6 ms·

Maybe this will come across as yet another Australian telling the Yanks how to suck eggs at this democracy thing (because I'm sure you haven't had enough of us

Maybe this will come across as yet another Australian telling the Yanks how to suck eggs at this democracy thing (because I'm sure you haven't had enough of us tut-tutting you about your gun laws or health system), but I believe there are several key factors that mitigate against large-scale electoral fraud in Australia. 1. We have a single federal, non-partisan (ie. beauracratic not political) electoral commission, governed by federal laws that ensure that every federal election is managed the same way, uniformly across the federation (doesn't matter what state you are in). The Australian Electoral Commission is truly the jewel in our democracy. Check out https://www.aec.gov.au/ https://www.aec.gov.au/ 2. We don't use voting machines. Our system (whether via polling booth or postal) is entirely paper based. We have one of the slowest counts in the western world but also one of the most accurate. A slow count isn't an indicator of fraud - it's an indicator that the system is working. 3. We have compulsory voting. As another commenter pointed out, one fraud vector is harvesting real people's votes when those people haven't actually voted. Compulsory voting largely eliminates this vector. It also has the benefit of "centralising" the political compass as most people tend to be fairly reasonable. In optional voting systems, the political distribution is skewed to the edges due to the correlation of motivation-to-vote with more-extreme-political-position. Do you want to encourage centrists and discourage extremists? Implement compulsory voting. 4. We have preferential voting i.e. candidates are ranked. It's not the candidate with the greatest primary vote that wins the parliamentary seat for that electoral area, its the candidate that is "most preferred" i.e. garners the greatest overall preferences compared to other candidates. e.g. in the recent election some government MPs lost their seats even though they had a higher primary vote, because the rest of that electorate preferred the other gal/guy. I may vote Green as my first preference but my 2nd preference is for the Labour person and then the climate-change independent candidate ahead of the incumbent. But like so many other things in the US, the cultural history of the primacy of the individual's right to vote or not, and the primacy of the states to define their own rules for how elections are run, along with the benefit to the political duopoly of your current system, means the chances of the US implementing any of the above is probably close to zero. Then again what do I know? Literally a month before the Soviet union fell apart I insisted to my then-girlfriend who was Lithuanian, that they would never be free and to stop wishing for fairy tale endings.

0xy 4y ago
Why would you want low-information voters to be forced to vote in a compulsory voting system? Australian "democracy" is hardly a shining star in the world, given state politics is a corrupt mess with branch stacking (featuring cash in manilla envelopes exchanged in car parks, no really, this happened!) and outright corruption. Then you have both major parties being practically identical (both vehemently voted for anti-encryption and metadata retention bills). You also made the common misconception that the US is a democracy. It wasn't, never was, and was never founded as one. The US is a republic, and elections are based on state representation and not individual voters. This prevents coastal elites in California and New York from dictating policy for poor farmers in Idaho. I also find it hard to believe the AEC is not partisan, considering their mainstream bias (the three majors receive preferential treatment). Preference voting is also terrible, given it severely punishes minor parties, who are rapidly rising in popularity. 1/3rd of Australians don't vote for the corrupt major parties yet they are barely represented. As for "encouraging centrism", I'm not sure anyone should want that given Australia is a basketcase of mass surveillance, war crimes (indiscriminate slaying of civilians in Afghanistan) and violating UN Human Rights guidelines they are a signatory to (they prevented citizens from leaving the country). Such a shining star for democracy and centrism, blasting away Afghanistani civilians and covering it up. Sounds amazing!
- phs318u 4y ago
  Do you really think that most US voters are high-information voters? No. But they are high-motivation voters. Again, this hits at the fundamental difference - one voting system is about the overall stability of the society, in the other its about the primacy of the individual in (almost) all things. Let me ask - in the US, does the government have a duty to govern for/on-behalf-of non-voters? WIth respect to party branch stacking, you're conflating the internal selection of candidates within a party, to the external election among candidates for an electoral seat. Please refer to the context of this article that we're all commenting on. I stand by my characterisation of Australian electoral system as one of the least corrupt in terms of the way the elections are run (which is what we - or at least I - are talking about). As for your self-proclaimed "belief" that AEC is partisan ("the three majors receive preferential treatment"), please provide a citation for ANY kind of evidence that is true. While preferential voting is not the same as proportional representation, the recent federal election here shows that people are less wedded to their blue/red inherited voting "teams" than ever before, with the greatest ever election to parliament of independent candidates and Greens, and the Greens now holding the balance of power in the Senate. You may well look at Australia and see a "basketcase". I look at the US and see far worse than that. Is Australia perfect? Clearly not. I vote Green and I agree that most of what you've cited as issues, are indeed that. But my kids aren't more likely to die from gunshot wounds. A person won't die just because they can't afford private health insurance. As for "blasting away Afghanistani civilians" - there is a very public court case right now underway against the (highly decorated) soldier I assume you're referring to. Meanwhile, to the best of my knowledge, not a single individual at any level responsible for the "Collateral Murder" incident has been punished. I won't hold my breath.

0xy 4y ago

Why would you want low-information voters to be forced to vote in a compulsory voting system? Australian "democracy" is hardly a shining star in the world, given state politics is a corrupt mess with branch stacking (featuring cash in manilla envelopes exchanged in car parks, no really, this happened!) and outright corruption. Then you have both major parties being practically identical (both vehemently voted for anti-encryption and metadata retention bills). You also made the common misconception that the US is a democracy. It wasn't, never was, and was never founded as one. The US is a republic, and elections are based on state representation and not individual voters. This prevents coastal elites in California and New York from dictating policy for poor farmers in Idaho. I also find it hard to believe the AEC is not partisan, considering their mainstream bias (the three majors receive preferential treatment). Preference voting is also terrible, given it severely punishes minor parties, who are rapidly rising in popularity. 1/3rd of Australians don't vote for the corrupt major parties yet they are barely represented. As for "encouraging centrism", I'm not sure anyone should want that given Australia is a basketcase of mass surveillance, war crimes (indiscriminate slaying of civilians in Afghanistan) and violating UN Human Rights guidelines they are a signatory to (they prevented citizens from leaving the country). Such a shining star for democracy and centrism, blasting away Afghanistani civilians and covering it up. Sounds amazing!

phs318u 4y ago
Do you really think that most US voters are high-information voters? No. But they are high-motivation voters. Again, this hits at the fundamental difference - one voting system is about the overall stability of the society, in the other its about the primacy of the individual in (almost) all things. Let me ask - in the US, does the government have a duty to govern for/on-behalf-of non-voters? WIth respect to party branch stacking, you're conflating the internal selection of candidates within a party, to the external election among candidates for an electoral seat. Please refer to the context of this article that we're all commenting on. I stand by my characterisation of Australian electoral system as one of the least corrupt in terms of the way the elections are run (which is what we - or at least I - are talking about). As for your self-proclaimed "belief" that AEC is partisan ("the three majors receive preferential treatment"), please provide a citation for ANY kind of evidence that is true. While preferential voting is not the same as proportional representation, the recent federal election here shows that people are less wedded to their blue/red inherited voting "teams" than ever before, with the greatest ever election to parliament of independent candidates and Greens, and the Greens now holding the balance of power in the Senate. You may well look at Australia and see a "basketcase". I look at the US and see far worse than that. Is Australia perfect? Clearly not. I vote Green and I agree that most of what you've cited as issues, are indeed that. But my kids aren't more likely to die from gunshot wounds. A person won't die just because they can't afford private health insurance. As for "blasting away Afghanistani civilians" - there is a very public court case right now underway against the (highly decorated) soldier I assume you're referring to. Meanwhile, to the best of my knowledge, not a single individual at any level responsible for the "Collateral Murder" incident has been punished. I won't hold my breath.