3 ms·

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 re

by 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 Nursie 5y ago

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.