
Parties are divisive greenade. we don't want that.
As to the less informed, there will always be the ones who have to take a tip from others by assessing their apparent knowledge and integity. Everyone is currently involved at that kind of level, if not better. What this site and its reforms will do is to lift everyone's game, little by little - a win-win goal.
fullobeans
Nov 23, 2007 08:42pm
4
1
First past the post is the system in the UK and it doesnt work particularly well there. They still have major party dominance and it is even harder for the small parties to get up. This definately doesnt improve representation.
wscparks
Feb 11, 2008 02:14pm
0
0
same voting system for all areas of voting
plus all infomation on the table and governaments and groups be open and onest with plans and policies
QWRjQl
NFlyer
Feb 14, 2008 09:45pm
0
0
At the moment, I'm more for the "first past the post" system. It's the same as say a sporting race, why should say the 2nd or 3rd person be the actual winner? Nor should they have coalitions. In 1996 Howard had less votes than Labor, but because the Liberals & Nationals combined, Howard was the winner, even though he had less votes
If it was 1st-past-the-post, then Howard & not the McKew would have the seat of Bennelong.