4 ms·

It also makes it easier for people to vote for trash parties like One Nation. In other countries people would think twice before voting for small, extremist par

by bedobi 5y ago

It also makes it easier for people to vote for trash parties like One Nation. In other countries people would think twice before voting for small, extremist parties like that lest they waste their vote if the party doesn't make it past the threshold for getting a seat. (this is just one of the many problems I see with the Australian system)

jackvalentine 5y ago
"Stop voting for the wrong people!" is your problem?
- bedobi 5y ago
  Yes! I don't think liberal democracies should tolerate parties and policies that dismantle them. In many European countries people like Pauline Hanson would have been put jail (where she belongs) for hate speech (and probably any number of other things) a long time ago.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    The irony being, that FPTP has resulted in Trump which is arguably not much better than One Nation.
    - bedobi 5y ago
      Trump has far more to do with the electoral college and other quirks of the US system than FPTP
creata 5y ago
Don't we want voters to be able to just honestly write that they like these small extremist parties? Are you suggesting that we want all the voters to vote for one of the top two parties, out of a fear of wasting their vote?[0] Besides, those small parties are obviously eliminated almost immediately, so the only thing those votes are worth is a bit of money from the Australian Electoral Commission.[1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Electoral_Commission#Public_funding_of_political_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Electoral_Commissio...
- bedobi 5y ago
  I think the cost for voting for minority extremist parties and policies should be higher, not lower, yes.
  - r-w 5y ago
    That's government by the majority, not the whole. Democracy is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state” (OED; emphasis added).
    - bedobi 5y ago
      Just because you think the cost of voting for small extremist parties should be high doesn't mean you're in favor of absolutist majority rule? + liberal democracies have (at least in theory) unalienable basic rights that can't be taken away, even by majority. Eg just because a 90+% majority votes to revoke citizenship from all muslims that doesn't mean that it will go through.
      - vidarh 5y ago
        The effect of eg. FPTP is to effectively disenfranchise large portions of the population. A country with a voting system like that makes a mockery of the very term democracy. As for these "inalienable" right, I'm not aware of any system without a mechanism for altering their constitutional laws. To your specific example, the UK just had a government representing a minority of voters vote through a law that allows them to strip citizenship from millions as they please.
  - Ar-Curunir 5y ago
    Who determines what is extremist and what is small? It’s not like the dominant parties dropped from the sky with their existing “bigness”. They too started out as small parties.
    - bedobi 5y ago
      > Who determines what is extremist we're not talking about some ambiguous grey zone stuff here * proposed a drastic reduction in immigration with particular reference to immigrants from Asia. * stated that African immigrants were bringing diseases into Australia and were of "no benefit to this country whatsoever" * called for a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia * announced policies including installing CCTV cameras in all existing mosques * stated "all terrorist attacks in this country have been by Muslims" it's safe to call the above extremist and xenophobic
Nursie 5y ago
Personally I think that makes it a better system. I may not agree with the politics of One Nation (in fact I'm almost certain I don't, without even going to read what they are) but having a system where I can place a vote for what I really want and then put an acceptable compromise candidate as second choice seems to me a much better way of allowing newer parties and newer politics in than the more or less institutionalised stagnation of something like the US system. From what I can tell the Australian system rarely lets such smaller parties gain very much anyway.
- aldonius 5y ago
  For all that we have instant-runoff preferential voting, we still have single-member districts for our House of Representatives (and 150 members of said House). We also have compulsory voting and (at the federal level, and in most states), a full-preferential ballot. When you have 150 single-member districts you're probably going to get two major parties regardless of whether you have FPTP or IRV or even Approval voting. What compulsory voting and preferencing add on top of that is both of Australia's majors have to win the centre, rather than energising their base per the US. What our system does allow for is for smaller parties in our Senate. It's generally elected 6 people at a time, allowing for e.g. 1 Green, 2 Labor, 2 Liberal-National and 1 One Nation (this is a very plausible result for Queensland next year). So what does the US system allow then? Well, every system has to let its steam out somewhere. The US has its primaries, which often has a level of access and openness that greatly surpasses any Australian preselection (generally still getting out of the smoke-filled-room era).
  - Nursie 5y ago
    The primaries still only really allow people who have climbed the ranks in an existing party to get a shot, AFAICT. But I'm no expert. I like the idea that the main parties have to capture the centre, and I really like that I can vote for something a bit out there, without the fear that my vote is effectively a vote for my least favourite big incumbent. The "You must vote Labour or the Tories win!" thing has always rubbed me up the wrong way, as someone who isn't especially fond of either of those options.

by bedobi 5y ago

jackvalentine 5y ago

"Stop voting for the wrong people!" is your problem?

bedobi 5y ago
Yes! I don't think liberal democracies should tolerate parties and policies that dismantle them. In many European countries people like Pauline Hanson would have been put jail (where she belongs) for hate speech (and probably any number of other things) a long time ago.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- cycomanic 5y ago
  The irony being, that FPTP has resulted in Trump which is arguably not much better than One Nation.
  - bedobi 5y ago
    Trump has far more to do with the electoral college and other quirks of the US system than FPTP

creata 5y ago

Don't we want voters to be able to just honestly write that they like these small extremist parties? Are you suggesting that we want all the voters to vote for one of the top two parties, out of a fear of wasting their vote?[0] Besides, those small parties are obviously eliminated almost immediately, so the only thing those votes are worth is a bit of money from the Australian Electoral Commission.[1] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Electoral_Commission#Public_funding_of_political_parties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Electoral_Commissio...

bedobi 5y ago
I think the cost for voting for minority extremist parties and policies should be higher, not lower, yes.
- r-w 5y ago
  That's government by the majority, not the whole. Democracy is “a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state” (OED; emphasis added).
  - bedobi 5y ago
    Just because you think the cost of voting for small extremist parties should be high doesn't mean you're in favor of absolutist majority rule? + liberal democracies have (at least in theory) unalienable basic rights that can't be taken away, even by majority. Eg just because a 90+% majority votes to revoke citizenship from all muslims that doesn't mean that it will go through.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      The effect of eg. FPTP is to effectively disenfranchise large portions of the population. A country with a voting system like that makes a mockery of the very term democracy. As for these "inalienable" right, I'm not aware of any system without a mechanism for altering their constitutional laws. To your specific example, the UK just had a government representing a minority of voters vote through a law that allows them to strip citizenship from millions as they please.
- Ar-Curunir 5y ago
  Who determines what is extremist and what is small? It’s not like the dominant parties dropped from the sky with their existing “bigness”. They too started out as small parties.
  - bedobi 5y ago
    > Who determines what is extremist we're not talking about some ambiguous grey zone stuff here * proposed a drastic reduction in immigration with particular reference to immigrants from Asia. * stated that African immigrants were bringing diseases into Australia and were of "no benefit to this country whatsoever" * called for a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia * announced policies including installing CCTV cameras in all existing mosques * stated "all terrorist attacks in this country have been by Muslims" it's safe to call the above extremist and xenophobic

Nursie 5y ago

Personally I think that makes it a better system. I may not agree with the politics of One Nation (in fact I'm almost certain I don't, without even going to read what they are) but having a system where I can place a vote for what I really want and then put an acceptable compromise candidate as second choice seems to me a much better way of allowing newer parties and newer politics in than the more or less institutionalised stagnation of something like the US system. From what I can tell the Australian system rarely lets such smaller parties gain very much anyway.

aldonius 5y ago
For all that we have instant-runoff preferential voting, we still have single-member districts for our House of Representatives (and 150 members of said House). We also have compulsory voting and (at the federal level, and in most states), a full-preferential ballot. When you have 150 single-member districts you're probably going to get two major parties regardless of whether you have FPTP or IRV or even Approval voting. What compulsory voting and preferencing add on top of that is both of Australia's majors have to win the centre, rather than energising their base per the US. What our system does allow for is for smaller parties in our Senate. It's generally elected 6 people at a time, allowing for e.g. 1 Green, 2 Labor, 2 Liberal-National and 1 One Nation (this is a very plausible result for Queensland next year). So what does the US system allow then? Well, every system has to let its steam out somewhere. The US has its primaries, which often has a level of access and openness that greatly surpasses any Australian preselection (generally still getting out of the smoke-filled-room era).
- Nursie 5y ago
  The primaries still only really allow people who have climbed the ranks in an existing party to get a shot, AFAICT. But I'm no expert. I like the idea that the main parties have to capture the centre, and I really like that I can vote for something a bit out there, without the fear that my vote is effectively a vote for my least favourite big incumbent. The "You must vote Labour or the Tories win!" thing has always rubbed me up the wrong way, as someone who isn't especially fond of either of those options.