Re: OT: For information only !

Philippe Caquant wrote:

>I think this is the unavoidable dead-end of any
>democratic system: 50% of the voters vote for Mr A
>because they are against Mr B, and the other 50% do
>the contrary. Usually, they just don't really know why
>they are against Mr A or Mr B, but this doesn't
>matter. And besides, a huge number of electors don't
>vote at all, but we shall do just as we don't see
>them, or as they don't exist.
>
>
In Australia, something like 90% of enrolled voter's votes are valid
(about 95% of people vote and of them, about 95% of votes are valid),
and almost every Australian citizen over 18 years of age and living in
Australia is an enrolled voter (it costs $50 per election not to be).
(Being enrolled to vote is compulsory, and everyone enrolled to vote has
to turn up to a polling booth on election day. Obviously there's no
requirement to vote; they could simply but their slip unmarked in the
box, or write 'ALL POLITITIONS R WANKAZ' on it for all the system
cares---spelling isn't marked. I mean, ballots are secret.)

This is far from optimal. Most people don't know you can cast an invalid
vote and so they make donkey votes instead (valid votes that people cast
by people who don't care, typically numbering the boxes in order), or
vote Labor because their father voted Labor or for whatever other
reason. These donkey and other related votes have to be counted with all
the rest...

Of course, it does mean that demographics that aren't likely to vote
otherwise will now be that much more likely to vote, and I reckon if you
took it off next election we'd have something like 1% of voters vote...

>So when they is a possibility to express oneself by
>voting for some sympathetic small list having
>absolutely no chance to gain anything, I think it's
>worth voting. This was the case today (only one round,
>so all lists were present, and you hadn't to choose
>between the above Mr A and Mr B). In other cases, it's
>just as well to go out fishing, bicycling, or to study
>Georgian grammar a little closer.
>
>
One thing I don't get is why the French do their elections proper in two
rounds. Why not just number the ballots on the first round and have the
other rounds generated from this (i.e. using what we here where it's
used call Preferential Voting and what everyone else calls Instant
Run-off Voting*)? It then means that on the Saturday in a fortnight's
time or whenever it would be you can go fishing, riding, or studying
Georgian grammar without having to worry about who'll be elected. You
can replace the second round with National Study Georgian Grammar Day,
wouldn't that be cool? (Sounds like a party for you to found!)

* 'Cept I doubt IRV is a good name for its proportional
  variant as used in our Senate, which is one of many
  things explicitly designed to confuse the hell out of
  people, and is probably more like Slow-And-Painful
  Put-in And Run-off Voting (SAPPARV).

--
Tristan.

Replies