Multiple choice voting

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

The only difference I would make is that if a candidate got 50%+ of the vote in the first round it would be over.

It usually is so. In most such systems ballots are held only when the first round doesn't give absolute majority.

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

It usually is so. In most such systems ballots are held only when the first round doesn't give absolute majority.

Hi Q,

Even a recall election follows the same principal.

(in Australia) When the first round doesn't give a majority the preferences of the candidate with the least number of votes are redistributed based on their secondary preferences (i.e. their no 2 selection, preferential voting as referred to by Michaelangelica). If no majority exists the next lowest candidates preferences are distributed until a winner is decided out of the last 2 candidates.

But there can be 2 variations that can cause vastly different results.

For instance, when you must fill in all preferences on the ballot (i.e. 1.. n where n is the number of candidates) or be penalised (and have your vote rejected), one or the other major political party will be guaranteed a win.

But, when you don't have to use all of your preferences (i.e. just place 1 in your selected candidates box or 1, 2, 3 but not all candidates) you have the right to determine which candidates will not get your final preference, if you so desire.

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

Hi Q,

Even a recall election follows the same principal.

(in Australia) When the first round doesn't give a majority the preferences of the candidate with the least number of votes are redistributed based on their secondary preferences (i.e. their no 2 selection, preferential voting as referred to by Michaelangelica). If no majority exists the next lowest candidates preferences are distributed until a winner is decided out of the last 2 candidates.

that majority has to be more than all the votes posted to minor parties, otherwise then the party with the least amount of votes is re-distributed with the "2" vote becoming a first preference etc
I like the system
It gives you at least two bites of the cherry
Of course the major parties hate it because if a minor party gets more primary votes then them (this could happen with 30% or less of the vote) Then a major parties preferences may get re-distributed and the the shite really hits the fan!

But there can be 2 variations that can cause vastly different results.

For instance, when you must fill in all preferences on the ballot (i.e. 1.. n where n is the number of candidates) or be penalised (and have your vote rejected), one or the other major political party will be guaranteed a win.

But, when you don't have to use all of your preferences (i.e. just place 1 in your selected candidates box or 1, 2, 3 but not all candidates) you have the right to determine which candidates will not get your final preference, if you so desire.

As far as I am aware you have to fill in every square in Lower House Fedral Elections or your vote may be rejected (See the post I just made about scrutineers in Australia thread) at the discretion of the person in charge of the booth.

It is optional preferential in NSW State elections
What is it in other States and Territories?

The Senate ticket gives you an option of numbering the 70-100 candidates ( for 6 jobs!) "below the line" or some strange system above the line where you just give your political party preference and the party register a document with the electoral office that directs your vote.
These documents should be on the wall of the electoral booth.
They are usually tucked away in a dark corner.
This may have changed does anyone know for sure?
I always do it the hard way.

Political donations is a form of 'voting' I think
We will only have true democracy when we can see where ALL political donations come from.
Both Labour and liberal have trust/funds/ organisations that funnel money to them so you don't know where it originally came from.
Goggle it and see; it is a sickening abuse of democracy.
plus
some help from the Exclusive Brethren, Hillsong, Catholic bishops etc. Some who run their own campaigns
O yes and our tax money! They all do it, but Howard must have blown the government advertising budget out of the water this year. Media companies & printers must love him.
Sometimes big firms/organisations make donations in kind by putting all a candidate's mail through their company's mail franking machine for example.