4 ms·

Australia still has two very dominant major parties in terms of the main prize: who become ministers of state. I'd say there's a 1% chance of having a prime mi

Australia still has two very dominant major parties in terms of the main prize: who become ministers of state. I'd say there's a 1% chance of having a prime minister from outside the ALP and the Coalition in the next 50 years.

femto 4y ago
Right now I'd say the dominance is a thin veneer, as the winner takes all nature of each individual seat tends to hide the reducing margins by which each seat is held. The result based on seats is non-linear so when change becomes apparent it will appear to have come quickly. As an aside, this discussion about the Australian system is relevant to the original question of how to depolarise the US. Australia looked to be following the US into polarisation stasis, but this week the preferential voting system has allowed a number independents to fill the void left by the major parties as they have gone off course. Time will tell, but the signs are that either the parties will have to adopt less polarised positions or drift off either end of the spectrum into oblivion.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Right now I'd say the dominance is a thin veneer, as the winner takes all nature of each individual seat tends to hide the reducing margins by which each seat is held. Is this an argument that first-past-the-post reduces the dominance of major parties? It's a weird argument that the dominance of the winners is reduced because their margins were small. The smaller the margins, the larger the portion of the governed who ultimately have no say about the direction of government e.g. the US, where margins (and differences) between the winning and losing parties are tiny.
  - femto 4y ago
    No. The winner takes all nature of each seat does tend to lock out candidates who might get in with proportional representation with multiple candidates per seat, so it encourages dominance in that regard. One could say that this is a weakness in the Australian system. Maybe there should be one big electorate with 151 candidates elected on a proportional basis? The main benefit of the preferential system is that it allows people to safely take the risk of voting for a third candidate. I see it as question of incentives more than raw maths. (Everything I'm saying is from the perspective of the lived experience of being under a RCV system, not the raw maths.) By way of information the upper house does use proportional representation with typically 6 candidates chosen from each state, each state being a single electorate. Smaller parties do regularly win a number of spots in the upper house.

femto 4y ago

Right now I'd say the dominance is a thin veneer, as the winner takes all nature of each individual seat tends to hide the reducing margins by which each seat is held. The result based on seats is non-linear so when change becomes apparent it will appear to have come quickly. As an aside, this discussion about the Australian system is relevant to the original question of how to depolarise the US. Australia looked to be following the US into polarisation stasis, but this week the preferential voting system has allowed a number independents to fill the void left by the major parties as they have gone off course. Time will tell, but the signs are that either the parties will have to adopt less polarised positions or drift off either end of the spectrum into oblivion.

pessimizer 4y ago
> Right now I'd say the dominance is a thin veneer, as the winner takes all nature of each individual seat tends to hide the reducing margins by which each seat is held. Is this an argument that first-past-the-post reduces the dominance of major parties? It's a weird argument that the dominance of the winners is reduced because their margins were small. The smaller the margins, the larger the portion of the governed who ultimately have no say about the direction of government e.g. the US, where margins (and differences) between the winning and losing parties are tiny.
- femto 4y ago
  No. The winner takes all nature of each seat does tend to lock out candidates who might get in with proportional representation with multiple candidates per seat, so it encourages dominance in that regard. One could say that this is a weakness in the Australian system. Maybe there should be one big electorate with 151 candidates elected on a proportional basis? The main benefit of the preferential system is that it allows people to safely take the risk of voting for a third candidate. I see it as question of incentives more than raw maths. (Everything I'm saying is from the perspective of the lived experience of being under a RCV system, not the raw maths.) By way of information the upper house does use proportional representation with typically 6 candidates chosen from each state, each state being a single electorate. Smaller parties do regularly win a number of spots in the upper house.