SA Footy

When I was growing up and the DLP (Democratic Labor Party) was a force in politics, the ALP was in favour of non preferential voting ie. the candidate with the most votes wins, since the DLP would give its second preference to the Coalition, this effectively kept the ALP in federal opposition for 2 decades. However the situation has changed and the ALP is possibly advantaged by this system. The beauty of first past the post is that it is impossible to have the situation where the party with the most votes may not achieve government because they don't win enough seats. What do people think? (political bias aside ) if I were a Labor voter I'd be happy with the status quo. Is the current system fair?

I think preferential voting gives a better indication of what the voters ultimately want.

I have never given my first preference to labor or liberal, yet I still ultimately get a choice with the preference system to decide on the lesser of two evils I wish to represent me.

I believe that electorate boundary changes from election to election have more of an influence on the result than the voting system.

mick wrote:When I was growing up and the DLP (Democratic Labor Party) was a force in politics, the ALP was in favour of non preferential voting ie. the candidate with the most votes wins, since the DLP would give its second preference to the Coalition, this effectively kept the ALP in federal opposition for 2 decades. However the situation has changed and the ALP is possibly advantaged by this system. The beauty of first past the post is that it is impossible to have the situation where the party with the most votes may not achieve government because they don't win enough seats. What do people think? (political bias aside ) if I were a Labor voter I'd be happy with the status quo. Is the current system fair?

status quo... STATUS QUO! lol

Howard would have lost way back in 1998 if this was the case and we would have had 9 less years of the whiny one...so yes, I support it, especially if it can be introduced retrospectively.

once_were_warriors wrote:I think preferential voting gives a better indication of what the voters ultimately want.

I'm not sure I can agree with that statement ... look at the interim results in the seat of Mitchell to see what I mean.

The current system is outdated in that in most cases a person elected for their area will represent their party first and their area second. I can see the philosophy behind it with all areas getting votes into decisions made but its completely redundant IMHO these days.
Only problem is I'm not sure of the best way, the Tassie version does seem better though.

To best illustrate the beauty of our current system, here's a simple example.
Let's say we have an electorate of 100 voters.
There are 4 candidates, A,B,C and D.
After the first count, A=30,B=27,C=22 and D=21 (no informals in the electorate of Utopia)
With 1st past the post, A wins.
FAIR ? .... What if all of the other 70 voters would have preferred anyone but A.
ie. They'd have B,C or D before they'd even dream of voting for A.
In that example 30% get what they want and 70% get what they didn't want.
I'd say leave the system of preferential voting exactly as it is.

I agee Ruben - unfortunate, but I think it is the best system

The obvious answer is a fully preferential system in which all candidates preferences are counted.

That would take weeks, though.

Ruben Carter wrote:To best illustrate the beauty of our current system, here's a simple example.
Let's say we have an electorate of 100 voters.
There are 4 candidates, A,B,C and D.
After the first count, A=30,B=27,C=22 and D=21 (no informals in the electorate of Utopia)
With 1st past the post, A wins.
FAIR ? .... What if all of the other 70 voters would have preferred anyone but A.
ie. They'd have B,C or D before they'd even dream of voting for A.
In that example 30% get what they want and 70% get what they didn't want.
I'd say leave the system of preferential voting exactly as it is.

Nice explanation