• slickgoat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I disagree. I too have been involved in elections in my country (Australia) and preferential voting system is pretty popular. As candidates get eliminated your vote keeps moving to your next choice. What could possibly be fairer?

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      What could possibly be fairer?

      Approval or STAR voting, since they are more heavily utilized by all citizens instead of just white people, they are purely additive unlike ranked, which allows for easy auditing and making sharing the results possible in real time.

      They’re also far easier to explain, which makes voting more inclusive, and the results more straightforward to follow.

      RCV is definitely better than what we have now, but if we’re gonna have election reform we should go for the best possible system, not a half measure like RCV.

    • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      And yet minor parties fair pretty poorly in Australian elections, and always have. Minor parties currently have 6 seats in Australia’s House of Representatives (up from 3 in the previous parliament).

      In Canada, third-parties (Greens, Bloc Quebecois, and NDP) have 56 seats between them.

      In the UK, there are 11 third-parties represented in the House of Commons, with 84 seats between them.

      • slickgoat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t necessarily think that the best system is the one that favours minor (or major) parties. The reason for the success, or otherwise, of minor parties involved a hundred variables.

        The best electoral system makes the best value of a person’s personal vote. That might be minor or major party candidate or even an independent.

        • HomerianSymphony@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Part of the problem with Australia’s voting method is that the Australian people don’t understand how it works. They rely on following “how to vote” cards handed out by the parties at voting booths. Most voters don’t realize they don’t have follow one of those cards.

          If your a small party and don’t have enough volunteers to hand out how-to-vote cards at every single voting booth, you’ll miss out on votes. This massively disadvantages small parties in Australia.

          And even amongst people who do number the boxes themselves, most of them think “I like minor party X best, so I’ll put them #2. I’ll put a major party #1 because I don’t want the other guy to win, and I want my vote to count”. Which completely undermines the purpose of ranked ballots.

          So I think there’s something to be said for a simple voting system that the voters understand.

          Also, it sounds like you’re only talking about the voting method used for the House of Reps. The STV method of voting used in the Australian Senate is much more complicated and is a complete omnishambles if you ask me.

          • slickgoat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            I hear what you are saying, and I agree with some of it, but not several key points. I have supported a couple of different parties and regularly hand out how to vote cards at different elections and have done so for decades. The idea that voters slavishly follow party advice couldn’t be more wrong. One in two voters snub the cards outright, many rudely so. Contrary to popular opinion, on the day, the vast majority of voters know which box they are going to pick.

            Secondly, your point about minor parties struggling in Australian elections. Well, so what? There is no constitutional imperative to either favour or disfavour small parties. Or large ones, for that matter. That you think that this is important is neither here nor there constitutionally. Myself, I think that it would be better if it were so, but no system should put its weight behind it. When the constitution was put into force in 1901, parties were not enshrined, candidates were.