Electoral system: Like the one we have, or should we get another?

[Alden]

As most of us know, America has a winner take all, first past the post type system. Majority rules. Many Americans fail to realize that there are other systems out there. Should we change our current system? Abolish the electoral college? What to do?

I look forward to hearing from all, especially the Brits, Aussies, and New Zealanders.

[Socrates]

Australia has the much better Preferential Voting system. In this, voters in an electorate list their candidates for each seat in order of preference. If the first preference does not get an absolute majority, then the second preferences are considered, and so on. So the winner is the one who is preferred by the majority.

It avoids the anomaly in the plurality system (misnamed "first past the post" since there is no post in any sense, even metaphorical) of splitting voters with similar candidates. E.g. in the Yank system, Perot split the conservative vote and drew people away from Bush, allowing the liberal Wilhelm Klinton to win, which would not have been the preferred result of most Perot voters. But under the preferential system, the conservative voters would presumably have given the preferences to the other conservative, since they would prefer either to the liberal.

It is also more democratic — people would feel more at ease voting for a minor candidate knowing it would not be a "wasted vote" and allow someone they REALLY don't want to slip in, because the second preference would be counted. But under your system, I despaired of well-meaning Christians voting for a more overtly Christian candidate, when the only effect of this was a vote for the anti-Christian Gore.

But what goes around, comes around. Last election, it was the turn of the liberals to have their vote split by Nader's ninnies.

But I can't see the Yanx changing to a superior system — they even maintain the farcical Electoral College, a relic of days where states had to send representatives by sailing ship or horse and cart, so Alden is right to ask whether this should be maintained.

Oh, the Aussie Senate elections are under a similar but more complicated system called Single Transferable Vote, which treats the whole state preferentially.

New Zealand threw out the plurality system in favor of Mixed Member Proportional, as they have in Germany (and in West Germany before reunification). In this, people get two votes: one for the local candidate, who is selected by the plurality system, and one for the party. The overall composition of the parliament is determined by the proportion of party votes, and the ones not elected locally are filled in order from pre-published party lists. But there is a 5% threshold which undermines the claim that it's truly proportional. However, an advantage of MMP is that people can vote out a slack candidate without hurting their party. I should let a Kiwi explain his/her system more ...

[Alden]

I did a research paper a few years ago on the Australian system, and I found it to be most interesting. I think it would be quite the experiment to try it over here, but we all know it'll be a very long time before that happens.

And yes, the electoral college is farcical.

[Ryokan]

I don't know. Our system is bumpy, but it works, and I don't like messing with the constitution unless really necessary.

[Alden]

I'm not necessarily for change either, but we don't have the most representative of systems.

For example:

14% of the county that I live in voted Green in the last prez election. So, it would be safe to say that there is a decent number of Greens. However, these people get almost no representation in government.

Another point that might be made-

The two party system has become stale. It seems to most Americans that politicians' concern for their constituencies is a distant second to their concerns regarding their positions of power.

[Socrates]

Ryokan:

Our system is bumpy, but it works,Umm, after Florida in the last Presidential election you still think so? Not only is the Electoral College a quaint relic, but the antiquated voting machines are a joke that nearly caused a constitutional crisis.

... and I don't like messing with the constitution unless really necessary.Conversely I fail to see why the governmental thoughts of people living 200 years ago must be held sacrosanct. I understand fewer than 50% of people vote in your country, which speaks of disillusionment with the plurality system which preserves the two-party stranglehold.

And it's far better that the elected representatives amend the Constitution openly rather than unelected activist judges declaring that the Constitution means something totally foreign to what the original writers intended.

[GrayPilgrim]

02-26-2003 @ 06:50 PM
Alden:


Another point that might be made-

The two party system has become stale. It seems to most Americans that politicians' concern for their constituencies is a distant second to their concerns regarding their positions of power.

Ahh, if only we'd listened to George Washington's farewell address and his admonishen against parties. Unfortunately Congress has become ordered along a two party system with the majority leaders and such. It would take a major overhall of the system, and I think the inertia is too great barring the colapse of one of the parties along the lines of the Whigs in the 1850s, which I don't see happening anytime soon..


Socrates,

As to Florida, I think you identified only part of the problem, antiquated machines which these people had used for years (and probably goofed all along only show part of the issue). In fact, my wife works for DieBold which mostly makes ATM machines, but also has a large part of the voting machine market. They have developed new systems that would prevent the problem, thing is doesn't matter how smart you make the machine, it still doesn't cure stupidity.

Gp

See http://sct.staghosting.com/index.html as posted by Em7 in the computer lab. :argh:

[Ryokan]

Because not a place, not a enthnicity, but rather the political ideas defined in that document Socrates, define what it is to be an American. And we are loath to lose that.
And there was no revelution. The election was carried out. It worked.

[Alden]

the political ideas defined in that document Socrates, define what it is to be an American. And we are loath to lose that.
And there was no revelution. The election was carried out. It worked.

The main political idea was "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The idea was to have a representative government. How many people would say that they feel wholly represented by the current 2 party system? Having only two parties was never set down in the Constitution. Isn't possible that changing to something that is more representative could be closer to the intent of the founders?

[Alden]

And yes the election was carried out, but many would argue with the statement "it worked."

[Patroclus]

And it's far better that the elected representatives amend the Constitution openly rather than unelected activist judges declaring that the Constitution means something totally foreign to what the original writers intended.

Regardless of how people try to make the interpretation of intent, it is impossible. We may know a bit of background and put some puzzle pieces together, but we will never know for certain what the original authors intended. To claim authorial intent is called the intentional fallacy. Now, I am not saying this to invalidate any historical influences on the Constitution. What I am saying is that historical influence cannot be the only rule.


But I can't see the Yanx changing to a superior system — they even maintain the farcical Electoral College, a relic of days where states had to send representatives by sailing ship or horse and cart, so Alden is right to ask whether this should be maintained.

Not exaclty (and Alden can correct me if I am wrong on this). Yes, it was quite a burden to be a part of the electoral college. However, the primary reason for this were backed by people such as Alexander Hamilton--a person who was quite Hobbesian in his politics. On one extreme you have Hamilton, who wanted strong govenrmental control and limited citizen control. On the other extreme, you have Jefferson, who wanted minimal governmental control and strong citizen control.

What the electoral college does is removes direct control from the population at large, yet helps determine which electoral voter will vote for whom. I am not saying it is a great system, but that is the theory behind it.


Because not a place, not a enthnicity, but rather the political ideas defined in that document Socrates, define what it is to be an American. And we are loath to lose that.

Then America is schizophrenic. The Constitution has changed, and so have the people of the nation that it represents. The constitution does not define America, just the basis for her laws.


And there was no revelution.
Yeah, because people realized what kind of bloody mess those things are.


The election was carried out. It worked.

If, like I said, the electoral college is supposed to represent their constituency when they vote, then the electoral college failed because Florida did not vote for George Bush.

edited because of a horribel mistake.

[Socrates]

Socrates:
------------------------------------------------------
And it's far better that the elected representatives amend the Constitution openly rather than unelected activist judges declaring that the Constitution means something totally foreign to what the original writers intended.
------------------------------------------------------
Patroclus:
Regardless of how people try to make the interpretation of intent, it is impossible. We may know a bit of background and put some puzzle pieces together, but we will never know for certain what the original authors intended. To claim authorial intent is called the intentional fallacy. Oh come off it. We have a far better idea from the history and language of their day what they meant by what they said. And if you are right, then why bother to have a Constitution at all?

It's just crazy to have unelected justicies push their own social engineering agenda under the guise of what is "Constitutional". E.g. there's no way the framers thought that school prayer was a violation. And when you have Blackmun inventing a "right to privacy" by some eisegetical twist of the Constution, then applying this alleged "right" to declare open slather on the unborn, that should be evidence of a need to overhaul the system. Let's pray that Bush can overcome the Dems' filibustering and appoint proper judges who will apply the law rather than make it.

[Epoetker]

It's just crazy to have unelected justicies push their own social engineering agenda under the guise of what is "Constitutional". E.g. there's no way the framers thought that school prayer was a violation. And when you have Blackmun inventing a "right to privacy" by some eisegetical twist of the Constution, then applying this alleged "right" to declare open slather on the unborn, that should be evidence of a need to overhaul the system.

Nah, just a need to replace the judge. We've been able to recall county and city judges by referenda here; it should be a practice that gets extended upward as much as constitutionally feasible(Americans aren't nearly as loath to change state constitutions, so hopefully once Ahnold and a swath of Republicans gets elected in 2006, the cons here will pressure for the removal of that abominable California 9th Circuit.)

[Jaltus]

Um, guys, remember that the US is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY.

Until we reform our entire system, we MUST keep the electoral college.

[$cirisme]

I think our system works, for the most part.

And when it doesn't work, there are safeguards of the other branches of government that can step in and make it work

Florida was not a failure of the electoral college, it was a failure of the courts. The courts did nothing to prevent one man from trying to steal an election, an election in which he was not once ahead.

Thank goodness that the Supreme Court stopped it, heaven help us if if it(the SC) doesn't stop it again.

I'm in favor of reforming our judicial system, not the electoral college.

[Patroclus]

By Socrates
Oh come off it. We have a far better idea from the history and language of their day what they meant by what they said. And if you are right, then why bother to have a Constitution at all?

The next time you try to use my words to make me sound like an idiot, please give better context. Do you remember the rest of the paragraph?


By Patroclus
Now, I am not saying this to invalidate any historical influences on the Constitution. What I am saying is that historical influence cannot be the only rule.


We get the same problem when trying to do a hermeneutical review of scripture. The idea behind the logical fallacy is that there is no possible way to prove authorial intent. We can make inferences based on the language, which is valid. But even if you were able to ask the author, he or she could be lying or forgetfull. This is classic literary criticism.


the US is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY.

Actually, we are neither, though we are closer to a republic. A republic is, essentially, rule by the elite. Of course, that is a bit broad, but there you have it--wiggle room. Ultimately, our elite members of society (senators, legislators, executives, justices) make our final decisions. What skews us from a strict republic is that the people place them. That is why we are often called a "Representative Democracy."

[Ryokan]

I am not sure that a less representative system isn't better for this country. It keeps extremist groups from getting elected.

[Socrates]

Patroclus:

The next time you try to use my words to make me sound like an idiot, please give better context.
Fair comment, I'll try. :bow: But my motivation wasn't what you said—I save that for known vociferous atheists.

All the same, the encroachment of post-modernism on both Constitutional Law and Biblical Hermeneutics is cause for deep concern. :eek:

[Alden]

I am not sure that a less representative system isn't better for this country. It keeps extremist groups from getting elected.

How do you think that this would happen? It is true that some would get elected, but do you think that it would adversely affect the country? Let's say that the "anti-Marsupial" party gets 3% of the vote. This means that they get 3% of the seats. This is hardly enough to control the gov't, or even seriously influence it.

[PuritanD]

I find this debate a bit strange. Alden's original post is an interesting question but I find it hard to believe that we can compare the election of the US government with any parlimentary govenment. If I understand correctly, the Australian form of gov. is parlimentarian and not a fair comparison. The parlimentarian form does not separate the powers of government as the US constition requires. In a parlimentary gov., who ever has the majority rules the executive branch (Prime minister). Yet, in the US, the executive and legislative branch are independent of each other.

Historically, the electoral college was not a winner take all. It depends upon each state as to how they want to distribute their electorate number. For example, one just needs to look at the presidential election of 1860 or earlier and see that in some states the electorate number is split via the popular vote (ex. if one canidate has 60% of pop. vote then he received 60% of that state's electorate). It would be hard to replace the electoral college and not practical.

The best reform is to have each state revise its winner take all stance and replace it with a format in which each canidate receives a percentage of the electorate per popular vote. Of course, the pop. vote would need to be rounded up or down since it is are to have a .1 or.23 of a electorate. But, it does encourage a more direct vote for a presidential candidate.

Though we have a two party system now, it is not impossible to have more parties. If I recall correctly, there were 9 - 13 presidential candidates for president on the ballot.

The green party and libertarian party are great examples of parties that are building, especially at local levels. We should also remember that senators and those in the house of representatives are voted directly by the people. This should be the primary focuse of any new party that would like to get on the national scene prior to trying to achieve the presidency.

[Socrates]

Australia has an Upper and Lower House too. The Prime Minister is the leader of the latter, and the Upper House is also called the Senate. The Senate has some powers to block the Lower House, and this may result in a Double Dissolution election. New Zealand has only one House, like the Australian state of Queensland.

However, all this is independent of whether the voting system is preferential, plurality, or mixed member proportional, and I think that's what Alden was after.

[Alden]

Exactly

[GrayPilgrim]

03-02-2003 @ 09:51 PM
Patroclus:


"Representative Democracy."

Actually it is a representative republic, not a representative democracy (which seems a little redundant) --think of the pledge--"...and the Republic for which it stands"

GP

[PuritanD]

Socrates,

Thanks for the information. Is the Australian PM parallel to our President? Does the PM have executive authority, commander in chief, etc. as does our President?

If so, then we are still comparing apples to oranges. For the PM is not voted for by the people but by His compatriots in the lower house. Whereas, our president is elected independantly of who controls the lower house in congress.

[Patroclus]

Fair comment, I'll try. But my motivation wasn't what you said—I save that for known vociferous atheists.


No harm done Socrates. I am sorry that read too much into what you were saying.


the encroachment of post-modernism on both Constitutional Law and Biblical Hermeneutics is cause for deep concern.

True, but it is not completely without validity either. There has to be some contemporary insight where the Constitution is concerned. How else will it stay relevant?

[Paul]

There are a couple problems with the Australian system though as admirable as it is:

1. Dummy votes. Voting is required in Australia; if you don't vote, you pay a fine. So some people just vote in order: 1, 2, 3, ,4 ,5. And so candidates like to be at the top of the list. I think they may have randomized ballots now... not sure.

2. Dishonest or strategic voting. If the race boils down to two main candidates, often one candidate will tell his supporters to list the other candidate as number 5 rather than as number 2 or 3 or 4. So even if a voter likes one candidate the best and the other 2nd best, she may choose to list the one she likes 2nd best as number 5 just to screw him over. So this is a problem and I don't see anyway to solve it.

[themuzicman]

1) We are a democratic republic. A republic is just a state that doesn't have a monarchy (see www.dictionary.com )

2) The electoral college was designed to prevent candidates from winning large majorities in a couple of large states and leaving the remainder of the states out in the cold. With the electoral system, you could win New York by 51/49 or by 75/25, and you'd get the same number of electors. This ensures that a larger portion of the states (and people) are represented in the vote for president.

It's brilliant, really.

Michael

[Ben Franklin]

03-03-2003 @ 01:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=26543#post26543)
Ryokan:

I am not sure that a less representative system isn't better for this country. It keeps extremist groups from getting elected.

When the guy at the wheel has the power to propose and dispose, we're not much better off. National policies are now built from a stacked deck. I liked it better when the president's power in the legislative process was limited to the veto. We're losing !

[Alden]

clarification please

[India]

themuzicman:

2) The electoral college was designed to prevent candidates from winning large majorities in a couple of large states and leaving the remainder of the states out in the cold. With the electoral system, you could win New York by 51/49 or by 75/25, and you'd get the same number of electors. This ensures that a larger portion of the states (and people) are represented in the vote for president.

But that was back when there were a lot more regional differences. Besides, with the electoral college, if you don't vote for the winner in your state then your vote is effectively thrown out. I used to live in Massachusetts, which is solidly liberal. Since I wasn't going to vote for the Presidential candidate that was almost certain to win the state, it really didn't make any difference who else I voted for, or whether I voted at all.

With Australia's system, my vote would still count the same no matter where I lived, and I could express my opinion much better - I could say that I really wanted candidate A to win, but given that candidates B and C were the most popular, I'd rather have B over C.

[nomad]

How do you think that this would happen? It is true that some would get elected, but do you think that it would adversely affect the country? Let's say that the "anti-Marsupial" party gets 3% of the vote. This means that they get 3% of the seats. This is hardly enough to control the gov't, or even seriously influence it.

you might be surprised... imagine that both the democratic and republican parties had 49 senators each, and the anti-marsupial party had the other 2. even with only 2 senators, they could wield an incredible amount of influence, as they can play one side against the other, because either side can pass what they want with their support (and get 51 to 49). in the senate, this isn't strictly true - the other side can filibuster sometimes too... but then, so can these two.

i'm not saying this is necessarily worse, nor that it's necessarily better, but that it *is* a significant difference.

though, the more smaller parties there are, the effect is lessened.. once you get to 4 or 5, it seems to change again.



When the guy at the wheel has the power to propose and dispose, we're not much better off. National policies are now built from a stacked deck. I liked it better when the president's power in the legislative process was limited to the veto. We're losing !

how do you figure? a veto is a pretty powerful power, you know. no one said the president is the only one who can propose; anyone in congress can as well. but, if you know the president will veto certain things, you have to build that into your proposal, as a give-and-take, and it's good to have some proposals from the president so you get an idea of what he's looking for and what he will and will not veto or sign. and presidents have often had to deal with hostile congresses... it sometimes means not much gets done... but sometimes i think that was the goal of the original framers :) forces change to come relatively slowly, and less likely for something rash to happen that way...

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=333233#post333233)
Paul:

There are a couple problems with the Australian system though as admirable as it is:

1. Dummy votes. Voting is required in Australia; if you don't vote, you pay a fine. So some people just vote in order: 1, 2, 3, ,4 ,5. And so candidates like to be at the top of the list. I think they may have randomized ballots now... not sure.

I disagree with our compulsory voting. But this is independent of whether preferential or plurality systems are used. Plurality voting would have exactly the same problem if votes were compulsory, but with an even greater skewing to the candidate at the top.


2. Dishonest or strategic voting. If the race boils down to two main candidates, often one candidate will tell his supporters to list the other candidate as number 5 rather than as number 2 or 3 or 4. So even if a voter likes one candidate the best and the other 2nd best, she may choose to list the one she likes 2nd best as number 5 just to screw him over. So this is a problem and I don't see anyway to solve it.

Since this depends on voters not making their own minds up, this is hardly a problem. And if there are two main candidates, even in this case, a voter will still be able to influence the result towards her preferred candidate, as long as this is above the second preferred candidate. Even if the second one is placed last, it won't skew the results because all the minor candidate places will not matter in the end.

This is surely better than the alternative which occurs in America, where there is a huge danger that your vote may result in your least preferred candidate getting elected because two similar candidates split the vote. It happened with Perot splitting off a lot of conservative votes from Bush Sr., and Nader splitting off a lot of liberal votes from Gore.

[Socrates]

Today @ 08:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=333513#post333513)
India:

With Australia's system, my vote would still count the same no matter where I lived, and I could express my opinion much better - I could say that I really wanted candidate A to win, but given that candidates B and C were the most popular, I'd rather have B over C.

Exactly, India. So you would vote A-1, B-2 and C-3, and there is no way that your vote would result in C slipping through because A and B split the votes between people who liked either of them better than C.

[Socrates]

03-05-2003 @ 03:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=27847#post27847)
PuritanD:

Socrates,

Thanks for the information. Is the Australian PM parallel to our President? Does the PM have executive authority, commander in chief, etc. as does our President?

Nope. The president is elected democratically, while the PM is more like a true republican leader -- the leader of the leading party in the lower house.


If so, then we are still comparing apples to oranges. For the PM is not voted for by the people but by His compatriots in the lower house. Whereas, our president is elected independantly of who controls the lower house in congress.

But preferential voting would be superior in both the presidential and congressional elections.

[India]

Socrates, how exactly is the vote tallied? Do they look at all the #1s first, and if no one gets a majority of 1s they look at 1s and 2s, etc?

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Ryokan:

Because not a place, not a enthnicity, but rather the political ideas defined in that document Socrates, define what it is to be an American. And we are loath to lose that.
And there was no revelution. The election was carried out. It worked.

Political ideas can get way to different manifestations. For example, we could still have the idea of the senate, but have it so that on average all states have two senators, but that the range of senators could be from one to four. Giving North and South Dakota, Rhode Island, and some other dinky little states one senator, and California four senators would still serve as a check against popular democracy, but it would also permit for more democracy.

If the idea is that a combination of Democracy and Republic is wise for gov't that is all fine and well, but it leaves us with some discretion over just what sort of combination we should have.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Ryokan:

I am not sure that a less representative system isn't better for this country. It keeps extremist groups from getting elected.

Or it helps maintain the Duopoly of control by the Repubs and Dems. Any "extremist" group to be effective and maintain power would have to compromise with the big-boys. This would maintain continuity, which is the valid concern.


Paul:

There are a couple problems with the Australian system though as admirable as it is:

1. Dummy votes. Voting is required in Australia; if you don't vote, you pay a fine. So some people just vote in order: 1, 2, 3, ,4 ,5. And so candidates like to be at the top of the list. I think they may have randomized ballots now... not sure.

2. Dishonest or strategic voting. If the race boils down to two main candidates, often one candidate will tell his supporters to list the other candidate as number 5 rather than as number 2 or 3 or 4. So even if a voter likes one candidate the best and the other 2nd best, she may choose to list the one she likes 2nd best as number 5 just to screw him over. So this is a problem and I don't see anyway to solve it.

No-one is saying that we appropriate all of the features of the Aus. system. There could be measures to reduce the costs of voting for all, as opposed to making everyone vote.

As for strategic voting, this is possible but the main idea is that the one-vote, one-candidate inadequately represents people's political priorities. Any particular individual's vote is unlikely to make a difference and so voting is an expressive act and if you aren't going to express your priorities accurately then what is the point? In practice, I doubt strategic voting is that serious. At any rate, it doesn't outweigh the downsides of the existing voting system here in the US.


themuzicman:

1) We are a democratic republic. A republic is just a state that doesn't have a monarchy (see www.dictionary.com )

2) The electoral college was designed to prevent candidates from winning large majorities in a couple of large states and leaving the remainder of the states out in the cold. With the electoral system, you could win New York by 51/49 or by 75/25, and you'd get the same number of electors. This ensures that a larger portion of the states (and people) are represented in the vote for president.

It's brilliant, really.

Michael

It's not brilliant so much as effective at ensuring a certain regional balance of power.


nomad:

you might be surprised... imagine that both the democratic and republican parties had 49 senators each, and the anti-marsupial party had the other 2. even with only 2 senators, they could wield an incredible amount of influence, as they can play one side against the other, because either side can pass what they want with their support (and get 51 to 49). in the senate, this isn't strictly true - the other side can filibuster sometimes too... but then, so can these two.

i'm not saying this is necessarily worse, nor that it's necessarily better, but that it *is* a significant difference.

though, the more smaller parties there are, the effect is lessened.. once you get to 4 or 5, it seems to change again.

I think it depends on what sort of behavioral assumptions are made about the third-party that holds the balance of power. What I like about having a coalition of third parties holding the median seat in congress or the house of representatives is that it reduces the winner-take-all situation we were in last year with both parties make incredibly large expenditures so that they would get control of the Senate.

dlw

[themuzicman]

The US is (was) set up as a federation of sovereign states who organized a government to unify them into one nation. The presidency, the senate, and the judiciary were designed to be elected/selected by the states, and the house of representatives would represent the people. In fact, states would appoint Senators, rather than have an election. That changed in the early 1900s (18th amendment?)

Also, the judiciary didn't originally have jurisdiction over a case between an individual and his own state (see the judiciary section of the constitution), until the 14th amendment (a necessary but unfortunate development.)

So, the US is a somewhat different setup than most nations, since we (at least originally) honored the sovereignty of each state, except where they agreed to give up power to the federal government as designated in the constitution.

Which is also why 3/4s of the states have to approve constitutional amendments.

Michael

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 11:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=333698#post333698)
India:

Socrates, how exactly is the vote tallied? Do they look at all the #1s first, and if no one gets a majority of 1s they look at 1s and 2s, etc?

India, that's about right. Here is more detail:

Preferential Voting in Australia (http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/preferential.shtml)

The system of preferential voting is relatively exclusive to the Australian political system. Most similar political systems employ the Simple Majority (First-Past-The-Post) system.

Preferential voting is employed in elections for the House of Representatives and all State lower houses in Australia, apart from the Tasmanian House of Assembly and the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly.

Preferential voting: is used in single-member electorates
requires the winning candidate to secure either an absolute majority (50%+1) of the primary vote or an absolute majority after the distribution of preferences The main elements of the operation of preferential voting are as follows: voters are required to place the number "1" against the candidate of their choice, known as their "first preference."
voters are then required to place the numbers "2", "3", etc., against the other candidates listed on the ballot paper in order of preference.
the counting of first preference votes, also known as the "primary vote", takes place first. If no candidate secures an absolute majority of primary votes, then the candidate with the least number of votes is "eliminated" from the count.
the ballot papers of the eliminated candidate are examined and re-allocated amongst the remaining candidates according to the number "2", or "second preference" votes.
if no candidate has yet secured an absolute majority of the vote, then the next candidate with the least number of primary votes is eliminated. This preference allocation continues until there is a candidate with an absolute majority. Where a second preference is expressed for a candidate who has already been eliminated, the voter's third or subsequent preferences are used. Following the full allocation of preferences, it is possible to derive a "two-party-preferred" figure, where the votes are divided between the two main candidates in the election. In Australia, this is usually between the Labor and non-Labor candidates.

The distribution of preferences takes place in every electoral division in federal elections so that national two-party-preferred figures can be calculated.

Advantages of the Preferential System It ensures that only a candidate with the support of an absolute majority of the electorate can win, eliminating the possibility of minority winners. Put another way, the winning candidate is the "most preferred" or "least disliked" candidate.
It ensures that voters can support minor parties and independent candidates, knowing that their preferences may be used to decide the winner. Thus, votes for minor parties and independents are not wasted.
It allows parties of like-minded philosophies or policies to "exchange preferences" in order to assist each other to win.
It promotes a strong two-party system, ensuring stability in the parliamentary process. Disadvantages of the Preferential System It is more complicated to administer and count.
It can produce a higher level of informal voting.
It promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.
Voters are forced to express a preference for candidates they may not wish to support in any way. (The use of optional preferential voting, as used in New South Wales State elections, is a solution to this problem.)

[Paul]

I'm sold :smile: