preferential or first past the post?

Remove this Banner Ad

dr nick

Brownlow Medallist
May 22, 2002
13,353
28
Dee Why, NSW
AFL Club
Sydney
what election system would you prefer??

for me, i think preferential voting works far better then first past the post (like the US does)

if 60% of the population supporter tighter gun laws, and two parties (A and B) took this stance, then the vote would probably (for simplicities sake) be split 30-30

wheras if only 1 party (C) supported loosening gun laws, they would get 40% of the vote.

under a preferential system, voters of A would give their preference to B and vice versa, so either A or B gets eliminated after the first count and the other gets the 60% of votes, thus representing the majority view. first past the post would elect party C.


this is similar to what happened in the last US election. they said most Nader supporters were also Gore supporters, but that meant that the votes were split between these two, whereas those who agreed with george w's politics voted for him, and he did not have to "share" votes. hence why he won.
 
It has to be first past the post it is a bloody joke when the majority of people vote for someone but when two parties pool their votes they win totally unfair that the party that the minority voted for rule.
Should be one person one vote & no preferences.
 
Originally posted by redback
It has to be first past the post it is a bloody joke when the majority of people vote for someone but when two parties pool their votes they win totally unfair that the party that the minority voted for rule.
Should be one person one vote & no preferences.

Hear hear!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think the system they use in Tassie (and NZ?) is apparently the mathematically fairest system going around, though it does tend to produce coalition/minority govenments, which can de a good or bad thing...perhaps a benevolent dictatorship is the best way to go!!!!
 
Originally posted by London Dave
I think te system the use in Tassie (and NZ?) is apparently the mathematically fairest system going around, though it does tend to produce coalition/minority govenments, which can de a good or bad thing...perhaps a benevolent dictatorship is the best way to go!!!!

ahh, are your talking about quotas?? i didnt know tassie did that.

like the territories do?
 
something like that, not sure of the intricacies of the system though. no system is perfect, but whatever system you have, its betterr to have compulsory voting than not
 
Nicko I hope you are joking are you trying to say that a person who cleans the toilets of the rich doesnt deserve the same say in who governs them great so the working class will never have a representative government because the rick pr*cks vote is worth 4 or more times than theirs if this came in you would see a revolution within a few years.
How much do you earn nicko I am a lowly labourer who works hard but gets paid a quarter of what my boss does so his vote is worth 4 times more than mine lets hope they dont ban handguns us workers might just need them.
 
Originally posted by redback
Nicko I hope you are joking are you trying to say that a person who cleans the toilets of the rich doesnt deserve the same say in who governs them great so the working class will never have a representative government because the rick pr*cks vote is worth 4 or more times than theirs if this came in you would see a revolution within a few years.
How much do you earn nicko I am a lowly labourer who works hard but gets paid a quarter of what my boss does so his vote is worth 4 times more than mine lets hope they dont ban handguns us workers might just need them.

i also earn bugger all and work bloody hard for my money. it was a joke (probably in poor taste) sorry ;)
 
I'd favour a combination of the 2 - optional preferential.
Under first past the post, a vote for a minor party or independant would be a wasted vote; because it's almost always going to be a shootout between the 2 major parties.
If someone wants to vote for a minor party or independant but in the race between the 2 major parties wants to express a preference, they should be allowed to do so. But if they want to just vote for one candidate and not number every square, that should also be an option.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Originally posted by nicko18
i think the unemployed should get 1 vote, those earning between $1 and $5000 get two votes, $10000 3 votes, $15000 4 votes and so on.. :D;)

Agreed!And then we could do away with elections altogether by simply asking Kerry Packer who he wants to run the country every three years.;) ;) ;)
 
Although this won't happen due to cost, there should be two rounds of voting

1st round all candidates are on the ballot and the two highest vote getters go into the second round and a head-to-head winner take all contest (unless the winner of the first round ballot gets 50%+1 votes then there is no need for a 2nd round)

The result of the Cunningham election last week showed the preferential system is a joke with the Green getting 21% and end up winning while the ALP hack had 39% and lost
 
Originally posted by The Ewok
Although this won't happen due to cost, there should be two rounds of voting

1st round all candidates are on the ballot and the two highest vote getters go into the second round and a head-to-head winner take all contest (unless the winner of the first round ballot gets 50%+1 votes then there is no need for a 2nd round)

The result of the Cunningham election last week showed the preferential system is a joke with the Green getting 21% and end up winning while the ALP hack had 39% and lost
If there was a second round in that by-election, the Labor and Green candidates would have gone head to head a couple of weeks later; quite possibly with the same 2-party preferred results.
What preferential voting does is enable a vote for every candidate, but also enables a head-to-head winner. The preferences is the second round.
 
Originally posted by redback
It has to be first past the post it is a bloody joke when the majority of people vote for someone but when two parties pool their votes they win totally unfair that the party that the minority voted for rule.
Should be one person one vote & no preferences.

I don't think that a candidate which the majority votes for can lose in the preferential system.



Anyway, I like preferential system better. It means that I can vote for the Greens or the Democrats or One Nation or independent or any other minor party without feeling that my vote is wasted. It means that I can be sure that if it comes down to Labor vs Liberal, I still get to have my say, because I've voted that I disagree with one party more than the other.
 
Originally posted by The Ewok
Although this won't happen due to cost, there should be two rounds of voting

1st round all candidates are on the ballot and the two highest vote getters go into the second round and a head-to-head winner take all contest (unless the winner of the first round ballot gets 50%+1 votes then there is no need for a 2nd round)

The result of the Cunningham election last week showed the preferential system is a joke with the Green getting 21% and end up winning while the ALP hack had 39% and lost

thats how preferential voting works. the top parties go head to head, and the people have a choice between those two (whichever is higher on their preference)
 
Originally posted by nicko18


thats how preferential voting works. the top parties go head to head, and the people have a choice between those two (whichever is higher on their preference)

But sometimes the top 2 don't always win, as in the case in Blair in the 1998 election where Hanson, ALP got the most primary votes but the Liberal who finished 3rd on primaries ended up winning
 
I like preferential voting. What I don't like is that we have the Dummy Option built into our senate voting, in that you can just tick one box and let that party decide how to molest your preferences.

I'm also not a fan of candidates having their party listed next to their name on the ballot either. Vote for the person, not the party you imbeciles!!!
 
It is a difficult decission. I definitely think that the Senate should have preferental voting but for the lower house I'm not too sure.

Both systems have there strong points but I believe in the preferential system though. It allows people to show their displeasure by voting for a minor party but still saying who they actually want to run the country.
 
Originally posted by Porthos
I like preferential voting. What I don't like is that we have the Dummy Option built into our senate voting, in that you can just tick one box and let that party decide how to molest your preferences.
I always go below the line - I'm not letting the party machines play silly buggers with my vote. I'd rather play my own game of silly buggers.
Unfortunately in the last state election that meant it took about half an hour for me to vote. I numbered all 271 squares; and took particular pleasure in numbering the top One Nation candidate number 271.
 
Originally posted by Leaping Lindner


Agreed!And then we could do away with elections altogether by simply asking Kerry Packer who he wants to run the country every three years.;) ;) ;)

If it was on declared income I would have more votes than him.


But looka t the system now, a couple of media owners 'massage' the truth and present it to voters and the resulrt is what they want anyway.

No coincidence that the truth about 'children overboard' didn't come out till after the election.


John Howard may be OK but we weren't meant to have him for more than year or so. He's a recycled failure
 

Remove this Banner Ad

preferential or first past the post?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top