3 ms·
> I would consider 10% of a country voting for a party as first preference but less than 0.7% of parliament seats (by which I mean a single seat) being allocate
by throwaway894345 4y ago
> I would consider 10% of a country voting for a party as first preference but less than 0.7% of parliament seats (by which I mean a single seat) being allocated to them (as was the case in Australia until the last election where it's still around 2% representation) to be unrepresentative by any reasonable definition of the word.
Is this is a consistent outcome or an anomaly?
- cyphar 4y agoIt is a consistent outcome, the recent election is an anomaly. The explanation for why this is the case is a bit complicated but the crux is that only one candidate can win in each seat and while we have preferential voting, the preferences only matter in each race -- and if you aren't in the top two on first preferences then you won't win that seat (nor any other seat where that is the case). It would be easily possible for them to have 0% representation, it just so happens that the Greens party leader's electorate is incredibly pro-Green and so he gets ~47% of the first preference vote, which is unusually high and makes him win the seat easily. Our upper house is far more representative because each state and territory has multiple seats and thus you can get a more representative outcome.