lolDilbert_X wrote:
Bob Katter seems like a pleasant and reasonable fellow, I'm sure it will all work out.
You guys should do what a lot of local governments do here. Leave party off of the ballot. Have 6 primary spaces for Senator choices, have 6 secondary spaces, allow an option to leave secondary spaces blank, and most important of all -- end compulsory voting.DrunkFace wrote:
Not if people bothered to choose their own preferences and not leave it up to party politics.Turquoise wrote:
Whoa, whoa... wait a minute. That's not the same as IRV then. The system you're explaining greatly inflates the significance of second choices. No wonder Fielding got elected. You're much more likely to get a wingnut in there if you just hand over a bunch of votes to the second choice past an arbitrary quota. That distorts the vote considerably.DrunkFace wrote:
Thus the candidates which gets more then 16.7% are 'elected' and all the excess votes are handed on to their preferences.
Normal preference voting wouldn't work because of the above/below the line way we vote. Below the line voting would work fine, but we both know expecting people to fill out a ballot like this but with many more candidates (there was 84 in NSW this election) accurately is just not going to happen.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vot … ot-btl.gif
Not to even mention the time it would take to count.
In "above the line" people are usually voting for a party which is putting up multiple candidates. So the "quota" is used to enable the votes to be distributed through out the party. For example, if the Liberals get 43% of the primary vote (above the line) then its top candidate will get 16% and be elected, its second candidate will get the same and its third candidate will get the remaining 11%.
I would like to discourage the uninformed and apathetic from voting. If you force everyone to vote, that just means that you end up with a distorted total vote due to people who are voting without caring about what they are voting for.Jaekus wrote:
I think compulsory voting is better. It's your duty as a citizen.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-08-22 21:14:13)
Fair play to Bob Katter. The guy clearly does actually care about the issues in his electorate which is more than I can say for some more intelligent-looking people in parliament.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bob Katter seems like a pleasant and reasonable fellow, I'm sure it will all work out.
I forgot to mention that voting is compulsory only once someone has enrolled to vote.Turquoise wrote:
I would like to discourage the uninformed and apathetic from voting. If you force everyone to vote, that just means that you end up with a distorted total vote due to people who are voting without caring about what they are voting for.Jaekus wrote:
I think compulsory voting is better. It's your duty as a citizen.
Last edited by Spark (2010-08-22 22:46:55)
Was one of your mates Mark Latham by any chance?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Also, although it is compulsory to sign your name off the list at the polling station, its not technically compulsory to vote as if you don't put anything on the ballot form, your vote simply won't be counted. Some of my mates that felt they knew jack shit about the election and each parties policies simply didn't fill out their ballot.
Lol if only. Then I would have the pleasure of personally telling him that he is Australia's biggest douche.Jaekus wrote:
Was one of your mates Mark Latham by any chance?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Also, although it is compulsory to sign your name off the list at the polling station, its not technically compulsory to vote as if you don't put anything on the ballot form, your vote simply won't be counted. Some of my mates that felt they knew jack shit about the election and each parties policies simply didn't fill out their ballot.
That'd only make me jealous.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Lol if only. Then I would have the pleasure of personally telling him that he is Australia's biggest douche.Jaekus wrote:
Was one of your mates Mark Latham by any chance?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Also, although it is compulsory to sign your name off the list at the polling station, its not technically compulsory to vote as if you don't put anything on the ballot form, your vote simply won't be counted. Some of my mates that felt they knew jack shit about the election and each parties policies simply didn't fill out their ballot.
Last edited by Cybargs (2010-08-23 02:57:15)
I'll take that bet.Cybargs wrote:
Australians get a 50 bucks fine for not voting, America get George Bush. Twice.
Voter turnout.Australia 95%
Malta 94%
Chile 93%
Austria 92%
Belgium 91%
Italy 90%
Luxembourg 90%
Iceland 89%
New Zealand 88%
Denmark 87%
Germany 86%
Sweden 86%
Greece 86%
Venezuela 85%
Czech Republic 85%
Brazil 83%
Netherlands 83%
Costa Rica 81%
Norway 81%
Romania 81%
Bulgaria 80%
Israel 80%
Portugal 79%
Finland 78%
Canada 76%
France 76%
United Kingdom 76%
South Korea 75%
Ireland 74%
Spain 73%
Japan 71%
Estonia 69%
Hungary 66%
Russia 61%
India 58%
United States 54%
Switzerland 54%
Poland 51%
Definitely... but that's why party shouldn't be on the ballot. Just list out names. That way, you have to at least be familiar with the individuals you're voting for.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
As for discouraging uninformed people from voting. I think you'll find that the most hardcore party supporters (Liberal and labor here, Republican and Democrats in the US) are the uninformed.
Then why institute the compulsory voting to begin with? It just sounds like a big waste of time for people that don't actually want to vote.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Also, although it is compulsory to sign your name off the list at the polling station, its not technically compulsory to vote as if you don't put anything on the ballot form, your vote simply won't be counted. Some of my mates that felt they knew jack shit about the election and each parties policies simply didn't fill out their ballot.
No shit, it's compulsory over there. What do they do to you if you don't vote?AussieReaper wrote:
Voter turnout.Australia 95%
Malta 94%
Chile 93%
Austria 92%
Belgium 91%
Italy 90%
Luxembourg 90%
Iceland 89%
New Zealand 88%
Denmark 87%
Germany 86%
Sweden 86%
Greece 86%
Venezuela 85%
Czech Republic 85%
Brazil 83%
Netherlands 83%
Costa Rica 81%
Norway 81%
Romania 81%
Bulgaria 80%
Israel 80%
Portugal 79%
Finland 78%
Canada 76%
France 76%
United Kingdom 76%
South Korea 75%
Ireland 74%
Spain 73%
Japan 71%
Estonia 69%
Hungary 66%
Russia 61%
India 58%
United States 54%
Switzerland 54%
Poland 51%
Australians must be different from Americans then. If you instituted that here, you'd just end up with even more superficial candidates than we already have.Spark wrote:
The thing about the "apathetic" in this country is that because they are "apathetic" and hence not rusted-on, they make their decision based on "well who has the best policy for me and the country?" not who their favourite party is which is exactly how a vote should be determined. Hence we generally make the right decision - the reason that no one has won the ability to govern in their own right is that no one deserves the ability to govern in their own right.
EDIT: You don't even need to take a ballot. You can just go up, get your name signed off, say "no I don't want a ballot" and you can walk off having done your bit. Nothing wrong with it and no one will hold it against you.
If they can remember a name they can probably remember the associated party.Turquoise wrote:
Definitely... but that's why party shouldn't be on the ballot. Just list out names. That way, you have to at least be familiar with the individuals you're voting for.
It gives those too lazy to vote no excuse.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Then why institute the compulsory voting to begin with? It just sounds like a big waste of time for people that don't actually want to vote.
Quality... not quantity of participation is important.AussieReaper wrote:
Voter turnout.Australia 95%
Malta 94%
Chile 93%
Austria 92%
Belgium 91%
Italy 90%
Luxembourg 90%
Iceland 89%
New Zealand 88%
Denmark 87%
Germany 86%
Sweden 86%
Greece 86%
Venezuela 85%
Czech Republic 85%
Brazil 83%
Netherlands 83%
Costa Rica 81%
Norway 81%
Romania 81%
Bulgaria 80%
Israel 80%
Portugal 79%
Finland 78%
Canada 76%
France 76%
United Kingdom 76%
South Korea 75%
Ireland 74%
Spain 73%
Japan 71%
Estonia 69%
Hungary 66%
Russia 61%
India 58%
United States 54%
Switzerland 54%
Poland 51%
For the major candidates, yes. For lesser positions locally, not so much.Dilbert_X wrote:
If they can remember a name they can probably remember the associated party.Turquoise wrote:
Definitely... but that's why party shouldn't be on the ballot. Just list out names. That way, you have to at least be familiar with the individuals you're voting for.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-23 07:05:30)
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-08-23 07:12:35)
