First Past the Post or Alternative Vote

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Also with AV, because it doesn't require you to number all the boxes (though you can choose to do so) at the discretion of the electoral authorities a simple X in the box will count as a "1" vote, which if that candidate gets eliminated after the first round of counting, that vote shall be exhausted

Then why not have all voters put an X on their ballot paper.

As for compulsory voting, NOT the land of the FREE then.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As for compulsory voting, NOT the land of the FREE then.

Freedom has its costs. Maybe this is one of them.

People who don't vote have no cause for complaint about the government, and they get the government they deserve.

  Edited May 13, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[astronelson 339]

Australia has never laid claim to being the land of the free. That distinction belongs solely to the nation with the highest incarceration rate. I have absolutely no idea where you're pulling that from, as it makes very little sense.

It keeps the elections reasonably fair, and with little chance of a candidate getting in with less than 50% of the support of all people eligible to vote. And putting an X is not allowable under the system Australia uses - we must number all candidates (unless voting above the line for the Senate, as mentioned before, in which case you put a 1). Other AV systems are different, as it is a category of systems, rather than one on its own.

[Frdm920 50]

Then why not have all voters put an X on their ballot paper.

Because that's exactly the same as FPTP. Which in my personal opinion is a fundamentally flawed system. AV however gives people the option of either voting like FPTP or putting in preferences. Resulting in a candidate that (providing preferences are given on the ballot)actually has the support of a majority of the population.

As for compulsory voting, NOT the land of the FREE then.

Ah sorry what? Australia (as Astro said) isn't the land of the free. We're the lucky country

And putting an X is not allowable under the system Australia uses - we must number all candidates (unless voting above the line for the Senate, as mentioned before, in which case you put a 1).

Other AV systems are different, as it is a category of systems, rather than one on its own.

Friendly reminder Astro, that's 'cause we use FPV (Full Preferential Voting) just a little bit different to AV

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Voting systems other than FPTP generally produce a minority government where there are multiple parties. Do any of these jurisdictions have any means of stopping a party from pulling out of a coalition and dropping the government on its head? I am thinking of the situation in Israel, where the Knesset seems to stumble from crisis to crisis every time some right or left wing group gets ants in their pants.

One of the things proposed up here has been Mixed Proportional where some of the seats are reserved for party people who don't actually run, but are appointed holus bolus by the parties based on the proportion of the popular vote, while the balance is FPTP. Every time someone seriously mentions the idea of a sitting but unelected MP, I have chills for the rest of the day.

[astronelson 339]

I can speak only for Australia, as it is the only country I am familiar with, but this is the first hung parliament we have had in quite some time. To the best of my knowledge there are no specific laws stating that two parties cannot break coalition, although the one between the Liberal and National parties is unlikely to break down anytime soon, and they are counted together for the purposes of surveys and political commentary and are referred to as "the Coalition".

The current government is a coalition between the Labor party (72 seats), the Australian Greens (1 seat), and 3 independents, forming government 76 seats to 74 (the Coalition (72 seats), the National Party (WA) (a separate party from the National Party) (1 seat), and one independent). In most elections either Labor or the Coalition has enough seats to form government on their own. A party breaking coalition is effectively a vote of no confidence in the government. I'm not sure if it's ever happened here.

We generally do not have representatives from the extreme ends of the political spectrum. The most extreme one I can think of from recent times is One Nation, who won precisely 1 senate seat in the 1998 federal election, and promptly lost it in 2001. Family First and the Democratic Labor Party are in the same general area. To the left are the Australian Greens, and I can't think of any extreme-left parties that have won a federal seat.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Interesting that the Australians and the Brits have these troubles at the same time. Neither of them seem to have heard of the finesse of having a minority government, where the party with the most seats rules at the pleasure of HM Loyal Opposition.

In Canada, we do this quite often, and it works most of the time. We are just in the process of installing the first majority government in something like seven years. In that time we had three elections that resulted in minorities. This time, the people were fed up with the party of the center and decimated it along with wiping out the Separatists who went from 60 seats to 4. While the Conservatives now have a handy majority, the second place party, the New Democrats, moved up from 30 seats to over 100 and are now the Official Opposition for the first time in their history. If the vote had been proportional, I don't think there would be much of a change except the greens, who got one seat for the first time ever, might have had four or five at the expense of the decimated Liberals.

  Edited May 14, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

As for compulsory voting, NOT the land of the FREE then.

Ah sorry what? Australia (as Astro said) isn't the land of the free. We're the lucky country

Yes lucky for me that I don't live there. I wasn't confusing Australia with any other country, just pointing out that Freedom requires accepting other peoples choices which need to be taken into account. Australia is inclined to ally itself with the Free West whilst not having Freedom itself.

If you force people to vote then the candidates do not have the support of the majority, as people vote so as not to be prosecuted, not because they want any particular candidate.

  Edited May 15, 2011 by Merlin of Flyote  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

If you are free to not vote, as we are, then not voing is like not making a decision. This is a decision. YOu are letting the chips fall where they may.

[astronelson 339]

Yes lucky for me that I don't live there. I wasn't confusing Australia with any other country, just pointing out that Freedom requires accepting other peoples choices which need to be taken into account. Australia is inclined to ally itself with the Free West whilst not having Freedom itself.

If you force people to vote then the candidates do not have the support of the majority, as people vote so as not to be prosecuted, not because they want any particular candidate.

You're only required to turn up, and the fine for not doing so is both small and waived for any half-decent excuse (like being sick that day). You're not required to fill out the ballot, and there is no penalty for handing in a blank sheet or an otherwise spoilt ballot. This practice is referred to as informal voting. Most people fill the ballot out properly.

So the assertion that people are voting out of fear of prosecution is completely unfounded.

As for not having freedom, I would make a comment about ASBOs (at least once for sarcasm. Brilliant idea that. Someone else is forbidden to say the word grass, and a third cannot enter his own home), over 1.5 million security cameras (of which at most 3% help solve a crime), and television licenses (145 pounds is more than I'd pay to watch TV) that the United Kingdom has, but they are quite off topic. Perhaps a new thread would be useful for that.

[Frdm920 50]

Neither of them seem to have heard of the finesse of having a minority government

The biggest problem here, is not necessarily the fact that we have a minority government. It is more the fact that it is a government teetering on the brink, with the government 'allies' pulling in multiple directions at once. Hence although it's increasingly less likey as time goes on. All the government has to do is make one wrong move, loose support from a single cross-bencher and we'd have a tied parliament (current balance: 76 seats Labor-Greens-Independent Alliance, 74 seats Coalition + 1 Independent). If they loose support from 2, then it'd be polling time again (something they're determined not to do because they know they'll get decimated if a vote were called today)

If the vote had been proportional, I don't think there would be much of a change

If Australia had used FPTP in the last election, then things may be rather different. Most likely resulting in a coalition majority government.

Some may argue that this is proof that FPTP is a good system because it would've resulted in a majority government, rather than the mess that FPV has produced.

However, even the Coalition who would've been the main benefiters of FPTP do not argue this. Proof I guess of how FPV (and AV) are generally a better system in the eyes of most Australians than FPTP. If it means we end up with a mess like we currently have... well so be it, that's what we voted for.

Also @ Merlin: Astro is right, All you have to do is walk down to your local school (generally that's where the polling place is) get your name ticked off the list, get a ballot paper. Put it in the box (blank or not) and leave. Don't see much difficulty in that. Besides, prevents us wasting millions of dollars on actually getting people to vote...

  Edited May 16, 2011 by Frdm920  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

In the last federal election (last week) we had five major parties, (four national and one separatist, Quebec only), and one independent running for 308 seats. In the next election there will probably be 398 seats due to the Gerrymandering on population numbers (census just completed).

There are splinter parties, but they garnered many fewer votes this time than ever, and some of them are probably now extinguished. The parties who ran candidates in all ridings were:

Conservative: right of center

Liberals: dead center

New Democrats: Left of Center

Greens: centrist with a reform agenda

Each of these ran 308 candidates and spent some significant money.

The separatist Bloc Quebecois ran only in Quebec Ridings

The one independent ran to keep her seat after having been fired from the Conservative Cabinet and Party. (failed).

Result: Conservative majority, NDP opposition, Liberals decimated (30 seats), Bloc Wiped out (4 seats after 60 is a wipe out IMHO), Greens got a toe-hold with 1 for the first time. Prior standings: Conservative minority, Liberal opposition, Bloc around 60 seats, NDP around 30 seats, 1 independent.

The people got fed up with minorities. We've had four elections in seven years. The next one is mandated to October 2015. We also got fed up with the fence sitting by the Liberals. Funny eh? You can only waffle so long.

FPTP does work. It keeps splinters out of the House, and keeps the squeaky wheels where they belong: in the lobby.

Maybe the problems in Australia and/or U.K. stem from the number of ridings being split up among too many parties or vested interests.

The Americans have the reverse problem of not enough parties, and their parties are suffering from ossification of the intellect. They are more interested in counting coup off each other than governing. It is too bad. The American system showed such promise. It is beyond understanding how it works at all.

[astronelson 339]

Maybe the problems in Australia and/or U.K. stem from the number of ridings being split up among too many parties or vested interests.

If you're talking about candidates splitting the vote, that's not actually possible under our system. If there are two candidates with similar platforms against one with a different platform, and the first two get, say, 26% and 30% each, and the third gets 44%, under FPTP the third would win. However, under our system the votes from the first candidate go to the second candidate (assuming people organize their preferences that way - seeing as they have similar platforms, we can assume that), and the second candidate wins 56% to 44%.

If you mean there are too many parties for the number of electorates, here's a breakdown of the House of Representatives:

Labor: 72

Liberal: 44

Liberal National (Queensland): 21

National: 6

Country Liberal (Northern Territory): 1

National Party of Western Australia: 1

Greens: 1

Independents: 4

Total: 150

It looks like a lot of parties, but the Coalition (highlighted in blue) is effectively one party. I wouldn't call four parties too many when two of them only hold one seat each.

Our problem stems from the fact no-one really liked our last Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd) that much, and it's likely Labor only held on to as many seats as it did by changing the PM to Julia Gillard before the election.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Elections really produce personality cult results aren't they? The Liberals up here crashed because their chosen leader was seen to be a carpetbagger parachuted in the from U.S. Ignatieff taught at Harvard for years, and had serious image problems. The soft Liberals fled leaving the party in disarray and in third place.

Jack Layton, with known (fatal) health problems, put on an everyman persona and came second to become the new leader of HM Loyal Opposition. The times were right for this, as the leading parties were talking same old, same old. So the Conservatives get a kick at the cat for five years while the NDP get to either shed their training wheels or will be third again, later.

[krbe 193]

If Australia had used FPTP in the last election, then things may be rather different. Most likely resulting in a coalition majority government.

Some may argue that this is proof that FPTP is a good system because it would've resulted in a majority government, rather than the mess that FPV has produced.

However, even the Coalition who would've been the main benefiters of FPTP do not argue this. Proof I guess of how FPV (and AV) are generally a better system in the eyes of most Australians than FPTP. If it means we end up with a mess like we currently have... well so be it, that's what we voted for.

Minority governments are good for business, at least in countries with parliamentarism (like Australia), since they prevent the executive from doing too much -- and what gets done' can't veer too much off centre anyway, since they have to keep channels open with all parties.

Majority governments can way too easily put their ideological stamp on their periods. It might feel better for the politicians to at least be remembered when they're out of office, but that says nothing about their accomplishments. The success criteria for politicians should rather be that people should forget their governing and remembering being too preoccupied with other stuff during a prosperous period.