Poll: F.P.T.P or A.V.. This Thursday

[Dark_Angel]

I'm.... somewhat surprised by the results in the poll o.O

 

[Tefal]

I'm.... somewhat surprised by the results in the poll o.O

Ironic that he poll is FPTP

perhaps we should hold a run off eliminating option C

 

[Mr Jack]

AV; more equal counting of votes is a good thing.

 

[Castiel]

"The People" were only asked in the poll to choose between full preferential voting and FPTP, the question was:

"Currently, elections for the Federal House of Representatives, or lower house, use a preferential voting system. This is where voters indicate an order of preferences for all candidates, and these preferences are taken into account when deciding which candidate wins. (PAUSE) An alternative system would be "first past the post", where voters only vote for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins. Would you personally prefer .... ?
1 - A preferential system
2 - A first past the post system"

The bold sections were emphasised when the question was asked.

Seems clear enough, FPTP (the alternative sytem) or AV (the current preferential system used in the lower house).

FPTP won the poll did it not.

The context of what was happening at the time of this most recent, and the other surveys is important, which is why I bring them up, although I can see why it'd suit you to write them off as irrelevant.

It doesn't "suit me" either way as I want electoral reform, AV simply isn't a reform, it is only an equally flawed different way to vote.

Frankly your pontifications mean just as much.

Which illustrates the ineffectiveness of changing for changes sake.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Ironic that he poll is FPTP

perhaps we should hold a run off eliminating option C

EDIT: Never mind.

 

[RDM]

Is a voting system where voting for your first choice of candidate actually harm them really a good thing?

 

[PMKeates]

Is a voting system where voting for your first choice of candidate actually harm them really a good thing?

It doesn't harm them typically, and the conditions under which it might are never likely to come about in British politics.

 

[bam0]

Seems clear enough, FPTP (the alternative sytem) or AV (the current preferential system used in the lower house).

FPTP won the poll did it not.

It's not AV as we're looking to institute it here, compulsory preferential voting wasn't popular back in the 1984 survey mentioned in the article I linked to earlier. 66% wanted optional preferential voting with only 28% preferring compulsory preferential voting. And again there is a social context for why the survey you're talking about gave the result it did.

It doesn't "suit me" either way as I want electoral reform, AV simply isn't a reform, it is only an equally flawed different way to vote.

Given your arguments in the previous discussion on here I actually doubt whether you sincerely do want electoral reform. Regardless, I disagree that AV is equally flawed, in my view it is quantifiably an improvement over FPTP that removes or mitigates some serious issues.

Which illustrates the ineffectiveness of changing for changes sake.

Not really, it breaks the inertia.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Is a voting system where voting for your first choice of candidate actually harm them really a good thing?

Can you explain how that could happen?

 

[zootfloot]

FPTP for me i think.

Only one thing bothers me...the value of each vote, yes each person has a vote but the weight of that vote can be considerably different from region to region cant it?

Would AV make this fairer, i dont know so i am hoping that one of you lot can clear it up a bit for me.

 

[Biohazard]

Can I point out it doesn't really matter what a political party in Australia says?

 

[Vonhelmet]

FPTP for me i think.

Only one thing bothers me...the value of each vote, yes each person has a vote but the weight of that vote can be considerably different from region to region cant it?

Would AV make this fairer, i dont know so i am hoping that one of you lot can clear it up a bit for me.

Not really, not without proper proportional representation.

 

[BunnyKillBot]

edit: actually, screw it, i am just generally confused

First round - eliminate the loser, allocate the first round loser second preference votes

Second round - eliminate the loser, divide loser votes into 1st second rounders and 2nd first rounders
----second rounder, first preference - allocate second preference
----first rounder, second preference - allocate third preference

Third round - eliminate the loser, divide loser votes into 1st third rounders, 2nd second rounders and 3rd first rounders
----third rounder, first preference - allocate second preference*
----second rounder, second preference - allocate third preference
----first rounder, third preference - allocate fourth preference

Is that right?

*taking this line as an example, if i voted for party a, they lost, my second preference was party b, they lost, my third preference was party c, they lost. a - reallocate - b - reallocate - c

However, if i had voted party b, then party a, then party c, b stay in the first round. However they go out in the second and my second preference is party a who are already out

b - unable to allocate to a

Does this mean that in that second example, my third preference would be allocated?

b - unable to allocate to a, allocate to c

 

[Abraham]

Which is why I'm contemplating spoiling my ballot for the first time ever.

it will be quite amusing if theres sufficient spoilt papers to make the winning vote have less than 50%

 

[Biohazard]

dirty little compromise

lol wut?

Bit heavy, no?

 

[krooton]

I am reposting this from SC because i think allot of people, myself included, are confused as to how AV actually works.

First round - eliminate the loser, add the first round loser second preference votes
Second round - eliminate the loser, add the first round loser third preference votes, add the second round loser second preference votes
fourth round - eliminate the loser, add the first round loser fourth preference votes, add the second round loser third preference votes, add the fourth round loser second preference votes.

You only redistribute the next pref from the votes for the loser of the round.

So if my first pref makes it to round 3 before dropping out, my second pref will be used in round 4 (provided they are still in the running).

 

[leaskovski]

You only redistribute the next pref from the votes for the loser of the round.

So if my first pref makes it to round 3 before dropping out, my second pref will be used in round 4 (provided they are still in the running).

So is a coalition still possible under this system? I dont understand how it is possible, someone explain it to me please. Thanks

 

[krooton]

So is a coalition still possible under this system? I dont understand how it is possible, someone explain it to me please. Thanks

I asked the same question, then got reminded that this is just for electing the MPs of constituencies.

Seats in parliament still determine which government get in, and if a coalition is needed in the case of a hung one.

 

[Mr Jack]

FPTP for me i think.

Only one thing bothers me...the value of each vote, yes each person has a vote but the weight of that vote can be considerably different from region to region cant it?

Would AV make this fairer, i dont know so i am hoping that one of you lot can clear it up a bit for me.

AV would make it fairer - not by a lot, but it would.

AV means that even if you don't vote with the plurality in your region you still get an influence on the outcome unless the plurality is a strict majority. This will slightly even up the extent to which voters have equal influence overall.

 

[Raumarik]

People keep forgetting that you don't have to put down an alternate vote, you can only put down one. That's if you can manage a "1" instead of an "X"...