dan warna said:
yes and no.
you get 2.5 m votes to 2.4 m votes and you win the whole state. Management of the vote is restricted to the state governor to return.
there are no preferences, buy and large, each block of population gets one MP, which limits the effects of disenfranchisement.
Colorado voted on making the system fairer, but it was defeated by a huge margin.
I would take the aussie system as is, as the most superior democracy leading to stability.
NZ democracy is 'fairer' than australia as is possibly SL with its proportional representation mechanism, but it leads to unstable government.
by convention as opposed to law, the senate is usually compliant on most issues.
a hostile senate could make governing impossible.
There are some dangers is a controlled senate, however the real vulnerability of our democracy is if the AEC gets 'captured'. the AEC i believe is the fundamental backbone in keeping our democracy honest.
labour or liberal haven't complained about the AEC in my memory.
bitch all you want about ch9 abc, 3aw etc, I don't usually buy into it, as long as the AEC is sacrosant, then our democracy is strong.
cheers Dan.
Agree with your comments about AEC.
However ... preferential and compulsory voting are systems virtually unique to Australia.
imo compulsory voting is what makes Australia so conservative.
Because of foxtel and internet and time on my hands, was able to satisfy a long held wish of following a US election campaign in detail.
Was hugely impressed with the level of sophistication of the debate and of the means both parties used to communicate with the voters. The wit and excellence of both parties ads. The extraordinary range of intelligent punditry (as opposed to sloganeering) from both sides. The informed level of commentary. The vitality of the input from the bloggers and the web.
I'm sure none of this would have been so good if it hadn't been for the reality that
the parties have to work to get the vote out for them.
Compulsory voting renders the Aust electorate irritable, cynical and impervious to informed debate imo.
As for preferential: in my ALP days it was anathema to the true believers. I have always disliked it on the grounds that some people in effect get "two votes".
If it was truly fair, then I believe ALL preferences should be counted before the result is declared.
btw Dan, this is a huge win for Bush - as significant in the long term as Little Johnny's recent win. Not only has he won over 50 per cent of popular vote for the first time since '88, the Republicans have increased their representation in both the Senate and the House.
Given the huge increase in turnout, the excellent Dem campaign and the clear divide on the issues, especially Iraq, this is as severe and significant a defeat for the Dems as Labor here has just suffered.
I notice you are gnashing sour grapes on another thread, but honestly if the Left doesn't rework itself on the lines Blair,Brown and Mandelson put together with New Labour it risks becoming entirely irrelevant. Is that what you'd want to see?