3 ms·
> We've had this in Australia since day 1 of Federation. Australia adopted the preferential system in 1918. > It's completely normal to put a third party as y
by ClayShentrup 5y ago
> We've had this in Australia since day 1 of Federation.
Australia adopted the preferential system in 1918.
> It's completely normal to put a third party as your first preference, while still indicating that you'd prefer Kodos to Kang.
The evidence shows most voters don't, which is why Australia's IRV elections still maintain a duopoly. In spite of the fact that the senate, which uses (proportional) STV, has escaped duopoly.
http://scorevoting.net/AustralianPol http://scorevoting.net/AustralianPol
- godelski 5y ago> which uses _proportional_ STV I've always seen the proportional nature as being key to other countries lack of a two party system (though they have two major coalitions). I'm curious why you think many look to Australia's IRV as the reason for it being a multi-party system when many parliamentary systems that don't use IRV have even more parties. How do you combat this common misconception? Also it seems dishonest to not consider coalitions when US parties aren't as uniform as most other country's parties. If we look at coalitions it does not appear that Australia (or most others) have escaped duopoly. And as always, good to see you in the comments and thanks for all the information.