4 ms·

If you can stop numbering when you lose interest, that's the "optional" in "optional preferential voting". It's good, but we won't get it. As things are, you a

If you can stop numbering when you lose interest, that's the "optional" in "optional preferential voting". It's good, but we won't get it. As things are, you always have to choose between the two right wing parties that dominate the system, even if you put them at last choice and second last. So you vote from 1 according to your preferences, give the big numbers to your least preferred, and /then/ blindly count between them. With optional preferential voting, people who don't want either of the big two could avoid choosing between them. This doesn't happen because (what they taught us at school) there might be a tie, or you could get elected with a small number of votes, but really because (what they didn't teach us at school) the big two and their symbiotes know that it would encourage a civilised multi-party democracy in which coalitions could be negotiated and altruism might sneak in. The big two would rather take turns at being Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition than see green, liberal or socialist options get a voice. They hate it when small parties get enough power to hold them accountable, or have legislation discussed before it is passed.

caf 13y ago
I don't think that analysis holds up. Optional preferential voting is closer to first-past-the-post than compulsory preferential (in Queensland and NSW where they have OPV at a State level, a large majority tend to "just vote 1"). First-past-the-post is bad for minor parties, and would cement the two-party system. At the last election, the Greens only won the seat of Melbourne by using Liberal voter preferences to overtake the ALP candidate, and similarly Andrew Wilkie relied on the preferences of Liberal, Green and Socialist party voters to eventually win from third position. Under OPV, it is highly likely that both of those seats would have gone to the ALP. OPV might be defensible on the grounds of reducing informality, but it would push our system closer towards FPTP and be bad for minor parties.
- femto 13y ago
  From memory, the NSW upper house optional preferential instructions are that you must mark at least 15 boxes. It's a balancing act between enough numbers to ensure that most ballots continue to count, but small enough to reduce the effort, and consequent informal votes due to errors, of voting below the line.

caf 13y ago

I don't think that analysis holds up. Optional preferential voting is closer to first-past-the-post than compulsory preferential (in Queensland and NSW where they have OPV at a State level, a large majority tend to "just vote 1"). First-past-the-post is bad for minor parties, and would cement the two-party system. At the last election, the Greens only won the seat of Melbourne by using Liberal voter preferences to overtake the ALP candidate, and similarly Andrew Wilkie relied on the preferences of Liberal, Green and Socialist party voters to eventually win from third position. Under OPV, it is highly likely that both of those seats would have gone to the ALP. OPV might be defensible on the grounds of reducing informality, but it would push our system closer towards FPTP and be bad for minor parties.

femto 13y ago
From memory, the NSW upper house optional preferential instructions are that you must mark at least 15 boxes. It's a balancing act between enough numbers to ensure that most ballots continue to count, but small enough to reduce the effort, and consequent informal votes due to errors, of voting below the line.