i know a few are searching far and deep looking at the alternatives to OUR two-party preferred system
that too , but it all starts in the party pre-selection process , branch-stacking , recruiting your mates so you get the 'numbers ' and of course you have the 'party backers ' and lobbyistsThe two party preferred system is not our problem…the issue is that our political system only appeals to a certain narrow section of our society who frankly have narcissist personality traits. Our system only appeals to sycophants wanting to perpetuate the same old same old. Our system does not enable true reformists
Ain’t that the truththat too , but it all starts in the party pre-selection process , branch-stacking , recruiting your mates so you get the 'numbers ' and of course you have the 'party backers ' and lobbyists
It actually does enable true reform. It's just that the average dumbarse pleb doesn't realise it and nobody is going to tell them.The two party preferred system is not our problem…the issue is that our political system only appeals to a certain narrow section of our society who frankly have narcissist personality traits. Our system only appeals to sycophants wanting to perpetuate the same old same old. Our system does not enable true reformists
Where is the true reform then?It actually does enable true reform. It's just that the average dumbarse pleb doesn't realise it and nobody is going to tell them.
It is contained with our preferential voting system. We plebeians can affect a reform via our vote, if only most of us realised the power we actually do have.Where is the true reform then?
It is contained with our preferential voting system. We plebeians can affect a reform via our vote, if only most of us realised the power we actually do have.
The narrative is that we have a two party system, vis-a-vis the two party preferred narrative.
That is not the power of a preferential system, even if presented as such by both the major parties and the media.
It may be somewhat of a psychological process but, we plebeians have the wherewithal to completely change the ideological landscape of our country by the way we vote, if I knew we realised, en masse, that we can do so.
Lay the blame squarely at the lack of education of how our system works, primarily but not exclusively at the Australian electoral commissions feet.
There are other villains here, notably the media and the education system.
But how is it that after decades and decades of this system that almost nobody understands it. My suspicion is that it suits the establishment for it to be so.
That doesn't take away that, if only we peons understood it, we could change everything, over time
My comment was more directed to politicians who have the balls to bring about true reform—all they have done for many decades is tinker around the edge and avoid the big ticket stuff that is often unpopular but very necessary. We have seen no meaningful reform in many decades. I don’t mean political highbrow rubbish—I mean reform that is truely meaningful to the general publicIt is contained with our preferential voting system. We plebeians can affect a reform via our vote, if only most of us realised the power we actually do have.
The narrative is that we have a two party system, vis-a-vis the two party preferred narrative.
That is not the power of a preferential system, even if presented as such by both the major parties and the media.
It may be somewhat of a psychological process but, we plebeians have the wherewithal to completely change the ideological landscape of our country by the way we vote, if I knew we realised, en masse, that we can do so.
Lay the blame squarely at the lack of education of how our system works, primarily but not exclusively at the Australian electoral commissions feet.
There are other villains here, notably the media and the education system.
But how is it that after decades and decades of this system that almost nobody understands it. My suspicion is that it suits the establishment for it to be so.
That doesn't take away that, if only we peons understood it, we could change everything, over time
Not quite right.It is contained with our preferential voting system. We plebeians can affect a reform via our vote, if only most of us realised the power we actually do have.
The narrative is that we have a two party system, vis-a-vis the two party preferred narrative.
That is not the power of a preferential system, even if presented as such by both the major parties and the media.
It may be somewhat of a psychological process but, we plebeians have the wherewithal to completely change the ideological landscape of our country by the way we vote, if I knew we realised, en masse, that we can do so.
Lay the blame squarely at the lack of education of how our system works, primarily but not exclusively at the Australian electoral commissions feet.
There are other villains here, notably the media and the education system.
But how is it that after decades and decades of this system that almost nobody understands it. My suspicion is that it suits the establishment for it to be so.
That doesn't take away that, if only we peons understood it, we could change everything, over time
That is because they will be no reform while plebeians continue to vote binarily(sic, because I love inventing words).My comment was more directed to politicians who have the balls to bring about true reform—all they have done for many decades is tinker around the edge and avoid the big ticket stuff that is often unpopular but very necessary. We have seen no meaningful reform in many decades. I don’t mean political highbrow rubbish—I mean reform that is truely meaningful to the general public
You implication is that the voter is tied into the preferences as distributed by the party they vote for as number one.Not quite right.
Preferential voting requires the voting process to be exhausted, via a preferential count if necessary, until a candidate has one more vote than any other.
A major flaw of this process is that from time to time Labor or Liberal preferences end up being counted towards their principal parliamentary opponent. This effectively leads to a defacto 2 party system and it's just a nonsense! If I vote Green, the last thing I want is to see that my ballot's preferences ending up contributing to a Country Party member being voted in!
Optional preferential voting overcomes this by allowing voters to choose only one, or any other number, in preference. Thus in a 3 horse race it's smart to only use a primary vote so that no preferences are distributed.
On the other hand, there may be a few candidates hard to separate, plus a few you would never vote for in a fit. So in that case allocate preference votes only to those you would like to see elected.
Optional preferential voting would be especially valuable in Senate elections where preference deals have seen people elected who get less than a fraction of a percent of the primary vote.
Both major parties know that optional preferential voting would disadvantage them, so this electoral reform will never pass federally.
Having been a scrutineer I am always surprised at the comparatively low number of informal votes, despite occasionally funny and rude comments and drawings on ballot papers.
Not so.You implication is that the voter is tied into the preferences as distributed by the party they vote for as number one.
CorrectNot so.
I determine the order for House votes and for Senate votes, providing the latter vote is below the line.
Happy to educate you.
That is because they will be no reform while plebeians continue to vote binarily(sic, because I love inventing words).
I explained that the present system requires an exhaustion of preferences if the primary votes don't give a winner.Correct
But there is the choice
If I am interpreting what you were saying correctly that's me would seem to validate my personal opinion that voting should be non compulsory.I explained that the present system requires an exhaustion of preferences if the primary votes don't give a winner.
In those cases (Lower House) I cannot say I won't give a preference to a candidate I detest, know to be dishonest or has stupid policies, as it invalidates the vote.
How is that a valid choice?
I do have some sympathy with your point of view here. They just seem to be in most of the minors, a deal breaker as far as I see the viewpoint of most Australians.Why are you suggesting it is the voting public (I don't have the distain for voters that you seem to do) that continue to vote binarily (I like that word) and that is the cause of our problems. What serious alternatives are there--Greens (don't make me laugh), One Nation (doubt it), United (really). While it is easy to believe you are perhaps smarter then the average voter the reality is there are no serious alternatives to the two majors.
I don't agree.my point is that collectively we can via the preferential system effect changed our country politically, on the assumption that all are educated enough to do so.
But most of those votes then get redistributed, usually ending going to one of the major parties.*In my opinion*, if each Australian would analyse this on an objective level as possible, most would find themselves voting outside of the major parties.
Yes it is off topic, but a pretty important conversation, so I hope all will indulge us.I don't agree.
For a start, unless you had actually participated in a Senate vote count you would have no idea how complex it is, and above and below the line voting complicates it even more, given both types of voting preferences have to be counted.
And, if I don't want to give a preference to a candidate, then my vote becomes invalid.
How exactly does tour idea work?
And apologies for discussing this in the wtrong thread.
Very few House votes are invalid, so as I repeat, many voters end up ultimately giving a vote to a candidate they vehemently don't want. There is no avoiding this fact, and no amount of education will change it.But also that does not take away my point that it is *possible by our system to effect reform.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?