Compulsory preferential voting

[Relativity]

I've had a gut full of this. Why should I be forced to cast a vote for someone I know nothing about or disagree with intensely? Having been forced to cast a vote seventy fkng four times in yesterday's SA Legislative Council, probably 60 more votes than I felt comfortable giving, I wondered to what degree this benefits democracy above deceit of the electorate. Surely, in a true democracy, the voters have a right to vote only for the candidate(s) they have an affinity to? Last Federal Senate election made a mockery of this with a voting slip the size of Rupert Murdock's pay cheque. Being forced to vote for the bustards is only encouraging more bustards.

 

[Krakeour Magic]

Answer - Because it's a racket.

I remember reading an AEC brochure once that stated that the Australian voting system is set up to allow the voter to support the cause they dislike the least.

True.

BTW, I am giving this thread 5 stars.

 

[King Elvis]

Next time just draw a massive penis on your ballot paper mate.

 

[MightyFighting]

I agree. Optional preferential voting and an overhaul of the Senate voting system are long overdue.

 

[smoovy]

I agree that voting in the upper house can be somewhat overbearing, however preferential voting is a must for the lower house is a must.

 

[DeanoT]

Next time just draw a massive penis on your ballot paper mate.

I shall remember this post come the Federal election later this year.

 

[Andre]

Voluntary voting should apply for voting in general. About the only 'democracy' that enforces voting. Surely a cornerstone of elections in a democracy should be the right not to vote?

Voluntary voting with first past the post would be my ideal system. Parties have to actually go out and earn votes they receive, not get votes via the second last choice on a ballot paper because people are forced to vote when they don't like any of the candidates/parties.

 

[tandino]

What is the mindset behind compulsory voting anyway? And what parties have the most/least to lose if voting was optional?

 

[Sportman1987]

It benefits the minor parties.

 

[tazzietiger]

ALP claiming optional preferential voting suppresses democracy even though they was the governments who brought it.

FEDERAL Labor MPs say optional preferential voting introduced by ALP governments in NSW and Queensland should be scrapped in favour of a return to full preferential voting.
The call came as Labor also slammed a new push by influential Liberals for optional preferential voting at a federal level, saying it was an attempt by the conservative side of politics to suppress democracy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...oters-says-labor/story-fn59niix-1226550985151

 

[Caesar]

Their logic is pretty specious:

He said recent election results in NSW and Queensland highlighted the reality that many votes were being wasted under those states' optional preferential system.

“In the last NSW election, 80 per cent of the Greens preferences were never distributed. They were wasted in a first-past-the-post system,” the NSW Labor veteran said. “They were washed out of the system.”

If 80% of Greens votes aren't being distributed, it probably means 80% of Greens voters don't think any other party is worthy of their support. Therefore their vote isn't being wasted, it's being deliberately withheld. How about you actually start giving people a reason to preference you, instead of taking those voters for granted?

 

[Gough]

Well said Caesar, I have spoilt my lower house ballot at the last two elections as I have been unable to preference either of the two major parties as they have given me no reason to do so. Mind you, given that I live in Christopher Pyne's electorate my little protest hardly effects the result.

 

[Caesar]

Well said Caesar, I have spoilt my lower house ballot at the last two elections as I have been unable to preference either of the two major parties as they have given me no reason to do so. Mind you, given that I live in Christopher Pyne's electorate my little protest hardly effects the result.

See this upsets me, because even though it doesn't affect the result it probably deprives a minor party of your vote and therefore underrepresents the support that they have in your electorate. If enough people do it then candidates may miss out on meeting the threshold for candidate funding and so forth.

But you're right - if you really can't bring yourself to support a major party, you're left with no option but to vote informally. It's strong-arm tactics of the worst order.

 

[Gough]

See this upsets me, because even though it doesn't affect the result it probably deprives a minor party of your vote and therefore underrepresents the support that they have in your electorate. If enough people do it then candidates may miss out on meeting the threshold for candidate funding and so forth.

But you're right - if you really can't bring yourself to support a major party, you're left with no option but to vote informally. It's strong-arm tactics of the worst order.

I do understand the potential funding consequences, but there are enough Green voting doctor's wives in the electorate to overcome this. While the ALP's stand on gay marriage and asylum stays the same there is just no way I can preference them. I don't particularly enjoy doing it but unfortunately while those two policies in particular remain, I will continue doing this.

 

[Andre]

I do understand the potential funding consequences, but there are enough Green voting doctor's wives in the electorate to overcome this. While the ALP's stand on gay marriage and asylum stays the same there is just no way I can preference them. I don't particularly enjoy doing it but unfortunately while those two policies in particular remain, I will continue doing this.

So out of all that do you support optional preferential voting? Given it would increase the likely hood of Coalition government, but on the flip side open up more inner city seats as realistic targets for the Greens to win.

 

[Caesar]

I wish people wouldn't think about it in that way. Yeah, the Greens are by far the most powerful minor party, and that does mean that Labor has more to lose. But ultimately I would hope that optional preferential voting would increase the viability of a right wing minor party as an option, therefore causing both parties to have to move away from the centre somewhat to protect their core constituencies. It would provide greater electoral choice, and reopen some room in the middle for independents and maybe a reincarnation of the Democrats. That's good for everyone.

Hey, I can dream.

 

[Dry Rot]

Well said Caesar, I have spoilt my lower house ballot at the last two elections as I have been unable to preference either of the two major parties as they have given me no reason to do so.

That's the reason I don't vote - a valid lower house vote means that in the end you've voted for the ALP or LNP and they're both rubbish NB my member is Plibersek.

 

[Daytripper]

I wish people wouldn't think about it in that way. Yeah, the Greens are by far the most powerful minor party, and that does mean that Labor has more to lose. But ultimately I would hope that optional preferential voting would increase the viability of a right wing minor party as an option, therefore causing both parties to have to move away from the centre somewhat to protect their core constituencies. It would provide greater electoral choice, and reopen some room in the middle for independents and maybe a reincarnation of the Democrats. That's good for everyone.

Hey, I can dream.

Not sure why its a bad thing that the major political parties are based around the centre. They are there to cater for all Australians after all and the centre by definition is where most of Australia resides politically.

 

[Andre]

I wish people wouldn't think about it in that way. Yeah, the Greens are by far the most powerful minor party, and that does mean that Labor has more to lose. But ultimately I would hope that optional preferential voting would increase the viability of a right wing minor party as an option, therefore causing both parties to have to move away from the centre somewhat to protect their core constituencies. It would provide greater electoral choice, and reopen some room in the middle for independents and maybe a reincarnation of the Democrats. That's good for everyone.

Hey, I can dream.

Geez, that's the risky bit of OPV. The problem with the US is too much pandering to their bases (from both sides). Australian's aren't as crazy as American's, so I'd expect if there was a right wing minor party it wouldn't last. They don't seem to hang around as centre-Left or Left parties do here (DLP, Democrats, Greens). What I could see happening is the Nationals adopting some policies further to the Right at elections, but end up basically doing as they currently do and being more pragmatic once in a Coalition government.

Americans seem to be more clearly Left or Right wing, where as outside Greens supporters and a few fringe Right wing nutters 80% the Australian electorate sits somewhere Centre-Left through Centre-Right. I can see why the ALP is worried, as the Liberals (despite the Left trying to say Tony Abbott wants to ban abortion, make pre-marital sex illegal and require unmarried mothers to live in a convent to repent) know this and would shift only marginally Right. The Greens aren't pragmatists or in a formal coalition with the ALP, so the ALP is rightly worried about having to chose between heading Left to keep their base and hold the Centre for the majority of the population. Damned if they move or not, so of course they won't support OPV. The Greens are more interesting to see what they'd do if it was put up. IMO they are left having to decide between opposing it and being only ever a bit player in the Lower houses of states or federally on rare occasions, or support it and be a good chance to hold more lower house seats but at the expense of the Left needing something like a full preferential voting 51 - 53% to win elections - and therefore holding those extra seats more often with a Coalition government in power.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Call me misguided and silly, but I reckon compulsary preferential voting is our great safeguard against tyranny.

 

[Pessimistic]

I wish people wouldn't think about it in that way. Yeah, the Greens are by far the most powerful minor party, and that does mean that Labor has more to lose. But ultimately I would hope that optional preferential voting would increase the viability of a right wing minor party as an option, therefore causing both parties to have to move away from the centre somewhat to protect their core constituencies. It would provide greater electoral choice, and reopen some room in the middle for independents and maybe a reincarnation of the Democrats. That's good for everyone.

Hey, I can dream.

Impotence in the centre is good ?

 

[Caesar]

Appealing to the centre and being in the centre ideologically isn't the same thing.

Personally I think major parties work best when they have minor parties on either side of them eating into their vote. It keeps them honest, and makes them carve out a clear ideological identity for themselves. I am pretty much the definition of a centrist, but I would much rather have a Whitlam and a Thatcher to choose between than two parties serving up the same bland and muddled soup.

I am not afraid of us turning into the USA because unlike the US we have a diverse upper chamber with numerous minority parties who can act as a moderating influence on policy. That is, after all, their job as the House of Review. Moderation is not something I want from parties in the lower house. I want two clear visions, from which I can choose the one that I think best suits the times.

 

[Caesar]

Call me misguided and silly, but I reckon compulsary preferential voting is our great safeguard against tyranny.

I don't see how a system designed to allow people more flexibility to more clearly voice their electoral opinion is a source of tyranny.

I think compulsory attendance at a polling place is very important, but I do not like forcing people to vote for someone they do not support, or forgo their say altogether.

 

[RUNVS]

The thing is that what is considered to be the "centre" is constantly changing and more often than not going left. I mean if the Liberal Party tried to go for centre right policies of 1910 Labor would smash them, or centre right of the 1950's though i do think the centre is more right wing now than it was in the 1970's.

Basically politics in most developed countries does move left over time dragging the right wingers kicking and screaming but eventually changing the political landscape so most right wing people of today would find the right wing politics in Australia's past to be wrong. Right wingers are more left wing that their counterparts 60 years ago.

 

[The_Reaper]

The thing is that what is considered to be the "centre" is constantly changing and more often than not going left. I mean if the Liberal Party tried to go for centre right policies of 1910 Labor would smash them, or centre right of the 1950's though i do think the centre is more right wing now than it was in the 1970's.

Basically politics in most developed countries does move left over time dragging the right wingers kicking and screaming but eventually changing the political landscape so most right wing people of today would find the right wing politics in Australia's past to be wrong. Right wingers are more left wing that their counterparts 60 years ago.

Big call.

I wouldn't be suprised if the aging populations see a trend towards conservative views. People do tend to be more conservative as they age.