Preferential Voting or First-Past-The-Post Voting?

[Jezza]

It's quite a simple question but since it's quite relevant from the recent Victorian State Election and it was brought up by Tannin and others when discussing the potential Legislative Council results in Victoria, I'm wondering what system of voting do posters prefer?

I can see strong arguments for both as some believe that preferential voting allows for smaller parties to be more relevant and therefore voting for such a party isn't a "wasted" voting as opposed to voting under the first past the post system that is more widely adopted in democratic countries worldwide. However there has been in the past a small grievance that preferential voting has been detrimental of the true reflection of what determines a victorious party or leader in a seat or in the upper house federally and in the state.

For example, the current marginal seat of Bentleigh where before preferences, the Liberal Party has received 45.5% of the vote as opposed to Labor which has 39.7% of the vote but due to Green preferences and the Greens making up just over 10% of the vote in this electorate, Labor would therefore most likely win the seat of Bentleigh as it has 51.2% support after preferences as opposed to the Liberals with 48.8%, and therefore it robs the 45% of people in this electorate who voted the Liberals as opposed to Labor before the process of preferencing took place.

However I acknowledge that preferential voting can be in your control if you vote the way you want as opposed to voting the way the parties want you to vote which Tannin alluded to, to those who voted above the line in the legislative council in contrast to those who went through the tedious process of voting below the line in ensuring that their vote truly counted rather than relying on what the parties wanted, whether they were major or minor political parties.

I can understand the arguments for and against both systems and it always brings up interesting discussion during election periods and whether the preferential voting system which we currently have is a better system than first past and post which is adopted more widely around the world. I must admit I don't have a clear position on this but maybe reading other people's opinions on this might persuade me both ways.

What does everyone else think?

[Tannin]

Why is this poll framed in first-past-the-post format?

Joke aside, no, I did not "raise this question". Nor would I - I have the right to have my vote counted in a fair way (as do you!) and taking away our democratic right to a fair vote would lead directly to huge trouble on the blood in the streets level. It's not even a question.

Edit: it was Stui who raised the question, by the way.

[Tannin]

[Wokko]

[Pies4shaw]

^^^ Well, we still would here in the fine electorate of Melbourne.

[Tannin]

Thirdly, it is mad to propose abandoning a (mostly) fair voting system in favour of a (mostly) unfair system just because our current version of the (mostly) fair was unwisely modified a few years ago thanks to collusion between the two biggest parties. They rammed through the current above-the-line modification, and now the micro parties are wising up to the flaws in that modification and gaming the system. This is why we have had a rash of absurdities which do not even come close to reflecting the will of the people. These were not caused by the preferential system, they were and are caused by the bastardisation of it by the big parties, who brought in the very sensible idea of a simpler, above-the-line modification, but then added the absurd and undemocratic rider that the political parties, not the voters, would determine preference flow.

The only thing that needs to be fixed - as has already been proposed at federal level - is to make the above-the-line section preferential, just like every other vote. For example, you might vote (1) Green, (2) Liberal, (3) Labor, (4) Family First. When the Green candidate(s) are eliminated, your preference goes to the Liberals. Perfectly fair, perfectly simple. But right now if you do that, your vote is discarded as informal. You are forced to number only one square and if you vote above the line, and your preferences are hijacked by the party.

[David]

I just see the preferential system as much more sophisticated and representative. It's more democratic, too—in a first past the post system, you potentially get candidates being elected when only 30-40% of the electorate have voted for them; hardly a mandate. With preferential voting, you're at least guaranteed that the majority preferred the winning candidate over the other one. That's how we get the two-party-preferred result at the end of the count; in theory, make it a two-horse race and that's how people would have voted.

Using your example of Bentleigh, the majority of people there used their ballot papers to say that they preferred the ALP over the Liberals. That's why Labor won: their two-party-preferred vote was higher. To turn around then and give the seat to the party that happens to have more first preferences would actually be less representative of the electorate's wishes, not more.

You also end up with complete duopolies, because the decision to preference a minor party risks splitting the vote and delivering victory to the major party candidate you most ideologically oppose—a risk that obviously ends up as a significant deterrent. That effectively renders minor parties redundant, as they are in the US. And that's obviously bad for democracy.

It's a no-brainer for me.

[Wokko]

Yeah, without run offs a first past the post system is pretty bad. I remember the independents in the USA presidential races only ever achieve splitting the vote and having their ideological enemies win.

As for having run offs in every seat without a 50%+ win... two elections? Eww, no thanks.

[David]

^ Yeah, and keep in mind that if you get 50%+ of the primary vote in a preferential system, you win the seat anyway. So I don't see the appeal of FPTP at all.

[Jezza]

Thanks for all the responses! I certainly don't advocate a change but I hear this being brought up at every election either at a federal or state level and I was interested to hear what people thought about this as some people dislike the current voting system as it stands.

Sorry Tannin for misquoting you as you being the one who raised this question as it was Stui who actually mentioned it in the state election thread after all which you quite rightly pointed out.

By the way I didn't vote in this poll either for those thinking that I may have voted for first past the post instead of preferential voting.

[stui magpie]

it was me who mentioned it and I don't agree with the criticism of it being undemocratic, it's about as democratic as it gets.

One person, one vote, make it count. None of this bullshit making a list of favourites in order, pick who you want to win. It's like ordering dinner, you don't get to go through the menu and list them all in preference, just fkn pick one. I'm not interested in who your second choice of AFL teams are, you're either Collingwood or your not. The fact that you support West Coast but Collingwood is your second team is rubbish. Fkn Pick one.

Yeah it would impact the minor parties, that's not a bad thing. People would think twice (maybe) about voting for the BLAH party if they figured they were unlikely to be able to win in their own right and it would stop the undemocratic crap we currently get with parties gaming the preferential system to get elected with 2% of the vote.

On the other hand, a grass roots movement that really attracted peoples attention would have a chance of success.

And I love this idea that someone could get elected with only 30% of the vote and that is somehow undemocratic. FFS, how much more democratic could it get? So only 30% of people voted for that party, but more people voted for them than for anyone else.

If it's a problem people would adjust their voting patterns.

All the preferential voting system does is add unnecessary complexity and bureaucracy to what should be a simple process.

[Wokko]

Seriously considered this now. I don't mind preferential voting but I think it needs reform. While first past the post appears the most fair, the fact is we'd have wall to wall Liberal governments forever and while their supporters would like that I don't think it's good for democracy. There are numerous examples of one party democratic states and it doesn't go too well.

I'd make preferential voting like reverse Brownlow voting. You give a 1, 2 and 3 and that's it. If you want to chuck in your protest vote to the Sex Party then you can, then put two serious parties 2 and 3. Same voting system for both houses and no preferences flow past your third, if your 3rd preference isn't up then in the bin it goes. Upper houses of course can keep the below the line, but above it's 1, 2, 3 then bin.

I'd also make voting voluntary, but that's a different thread altogether

[Culprit]

Conservatives would love voluntary voting. The lower class get dumb down, don't care and don't vote. Our System works, the only reason we have what we have is because BOTH major parties are FULL of Shite. Poll Diven Policies so they Promise the world, are corrupt and full of people who are only interested what's in it for them. Many of whom come out of uni and straight into politics.

The System works fine, it's the morons driving it are the issue.

[stui magpie]

[David]