6 ms·

Australia has a robust ranked voting system but still has very dominant 2 major parties. I think you're still correct but other factors can be powerful too. Fo

Australia has a robust ranked voting system but still has very dominant 2 major parties. I think you're still correct but other factors can be powerful too. For example, people struggle to understand how ranked preferences work, so they are still irrationally afraid of 'wasting their vote' if they preference for a minor party that has no chance of winning. I suspect mandatory voting also encourages people that dont really care about politics (or understand ranked voting) to vote based on propaganda, reinforcing the major two parties.

conz 4y ago
> Australia has a robust ranked voting system but still has very dominant 2 major parties. Australia's top 3 parties achieved ~65% of the vote. That leaves about 1/3rd to minor parties and independents. Surely that's a great deal better than having just 2 parties with any real power.
- plsbenice34 4y ago
  The actual seats that are won are a better indication of the results and who has power. Results seem to be that the major 2 parties won 90% of the seats: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal-election-2022-results https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal-election-2022-res...
  - gonzo41 4y ago
    It's slightly more complicated, it's more like there's 3-5-ish major parties. If you take the Liberal party, the Liberal National Party of Queensland and the National Party. Those form the Coalition conservative block. Then there's Labor who form the Center Left, and the Greens who are the progressive Left. Importantly whilst 90% of the seats may be in 4 distinct parties, that form two opposing sides, The Coalition suffered the loss of seats to independents recently. Labor voters in these electorates were able to vote 1 for the ALP and then send there preference to an independent in order to tactically vote against the liberals ruling party. This effect can be seen by the reduced labor vote in these electorates.
    - femto 4y ago
      "Tactical voting" means you vote for a less preferred candidate over your preferred candidate to achieve a desired outcome. This is not the same a giving a second preference to an independent. In your example, the voter has voted for their preferred (Labor) candidate over the independent. If the Labor candidate gets knocked out then their second preference says "if I can't have Labor then I would prefer an Independent over Liberal". That's the beauty of preferential voting, you generally don't have to vote tactically. You just vote for what you really want.
      - plsbenice34 4y ago
        True, it is interesting from a game theoretic point of view. There is info about the algorithm's properties here in case anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Tactical_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Tactical...
  - conz 4y ago
    > The actual seats that are won are a better indication of the results and who has power. Results seem to be that the major 2 parties won 90% of the seats: While true, that 10% allocation of parliamentary seats to independents/small parties allows for a great deal of negotiation on policy. The smaller parties, particularly if the hold a sufficient level of balance-of-power, can see some/many of their own policies reflected in the eventual policies which pass through parliament. [Edit: clarification]
giantg2 4y ago
In the US we have the opposite problem - low turnout. Especially in primaries, we see that a small minority (15% maybe) pick the candidates. This is because it's the most motivated (potentially extreme) voters that show up to vote in primaries. Also, different states hold primaries on different days, so many of the presidential candidates drop after just a couple states vote.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > Especially in primaries The primaries are your problem - those are crazy. Why does the government run voting for the representatives of private political parties?
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Because they're not actually political parties like other countries have; they have no memberships, they have employees. You can't join e.g. the Democratic party and start paying dues, instead you declare your Democratic party allegiance to the government, and it allows you to participate in the selection of the Democratic party candidate. The two major parties created this situation through state and local legislation. It's absolutely bizarre that two private organizations who are responsible to no one but themselves have inextricably and exclusively bound themselves to the operation of US government. They avoided any constitutional questions by legislating locally instead of federally. I don't see how that's meant to be superior to a single-party communist system. Is adding a "primary" step so much more democratic than just putting all of the primary candidates into a single election?
    - femto 4y ago
      If they are private organisations, wouldn't it be fun if they could be hauled before the Federal Trade Commission? :-)
      - giantg2 4y ago
        Now this guy's thinking.
xorfish 4y ago
Proportional voting for congress per state would solve this. If the 27 seats from New York would be distributed via proportional voting, then a party with just a few percent of votes can get some political power.
femto 4y ago
As of Saturday: HAD two very dominant major parties. Australia just had Federal elections, and the count is still in progress, but there is a chance we will end up with a "hung parliament" with neither (ex) major party having a majority. 16 seats of 151 appear to have gone to minor parties or independents. Forming government should be an easy negotiation, to the extent that the new Prime Minister has already been declared, as the new government will need support from only 1 or 2 independents. In this instance a hung parliament would be an excellent outcome in that the government would be stable due to the small number of independents needed to form government, and debate would have to occur in the parliament and not behind closed doors in a party room. The general view is that this change in voting patterns will be long term, as the majors' votes have been declining for years and it has just reached the tipping point. 10 independents elected is a record. In my opinion the Australian electoral system gets several things right: * Compulsory voting. You have to turn up to the booth and receive a ballot paper, but it's then up to you what you do with it. Most people use it to vote but some use it to draw a pretty picture or tell the counters what they really think of the government. The real power of compulsory voting is that it virtually eliminates disenfranchisement as those who are not marked as receiving their ballot are handed a small ($20) fine. This creates a paper trail and a disenfranchised voter can refuse to pay the fine, turn up to court and as part of their argument against the fine tell the judge how they were disenfranchised. * An independent commission (aec.gov.au) that sets voting boundaries and runs the election on a national basis. * Preferential/RCV voting makes it more likely (than FPTP) that the result reflects the will of the majority and is harder to game. Whilst RCV might not be perfect, it's better than FPTP. Things it gets wrong: 1) Lack of disclosure of political funding sources 2) This has lead to corruption, whereby the major parties put the interests of themselves and donors above the country, with rampant pork barrelling and looking after "mates". #2 is a big reason why the major parties are losing votes, and the new government comes with the promise of an anti-corruption commission "with teeth", and a bunch of independents who plan on holding the government to this promise. Amazingly in this instance the system seems to have self-corrected. With any luck, #2 being fixed will reduce the opportunities to put the interests of parties and donors above the country and lead to #1 also being fixed in the not too distant future.
- hugh-avherald 4y ago

conz 4y ago

> Australia has a robust ranked voting system but still has very dominant 2 major parties. Australia's top 3 parties achieved ~65% of the vote. That leaves about 1/3rd to minor parties and independents. Surely that's a great deal better than having just 2 parties with any real power.

plsbenice34 4y ago
The actual seats that are won are a better indication of the results and who has power. Results seem to be that the major 2 parties won 90% of the seats: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal-election-2022-results https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal-election-2022-res...
- gonzo41 4y ago
  It's slightly more complicated, it's more like there's 3-5-ish major parties. If you take the Liberal party, the Liberal National Party of Queensland and the National Party. Those form the Coalition conservative block. Then there's Labor who form the Center Left, and the Greens who are the progressive Left. Importantly whilst 90% of the seats may be in 4 distinct parties, that form two opposing sides, The Coalition suffered the loss of seats to independents recently. Labor voters in these electorates were able to vote 1 for the ALP and then send there preference to an independent in order to tactically vote against the liberals ruling party. This effect can be seen by the reduced labor vote in these electorates.
  - femto 4y ago
    "Tactical voting" means you vote for a less preferred candidate over your preferred candidate to achieve a desired outcome. This is not the same a giving a second preference to an independent. In your example, the voter has voted for their preferred (Labor) candidate over the independent. If the Labor candidate gets knocked out then their second preference says "if I can't have Labor then I would prefer an Independent over Liberal". That's the beauty of preferential voting, you generally don't have to vote tactically. You just vote for what you really want.
    - plsbenice34 4y ago
      True, it is interesting from a game theoretic point of view. There is info about the algorithm's properties here in case anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Tactical_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Tactical...
- conz 4y ago
  > The actual seats that are won are a better indication of the results and who has power. Results seem to be that the major 2 parties won 90% of the seats: While true, that 10% allocation of parliamentary seats to independents/small parties allows for a great deal of negotiation on policy. The smaller parties, particularly if the hold a sufficient level of balance-of-power, can see some/many of their own policies reflected in the eventual policies which pass through parliament. [Edit: clarification]

giantg2 4y ago

In the US we have the opposite problem - low turnout. Especially in primaries, we see that a small minority (15% maybe) pick the candidates. This is because it's the most motivated (potentially extreme) voters that show up to vote in primaries. Also, different states hold primaries on different days, so many of the presidential candidates drop after just a couple states vote.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> Especially in primaries The primaries are your problem - those are crazy. Why does the government run voting for the representatives of private political parties?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Because they're not actually political parties like other countries have; they have no memberships, they have employees. You can't join e.g. the Democratic party and start paying dues, instead you declare your Democratic party allegiance to the government, and it allows you to participate in the selection of the Democratic party candidate. The two major parties created this situation through state and local legislation. It's absolutely bizarre that two private organizations who are responsible to no one but themselves have inextricably and exclusively bound themselves to the operation of US government. They avoided any constitutional questions by legislating locally instead of federally. I don't see how that's meant to be superior to a single-party communist system. Is adding a "primary" step so much more democratic than just putting all of the primary candidates into a single election?
  - femto 4y ago
    If they are private organisations, wouldn't it be fun if they could be hauled before the Federal Trade Commission? :-)
    - giantg2 4y ago
      Now this guy's thinking.

xorfish 4y ago

Proportional voting for congress per state would solve this. If the 27 seats from New York would be distributed via proportional voting, then a party with just a few percent of votes can get some political power.

femto 4y ago

As of Saturday: HAD two very dominant major parties. Australia just had Federal elections, and the count is still in progress, but there is a chance we will end up with a "hung parliament" with neither (ex) major party having a majority. 16 seats of 151 appear to have gone to minor parties or independents. Forming government should be an easy negotiation, to the extent that the new Prime Minister has already been declared, as the new government will need support from only 1 or 2 independents. In this instance a hung parliament would be an excellent outcome in that the government would be stable due to the small number of independents needed to form government, and debate would have to occur in the parliament and not behind closed doors in a party room. The general view is that this change in voting patterns will be long term, as the majors' votes have been declining for years and it has just reached the tipping point. 10 independents elected is a record. In my opinion the Australian electoral system gets several things right: * Compulsory voting. You have to turn up to the booth and receive a ballot paper, but it's then up to you what you do with it. Most people use it to vote but some use it to draw a pretty picture or tell the counters what they really think of the government. The real power of compulsory voting is that it virtually eliminates disenfranchisement as those who are not marked as receiving their ballot are handed a small ($20) fine. This creates a paper trail and a disenfranchised voter can refuse to pay the fine, turn up to court and as part of their argument against the fine tell the judge how they were disenfranchised. * An independent commission (aec.gov.au) that sets voting boundaries and runs the election on a national basis. * Preferential/RCV voting makes it more likely (than FPTP) that the result reflects the will of the majority and is harder to game. Whilst RCV might not be perfect, it's better than FPTP. Things it gets wrong: 1) Lack of disclosure of political funding sources 2) This has lead to corruption, whereby the major parties put the interests of themselves and donors above the country, with rampant pork barrelling and looking after "mates". #2 is a big reason why the major parties are losing votes, and the new government comes with the promise of an anti-corruption commission "with teeth", and a bunch of independents who plan on holding the government to this promise. Amazingly in this instance the system seems to have self-corrected. With any luck, #2 being fixed will reduce the opportunities to put the interests of parties and donors above the country and lead to #1 also being fixed in the not too distant future.

hugh-avherald 4y ago