Election 2010 August 21

[JohnK]

Can someone please explain the seat of Denison for me? ABC is giving this seat to independent Andrew Wilkie but he is not even in the top 2 in the primary vote.

I thought to have any chance of winning a seat then you needed to be in the first 2 in the primary vote and then preferences are taken into consideration.

 

[markis10]

First round lowest candidate gets ruled out and preferences allocated, it then works up the hill from there.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/hor_count.htm

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

why not just call a 2nd election in a months time :mrgreen:

or maybe we can rebuild the thunder dome. i can imagine mad max Abbot taking on Aunty Entity Gillard in her chain mail outfit. I'd even supply a chainsaw and a few other props.

We don't need another hero, but a decent Leader wouldn't go astray

 

[medhead]

First round lowest candidate gets ruled out and preferences allocated, it then works up the hill from there.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/hor_count.htm

And in the case of Denison most of the green preferences go to Wilkie jumping him above the Liberals candidate.

 

[JohnK]

First round lowest candidate gets ruled out and preferences allocated, it then works up the hill from there.

Ah yes. Our stupid preferences system allowing the person with the 3rd highest primary vote in the seat to actually win the seat.

Why can't we just go to a simple majority system where this sort of stupidity cannot happen.

By the way Andrew Wilkie only got ~20% of the primary vote and I have also seen other scenarios where a person has received 45.3% of the primary vote and lost the seat.

 

[medhead]

Ah yes. Our stupid preferences system allowing the person with the 3rd highest primary vote in the seat to actually win the seat.

Why can't we just go to a simple majority system where this sort of stupidity cannot happen.

By the way Andrew Wilkie only got ~20% of the primary vote and I have also seen other scenarios where a person has received 45.3% of the primary vote and lost the seat.

I'm not sure how you can have a majority system that doesn't involve preferences. A majority means more than 50%, if there is more than 2 candidates then it is impossible for someone to achieve a majority simply based on the primary vote. Our system is actually not that stupid because it results in a compromise result of getting the person who is most acceptable to the most number of people. Provided that people actually vote according to their wants and don't simply follow how to vote cards. Personally, I haven't taken a how to vote card since about 1993.

 

[serfty]

As I have previously posted, "preferential voting" is actaully a vote against one candidate.

The only guarantee is that with a formal vote, the candidate that you put the highest number against will not get your vote. Any of the other candidates may - in the order of your indicated preference.

 

[medhead]

As I have previously posted, "preferential voting" is actaully a vote against one candidate.

The only guarantee is that with a formal vote, the candidate that you put the highest number against will not get your vote. Any of the other candidates my - in the order of your indicated preference.

Ahh, the glass is half empty. Well yes effectively it is a vote against one candidate or you could call it a vote for your most favoured candidates in descending order of preference.

Personally, I vote my second lest preferred candidate 1 following down to my preferred candidate second last and of course my lest preferred last. That way I get the most bang for my voting dollar, because the have to distribute my ballot multiple times. Same reason I always vote below the line for the Senate.

 

[JohnK]

I'm not sure how you can have a majority system that doesn't involve preferences. A majority means more than 50%, if there is more than 2 candidates then it is impossible for someone to achieve a majority simply based on the primary vote.

All I can say to that is a vast majority of voters simply DO NOT understand preferences. And I know most migrants will put the person they dislike most (which could be as important at their surname) last on the ballot and so on not realising that one of these people could actually get elected.

There has to be a better system but that may come at greater cost. If there are 4 candidates and a 50% majority is not achieved then remove the last candidate and vote again. Keep doing it until there are 2 candidates remaining and 1 of them gets a majority. I think this is the system used in Greece, and yes I know they have their own issues as well.

Another system could be to go on primary vote alone and reduce the majority required to something like 40% or whatever.

Yes I know this is similar to preferential voting but if you can cast 1 vote only each time things may be better.

I am not an expert just an interesting observation of the anomalies with the current system.

 

[medhead]

All I can say to that is a vast majority of voters simply DO NOT understand preferences. And I know most migrants will put the person they dislike most (which could be as important at their surname) last on the ballot and so on not realising that one of these people could actually get elected.

There has to be a better system but that may come at greater cost. If there are 4 candidates and a 50% majority is not achieved then remove the last candidate and vote again. Keep doing it until there are 2 candidates remaining and 1 of them gets a majority. I think this is the system used in Greece, and yes I know they have their own issues as well.

Another system could be to go on primary vote alone and reduce the majority required to something like 40% or whatever.

Yes I know this is similar to preferential voting but if you can cast 1 vote only each time things may be better.

I am not an expert just an interesting observation of the anomalies with the current system.

I like interesting observation.
Having followed some comments to the newspapers it is becoming clear that not many people understand preferences.

I'm not sure about about Greece but France apparently has a 2 stage election, where the top two people go into a run off election.

On a technical point 40% is not a majority. A majority has to be more than 50% of the people. IMO it would be an anomaly to elect someone on the basis of less that 50% of people in the electorate, as you may end up with someone who would not the be choice of the majority of votes. It sounds like you are talking about a first past the post voting system but everyone seems to be moving away from those.

What I about the Hare Clark system?
Single transferable vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hare Clark Explained. Antony Green Election Guide. Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC).

 

[serfty]

I believe preferential voting is a money saver in this respect as it does not require additional runoff type elections.

...
One thing I do like about preferential voting is it can actually be a vote against candidates, not for.

e.g. If there are four candidates:

• You put your #4 against the candidate you dislike the most,
• #3 against the next candidate you dislike but not as much as the one you put 4 against,
• #2 against the candidate that is not as undesirable as the #4 and #5, and,
• #1 against the candidate you dislike the least.

What this really means is that while the #4 candidate is guaranteed not to get your vote, one of the other 3 may (depending upon the polling returns).

 

[odysseus]

I'm not sure how you can have a majority system that doesn't involve preferences. A majority means more than 50%, if there is more than 2 candidates then it is impossible for someone to achieve a majority simply based on the primary vote.

That's not right. With for example, 3 candidates you could easily get candidate 1 with 55% of the 1s, candidate 2 with 35% of 1s, and candidate 3 with 10% of 1s. Thus candidate 1 has a majority based on the primary vote.

 

[odysseus]

Why can't we just go to a simple majority system where this sort of stupidity cannot happen.

You can also get a different form of 'stupidity' with the alternative majority system. For example, two similar leaning parties (e.g. Greens + Labor, or Liberals and Nationals) compete and take around 60% in total, while the 'opposition' gets 40%.

Such a scenario results in the last party getting the seat even though ideologically, either of the first two were preferred by the majority and would have been realised be preferences.

A similar argument is sometimes used by those in favour of a republic who argue that they could have achieved a majority in the referendum had it been a single either/or vote, instead of being fractured into different models. You can't assume anything in isolation e.g. had the rules changed there will also be some change in actual voting, but equally there are merits to both approaches so it's not demonstrated that preferences are 'stupid'.

 

[straitman]

That's not right. With for example, 3 candidates you could easily get candidate 1 with 55% of the 1s, candidate 2 with 35% of 1s, and candidate 3 with 10% of 1s. Thus candidate 1 has a majority based on the primary vote.

Or you could get one with 36%, one with 34% and the third with 30%. In this case they are all well under the magic 50% line.




Sent from my iPhone using AustFreqFly

 

[drron]

The Times today had an article on Nick Cleggs desire to change the UK's voting system.It was said if Australia had the first past the post system the result would have been the Coalition-81,ALP-66,Independents-3.

 

[cove]

Constitutional changes are very hard to make in Australia and in the past we have felt comfortable about that as a nation.
This last 30 month Government may make us want changes as 36 months maximum for lower house elections caused this last lot to be driven somewhat by polls rather than longer plans.
Then in the Senate we vote and the folks who lose do not get replaced until July 1st next year except for those in ACT and NT. Most referendums in recent history have not been passed.
If we want real nation building Governments they probably need a longer term so the leaders have time to get things done properly.
As Drron posted the results of highest first vote would help prevent a hung parliament in a lot of elections.

 

[medhead]

The Times today had an article on Nick Cleggs desire to change the UK's voting system.It was said if Australia had the first past the post system the result would have been the Coalition-81,ALP-66,Independents-3.

That's about how the numbers turned out when I ran them. Yet in a large number of those seats the coalition didn't get a majority and the electorate has shown a preference for the alp on 2 party terms. Also that more people voted for non coalition parties as first preference.

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

I was thinking it would be good if they made the electorates bigger - cull a few of the lower house pollies - and use some of these spots to set up some new positions that are given to the parties based on how many votes they get

say there were 20 positions available then for every 5% of the primary vote the party received they would get 1 seat.

At least in this way if a party gets more of the popular vote they may have a greater chance of forming Government. It does seem a bit silly that 1 party can get a larger share of the popular vote, but because these are concentrated in a number of seats, another party can actually win.

 

[medhead]

Umm sounds like the Hare Clark idea.

 

[NM]

So IF we end up going to another election due to neither major party being able to form a minority government, what happens with the Senate vote? Does the August 21 Senate vote stand, with the winning candidates taking their seats after July 1 2011 (yes, I know the new Territory Senators start immediately), making it a rare House of Representatives election only, or is there a requirement for upper and lower house elections to be concurrent? I assume it would be lower house only, but ... ?