20 ms·

Worth noting Australia is still generally a 2-party system in the lower house (1 representative each area) but less so in the senate (where each state elects th

Worth noting Australia is still generally a 2-party system in the lower house (1 representative each area) but less so in the senate (where each state elects the top 12 senators). Australians still look at envy at the New Zealand and German systems of Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_re...

thepete2 5y ago
Oh no, voting for representatives really is like a kind of "winner-take-all" filter.
InvertedRhodium 5y ago
We here in NZ would also like some kind of ranked choice in conjunction with MMP - as it stands, people are still reluctant to vote for smaller parties that may not reach the 5% vote threshold required. Edit: I may have confused RCV with STV. Regardless, it would be nice to know that if my first option didn't make it into Parliament that I could prefer a second party, and so on.
- afterburner 5y ago
  As the wiki article for STV helpfully states, "Another name for STV is multi-winner ranked-choice voting". Also, "Instant runoff voting (IRV) is the single-winner analogue of STV". So ranked choice voting is a super-set with many flavours within.
dane-pgp 5y ago
MMP is a fantastic system, but it can face resistance if it relies on Closed Party Lists[0], which allow a party to put a potentially controversial candidate at the top of the list, almost guaranteeing them a seat and forcing party supporters to accept that as the cost of choosing the party. Open lists are better, but I believe they still have the problem that they make it unclear where representatives' mandates come from, especially if a representative can resign and be automatically replaced by someone lower on the list without a by-election. Other problems exist with list-based systems, such as treating independent candidates differently to candidates with established parties, and the possible use of "decoy lists"[1]. The best implementation I've seen of MMP, though, is that used in Baden-Württemberg, which avoids party lists by filling the proportional seats with the candidates who came closest to winning the elections in their local districts.[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_list [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_member_system#Decoy_lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_member_system#Decoy... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweitmandat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweitmandat
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  I don't see a practical party with closed list, as long as the minimum threshold isn't too low. Don't like the people at the top? Vote for a small party which will join the coalition. Even more fundamentally, politics is a "team sport". The vetting of individuals when power boils down to alliances and other relations with the politicians is stupid waste of voter's time.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    There is also electoral threshold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#Electoral_threshold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#El... By voting for a small party you risk wasting your vote.
caf 5y ago
The two jurisdictions in Australia that use Hare-Clark (Tasmania and the ACT) no longer have a political duopoly. MMP would probably work well in South Australia (where overall the electorate is fairly evenly split right-left, but many of the right-leaning voters are locked up in a few geographically large rural electorates and the left-leaning voters are distributed more evenly across more urban and suburban electorates).

thepete2 5y ago

Oh no, voting for representatives really is like a kind of "winner-take-all" filter.

InvertedRhodium 5y ago

We here in NZ would also like some kind of ranked choice in conjunction with MMP - as it stands, people are still reluctant to vote for smaller parties that may not reach the 5% vote threshold required. Edit: I may have confused RCV with STV. Regardless, it would be nice to know that if my first option didn't make it into Parliament that I could prefer a second party, and so on.

afterburner 5y ago
As the wiki article for STV helpfully states, "Another name for STV is multi-winner ranked-choice voting". Also, "Instant runoff voting (IRV) is the single-winner analogue of STV". So ranked choice voting is a super-set with many flavours within.

dane-pgp 5y ago

MMP is a fantastic system, but it can face resistance if it relies on Closed Party Lists[0], which allow a party to put a potentially controversial candidate at the top of the list, almost guaranteeing them a seat and forcing party supporters to accept that as the cost of choosing the party. Open lists are better, but I believe they still have the problem that they make it unclear where representatives' mandates come from, especially if a representative can resign and be automatically replaced by someone lower on the list without a by-election. Other problems exist with list-based systems, such as treating independent candidates differently to candidates with established parties, and the possible use of "decoy lists"[1]. The best implementation I've seen of MMP, though, is that used in Baden-Württemberg, which avoids party lists by filling the proportional seats with the candidates who came closest to winning the elections in their local districts.[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_list [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_member_system#Decoy_lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_member_system#Decoy... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweitmandat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweitmandat

Ericson2314 5y ago
I don't see a practical party with closed list, as long as the minimum threshold isn't too low. Don't like the people at the top? Vote for a small party which will join the coalition. Even more fundamentally, politics is a "team sport". The vetting of individuals when power boils down to alliances and other relations with the politicians is stupid waste of voter's time.
- nojokes 5y ago
  There is also electoral threshold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#Electoral_threshold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Germany#El... By voting for a small party you risk wasting your vote.

caf 5y ago

The two jurisdictions in Australia that use Hare-Clark (Tasmania and the ACT) no longer have a political duopoly. MMP would probably work well in South Australia (where overall the electorate is fairly evenly split right-left, but many of the right-leaning voters are locked up in a few geographically large rural electorates and the left-leaning voters are distributed more evenly across more urban and suburban electorates).