Which system for you ?

[Johnsy]

With all the politicking that has eventuated with the Dr Hollingworth debacle, it has got me thinking. It also again gave life today to a debate that my wife and I have had many times. <o></o> What is the ideal way to elect a government? The current method has its flaws, If you choose to only place a number 1 above the line and you have not bothered to look at your first choice’s preferences, then your vote will be controlled by the party that you have voted for, essentially you have lost ownership of your vote. If you choose your preferences all the way down to the last number then bingo, you have regained ownership. What happens to the Joe Bloggs who does not want his vote to go beyond the person he has voted for? Stiff crackers Mr Bloggs it is going to go down the line, unless your person is in the front running for victory. And of course the good old donkey vote that is one you can always guarantee will get about 5% every election. Essentially we end up having a government, governing that very rarely gets a majority of the vote, the last election the Liberals got about 30 odd % of the vote. Yes they are in a coalition (don’t get me started on that one). Now how can a party that gets 30 odd percent of the vote be considered the peoples choice, when 70 odd % are unaccounted for? <o></o> Now lets look at the UK system, first past the post. Yes Mr Bloggs would be very happy indeed with this method. Lets say we have a 3 party system and 10,000 voters, all a party needs is 3,334 to obtain power, yet we have 6,666 voters that are not represented. Of course this also raises one more question, in the USA and UK it is not compulsory to vote. If we only have say 40% of people eligible to vote, how can you say that this is an accurate representation of the people of the country who are eligible to vote? You cant. In my eyes all adults (over 18) have a responsibility to vote, after all it will impact the way you, your wife, your daughters, sons, dad, mum, brothers, sisters lives. <o></o> Do you see the problem it raises? Well I have thought of a voting system to limit this very type of problem, trying to get a more accurate percentage of voters being represented by the governing party. <o></o> Johnsy’s electoral system – Own your vote! <o></o> 3 voting options (2 are current options) The1st is the number 1 above the line, which thenwill revert to the parties preference system. The2nd is to place your own preferences; unfortunately not enough people take the time to have a look at this option (even if it is for your own benefit). The3rd is the option for your vote to stay with the person who you voted for and not be passed on as a preference to anyone, your vote lives or dies with that person. Well actually there is a 4^th but ssshhhhhhh it is a secret one, the good old donkey vote. With this system you can guarantee that you own your vote, every single person by having these choices can establish ownership. That my fine-feathered friend is a very powerful tool. And with our current system of compulsory voting you are ensured that a vast number (high 90’s % wise) will have actually voted. Regardless of how many donkey vote, which is an option I do not agree with, but it does give that person ownership. Love to hear your thoughts. Johnsy

 

[Johnsy]

Sorry about the formatting, cut and pasted from word.

Johnsy

 

[ozbash]

in new zulind we have MMP.Mixed Member Proportional representation.
you get 2 votes.
1st vote is for the person of your choice
2nd is for the party.

i dont like it much, you dont have to actually poll the highest to win a seat in parliament.you can come 2nd or 3rd and still end up a MP if your party polls a certain % of votes.

very mickey mouse,but very nz

i prefer first past the post myself.

 

[El Duque]

Sorry but this just sounds like another whinge by a Labor voter.

Maybe it's not but every post I read by Labor voters seem to blame anyone and everything for their losses be it inthe elections, republic or whatever.

I really couldn't care less what system they use as I vote rarely but you can't blame the current system for Labor losses as it's been that way for a while.

 

[Johnsy]

El D

I used examples and when I said dont get me started, I meant on the idea of acoalition, meaning the idea of a coalition in political terms. If I have made a mistake by not spelling that out for you I apoligise.
No bashing of any party, just ideas about voting systems. If you could not see that then I am very sorry for you. Why cant some people talk politics without sticking the boot in at every opportunity. The idea was about owning your vote. It is as plain as day that I have not blamed anyone or anything on labours losses or the republic loss. If I have, again I apoligise
"I really couldn't care less what system they use as I vote rarely " Obviously thats why you needed to reply with one foot in your mouth, you are a sad, sad fool El D. I really thought you had more substance than that.

Johnsy

 

[El Duque]

Whatever.

I call it as I see it.

 

[imported_Docker]

The way you Stray-yins elect the senators is remarkably good system.
Single transferable vote, it is called.

 

[imported_kier]

I dislike the first past the post system - it allowed a certified maniac like Thatcher to wreak havoc in the UK despite being voted in by some of the lowest majorities in British history.

I like the single transferable vote system.

 

[Willow]

Its simple. Democracyjust doesnt work. The bigger the democracy, the more corrupt and chaotic it becomes.

 

[CanadianSteve]

Was it Churchill who said something like - democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the other systems.

We have first past the post here in Canada too, and the complaint sometimes is that the winning party gets a higher % of seats than it does of the popular vote. And the second party may be very under-represented in seats compared to their % of popular vote. We also don't require people to vote, so sometimes there is a low turnout - usually about 70% in federal (national) elections, 50-60 in provincial ones, and below 50% in municipal votes.

What is the penalty for not voting in Aus?

 

[Willow]

LOL... G'day Steve. Compulsory in Aust and one of those contradictions of democracy. I remember getting a letter from the electoral commission because I stopped voting. The fine was about $10 but that was yonks ago. Heard that it might be $50 or even $150 now. I have no idea because I never paid such fines.I was always 'on a boat' and too far away from a voting booth.

But I came into port with the republic referendum and once again I'm back in the loop. After looking at whats on offer, I'm seriously coming to the conclusion that going back to sea is once again the best option.

 

[ozbash]

in nz its compulsory to register on the electoral roll but you can please yourself if you vote or not.

i think all political parties should be forced to combine if elected and all work for a common goal.

that,ll never happen

 

[imported_JoeD]

The main problem with democracy is that once a ceratin group is in power all they do is concentrate on getting re-elected, rather than what is good for the country. Reducing the amount of money spent on welfare would be good for NZ but political suicide, thats why it will never happen.

 

[imported_midas]

Hopefully we are not too far away from the day when we can get a computer to run the joint.

 

[Willow]

They already are aren't they midas?
There's something to be said for the cold logic of a processor.

 

[Johnsy]

Willow, Ozbash, Joe, Midas, Steve, Kier, Docker & El D

My biggest gripe is that you need to ensure a high percentage of voters, cast a vote. This is the current systems that Australia has at the moment, yes it is undemocratic, but it is the only way to ensure a large number of the voting public are represented. From memory in the last USA election some 30% of the eligible public voted, how can this represent the "will" of the people?

My second point wastrue ownership of the vote. ElD I did not intend to come across as a whinger, I wanted to try sand come up with a system that gives every person who voted ownership of the vote they casted through options.

In reality there is no current government that will adopt this system as they would loose some control over the votes cast, and that I believe would be any parties biggest fear. So in essence democracy in western politics is the biggest sham this century.

Johnsy

 

[imported_midas]

Johnsy
I really prefer first past the post.Preferential voting only assigns ownership of the vote to someone else and leads to people being elected who command only a miniscule primary vote.In NSW recently we had a drawn out contest between John Tingle and the lovely Pauline H for the last spot in theLegislative Council (which shouldn,t exist)
Between the two of them the only primary votes they got were from friends and rellos.
Look at the influence the Democrats wield and at the last election ,I think they got 3% of the primary votes.
I think I prefer straight-out with no each-way.
Then again I think El D could be on the right track-don,t vote,it only encourages the bastards.
I,ll have to do some checking-surely the septics would have had better than a 30% turnout.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[imported_midas]

If you take out the under 18,s from that gross population figure,it must have been 50% or more on that basis

 

This message has been deleted by the author.