Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Australian Election Thread.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Get rid of that silly preference voting system and you too could have results within 24 hours.

    Comment


    • #92
      Double time loser KRudd now wants to be UN Secretary General. The ego knows no boundaries...

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
        Get rid of that silly preference voting system and you too could have results within 24 hours.
        Single-Transferrable Vote (STV) voting system is vastly superior (according to most mathematical criteria) to First Past the Post or the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP, which is what you guys over in Sheepland are using) systems. Of course there are other, much more complicated systems out there that are even better at accurately gauging the preferences of voters (Schulze, Schulze STV, etc...), but they have the downsides of being even more computationally intensive and harder to scale to larger electorates. The subset of STV voting system used in Australia has the advantage of being well-balanced b/w ease of computation and simplicity on the one hand, and accuracy in gauging the preferences of the electorate on the other.

        I agree with Digrar in that we live in the 21st century and some kind of reliable electronic voting option should be available. Not only will it speed up the counting, but it could, potentially lead to the eventual implementation of a better but more computationally-intensive voting system in the future.


        Comment


        • #94
          Yeah we looked at STV and realised that it rewarded whack jobs and losers and never looked at it again. Even when they trialled it for local elections the costs vs. benefits were vastly out of balance and it was abandoned right quick.

          Mindy might have a few words on how it gauges the preferences of the electorate too - %-age of vote doesn't even come close to %-age of representation.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
            Yeah we looked at STV and realised that it rewarded whack jobs and losers and never looked at it again. Even when they trialled it for local elections the costs vs. benefits were vastly out of balance and it was abandoned right quick.

            Mindy might have a few words on how it gauges the preferences of the electorate too - %-age of vote doesn't even come close to %-age of representation.
            The biggest problem with the system we use in Australia is that it is not truly representative and rural Australia's representation far exceeds it's actual vote. Now back when there was less urbanisation this wasn't really a bad thing. However if you extrapolate this into demographics it's clear that younger generations are not being adequately represented in Parliament and we really need to look at changing the system to better reflect the electorate.

            My prefered model would be to keep SVT for the current electorates based on population but to double the size of the lower house to include proportional representation so the demographics of the electorate are better taken into account.

            For example.

            Australian Labor Party 4,547,180 for 68 seats
            Liberal Party 3,746,955 for 45 Seats
            Greens 1,322,794 For 1 fucking seat
            Liberal/National Party 1,125,694 22 Seats
            National Party 611,709 10 seats

            Based on the above results you can't say the will of the people is reflected in the makeup of the Parliament.





            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Mindy Fashionista View Post

              The biggest problem with the system we use in Australia is that it is not truly representative and rural Australia's representation far exceeds it's actual vote. Now back when there was less urbanisation this wasn't really a bad thing. However if you extrapolate this into demographics it's clear that younger generations are not being adequately represented in Parliament and we really need to look at changing the system to better reflect the electorate.

              My prefered model would be to keep SVT for the current electorates based on population but to double the size of the lower house to include proportional representation so the demographics of the electorate are better taken into account.

              For example.

              Australian Labor Party 4,547,180 for 68 seats
              Liberal Party 3,746,955 for 45 Seats
              Greens 1,322,794 For 1 fucking seat
              Liberal/National Party 1,125,694 22 Seats
              National Party 611,709 10 seats

              Based on the above results you can't say the will of the people is reflected in the makeup of the Parliament.
              My preferred model would be to get rid of division/electorates entirely (which results in a situation which you illustrated above). These do not represent the will of the population accurately due to the fact that the votes cast in each division do not result in proportional representation but in one single winner. Also, variation in population amongst districts with some states/territories having more districts than they should, the fact that the districts can fall victim to gerrymandering and general ignorance from politicians due to "safe seat" status detracts from any appeal of continuing to use such districts. Additionally, Schulze STV preferential voting system should be used across an enlarged house of representatives (~300-500 seats) with the voting transitioned away from polling places and towards internet/phone (to allow entering votes into a database and crunching the numbers via the Schulze STV algorithm to save time and money on vote counting). Internet/phone voting could utilize ABN and other identity confirmations in order to prevent multiple voting and other voting fraud.

              If all of the above is implemented, it would be possible to reduce costs on conducting elections and to therefore gradually takes steps away from representative democracy towards direct democracy, where the electorate will be able to cast votes on crucial matters more often via referenda (sort of like in Switzerland).
              *Sigh* one can dream.....







              Last edited by Aradan; 17-07-2016, 11:19 PM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Mindy Fashionista View Post

                For example.

                Australian Labor Party 4,547,180 for 68 seats
                Liberal Party 3,746,955 for 45 Seats
                Greens 1,322,794 For 1 fucking seat
                Liberal/National Party 1,125,694 22 Seats
                National Party 611,709 10 seats

                Nice in theory. But... you are suggesting that the minority could make decisions for the majority in the country. The whole reason it is split, is so that the fact that something like 85% of the population lives in 10% or less of the area. You would get some inner city Greens member banning farming, only to find out in five years that we have no food, vegetarian or other.

                Using your logic, the mining areas should dominate all policy as they make the most money.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Mindy Fashionista View Post

                  Greens 1,322,794 For 1 fucking seat
                  That is 1 seat too many

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by t3ngu View Post

                    Nice in theory. But... you are suggesting that the minority could make decisions for the majority in the country. The whole reason it is split, is so that the fact that something like 85% of the population lives in 10% or less of the area. You would get some inner city Greens member banning farming, only to find out in five years that we have no food, vegetarian or other.

                    Using your logic, the mining areas should dominate all policy as they make the most money.

                    You're not getting it. We still have our electorates to ensure that communities are represented. By doubling the size of parliament and choosing the rest on proportional representation you ensure sectors of society who would otherwise fail to get a voice actually get a voice.

                    Take the Greens vote. 1.3 million people. Just over 10% of the electorate. That's more then the 1.1 million or 8.61% of the electorate who voted for the LNP in Queensland who have won 21 seats.

                    Now don't you think that it is unfair? Especially when you consider a lot of Green voters are the younger generation of voters?

                    Comment


                    • Young people are retarded, I'd prefer they didn't vote until they were at least 25, probably 30. 1.3 million hipsters in inner city Melbourne and Sydney can get knotted too. 1 seat is about all they require considering the amount of real estate they cover and the amount of tax money they soak up verses amount they pay.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by digrar View Post
                        Young people are retarded, I'd prefer they didn't vote until they were at least 25, probably 30. 1.3 million hipsters in inner city Melbourne and Sydney can get knotted too. 1 seat is about all they require considering the amount of real estate they cover and the amount of tax money they soak up verses amount they pay.
                        I support that,,, my son voted for the sex party because he thought it was cool, ,, and my daughter voted for the animal rights party because she likes cats,,,, wasted votes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Engineer View Post

                          I support that,,, my son voted for the sex party because he thought it was cool, ,, and my daughter voted for the animal rights party because she likes cats,,,, wasted votes
                          You've got some work ahead of you.

                          As Dig said, young people are retarded. And so are those 1.3 million cucks, feminists and hipster douchebags who voted Greens. What a wasted vote. Thank god they only get 1 seat, it's all they deserve.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Engineer View Post
                            and my daughter voted for the animal rights party because she likes cats,,,, wasted votes
                            I like cat as well.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mindy Fashionista View Post


                              You're not getting it. We still have our electorates to ensure that communities are represented. By doubling the size of parliament and choosing the rest on proportional representation you ensure sectors of society who would otherwise fail to get a voice actually get a voice.

                              Take the Greens vote. 1.3 million people. Just over 10% of the electorate. That's more then the 1.1 million or 8.61% of the electorate who voted for the LNP in Queensland who have won 21 seats.

                              Now don't you think that it is unfair? Especially when you consider a lot of Green voters are the younger generation of voters?
                              Well thinking of this ass about, if you have 90% of votes not going to the greens, should they not get any seats. Plus im not convinced they get so many primary votes as 1) they probably preference deal their brains out and 2) they probably pick up votes from people who think "my vote doesn't count". I would guess labor has given them a few seats for their preferences in others. If it hadn't been for preferences one nation would have had a shit ton of seats way back when.

                              You also have 11% of the country that voted for the likes of the Bullet Train for Australia party et. al.

                              Democracy at its best. Plus, dont forget, a good proportion of "young voters" are not even registered. They reckon around 5% of the population isn't enrolled. http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_v...ional/2016.htm. What about their representation

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by t3ngu View Post

                                Well thinking of this ass about, if you have 90% of votes not going to the greens, should they not get any seats. Plus im not convinced they get so many primary votes as 1) they probably preference deal their brains out and 2) they probably pick up votes from people who think "my vote doesn't count". I would guess labor has given them a few seats for their preferences in others. If it hadn't been for preferences one nation would have had a shit ton of seats way back when.
                                There is no such thing as preference deals in the lower house. All they are is how to vote cards and lets be honest. Who really pays attention to them? Based on most results over the past 20 years it's time to change the way we vote for the lower house. Put simply there is now too many rotten bouroughs to borrow the English phrase and parliement no longer is a true representation of society .


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X