tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post6300201265824806696..comments2024-03-28T14:16:10.498+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: How Should We Solve The Problem Of Unintended Informal Voting?Kevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-69643489717079522482021-07-04T05:19:43.205+10:002021-07-04T05:19:43.205+10:00Somewhat late to the conversation here, but you ha...Somewhat late to the conversation here, but you have issues either way.<br /><br />If you have an odd-number of members of the assembly and elect one of the members to serve as the speaker, the assembly now has an even number of members without the speaker. Then there’s the question of whether the speaker still has a vote on most legislation or not (most assemblies tend to not, except as a casting vote), and then the question of, when the vote is tied, the speaker casts the vote according to their own desires (including potentially bringing the government down) or casts the vote according to neutral principles (which essentially deprive their constituents of any vote on any issue, as is currently the case in the Tasmanian Legislative Council). There is, at least, the potential advantage of the latter that the larger side of the assembly has provided the speaker and that, if ruling to preserve the government, the speaker is most likely voting in line with the largest side of the assembly.<br /><br />If you have an even number and have to provide a speaker from their number, and the speaker does not vote on normal legislation, you have the potential situation where legislation loses that would have tied with the speaker’s vote.<br /><br />It seems to me the ideal might be to have an odd-numbered assembly and to then elect the speaker from outside the assembly, as is common in some Caribbean Westminster systems and as is allowed, but has never happened, in the US. This way, there is no deadlock in electing the speaker, no constituency is deprived of their voice and simultaneously the need for a casting vote is decreased because the assembly has an odd number of members. Christopher Burgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18352344079470009077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-17614745359431321292021-05-07T11:57:48.936+10:002021-05-07T11:57:48.936+10:00I have done my own analysis piece here: http://kev...I have done my own analysis piece here: http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2020/12/jscems-recommendation-for-optional.html My estimate was that OPV would be worth a few seats per election for the Coalition. The difficulty is that preference flows under OPV are more variable between elections and indeed in Qld 2015 OPV delivered very strong preference flows to Labor.<br /><br />Unfortunately something being by an academic (even a political science academic) and published in The Conversation is not a reliable indicator of quality. The major problem with that particular analysis in The Conversation is that it uses NSW 2015 - a single OPV election where Labor performed badly - as a baseline without considering the wider range of OPV elections. Also, the piece contains at least one error (Wayne Swan would not have lost Lilley in 2010 under OPV as he trailed on the primary vote by only a fraction of a point). So my own views are closer to those of Brent and AI. I was as usual very impressed by the level of modelling detail in the AI analysis.<br /><br />All of us find that Labor would have lost the 2010 election under OPV.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-10212481652626743122021-05-07T10:40:02.481+10:002021-05-07T10:40:02.481+10:00"I'm not convinced OPV is as much a benef..."I'm not convinced OPV is as much a benefit for the right as both the right and left think, or even in the current environment a benefit at all."<br /><br />What do you think the impact of OPV would be in seat terms at a federal election? So far I've seen three analyses online:<br /><br />An academic study done by the Conversation, who say it would devastate Labor:<br />https://theconversation.com/heres-why-the-coalition-favours-optional-preferential-voting-it-would-devastate-labor-155640<br /><br />A simpler analysis by Dr Peter Brent, who comes up with similar but less damaging results for Labor:<br />https://twitter.com/mumbletwits/status/1381407318663852034<br /><br />And an analysis by a group called Armarium Interreta who find it would have a small effect compared to the above two:<br />https://armariuminterreta.site/2021/05/06/opv-federal-elections-impact/<br /><br />Personally it seems like the first source is most credible (being done by academics and published in Conversation), but as you say, it might be that the Greens don't exhaust as much as other parties and that mutes the effects on TPP. What do you think?Pernixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04875955350693922496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-59147532014413371832020-07-28T10:12:51.161+10:002020-07-28T10:12:51.161+10:00Looking at last year's federal LH results. (Ln...Looking at last year's federal LH results. (Lnp/Alp/Grn/Other)<br /><br />Adelaide: 2/2/1<br />Barker: 4/1<br />Boothby: 2/2/1 (close to 3/2 but ALP excess should break strongly enough to Greens to hit a quota)<br />Grey: 3/1/0/1 (Lib 4 gets eliminated early and they pick up 13% over the count that could easily put another right winger, probably PHON, to a quota before Labor)<br />Hindmarsh: 2/2/1 (ALP 3 vs Green is very close with GRN slightly ahead at exclusion)<br />Kingston: 2/3<br />Makin: 2/3<br />Mayo: Hard to say due to Sharkie. I looked at the senate results for this to give 2/1/1/1<br />Spence: 1/3/1 (Greens would hit quota on ALP excess and LNP never quite hit 2 quotas 2PP<br />Sturt: 3/2 (close to 3/1/1 but ALP 2 maintains a lead over GRN throughout)<br /><br />Final:<br />LNP - 23<br />ALP - 20<br />GRN - 5<br />Centre Alliance - 1<br />PHON - 1<br /><br />Result - CA would probably choose Labor over deadlock and working with PHON to form government<br /><br />It's alarmingly close to a tie, but there's enough variability to have a workable system even with even numbers of seats. Passing bills would be tough however.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536933978795184627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-47966476148659762982020-07-28T09:42:10.673+10:002020-07-28T09:42:10.673+10:00Even numbers of seats total aren't ideal but a...Even numbers of seats total aren't ideal but aren't unworkable. The strength of centrist parties in SA would help here. Even without xenophon, from federal senate results Mayo looks like it would have elected 2 Liberals, 1 ALP, 1 Green and one Centre Alliance. The Tasmania situation seems to have been caused by having 6 member electorates making a tie the likely outcome in each of them. With 5 member electorates you would need to get a tie statewide. It's possible but not as likely as Tasmania from 1909-1956Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536933978795184627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-14499692090508610672020-07-27T22:15:09.832+10:002020-07-27T22:15:09.832+10:00"Eventually it just got unbearable" Yes..."Eventually it just got unbearable" Yes, exactly! The "rule" depended so much on the forebearance of the "losing" party. Our current pollies aren't like that. Not even in Tasmania, I suspect. Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-15838914718294566322020-07-27T22:04:25.215+10:002020-07-27T22:04:25.215+10:00Tasmania had 30 seats from 1909 to 1956 and often ...Tasmania had 30 seats from 1909 to 1956 and often had parliaments where one party had exactly half the seats. Towards the end there was a rule that the major party that lost the popular vote had to provide the Speaker. Eventually it just got unbearable and the House was expanded to 35. Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-23102279075491390022020-07-27T21:30:36.433+10:002020-07-27T21:30:36.433+10:00Ummm, John - total of 50 seats? What happens when...Ummm, John - total of 50 seats? What happens when leftish parties get 25 seats and rightish also 25? Libs bribe a Green to be Speaker or Labor bribes an ON? Because if a major provides the Speaker then any vote on left/right lines will go 24-25 against that party. In any of those scenarios the Speaker's casting vote won't arise because that only happens if the votes are equal.<br /><br />I like the idea of a smallish number of districts each electing 5 or so members by PR, but I'd suggest 9 or 11 districts, and forget the idea of having fed and state boundaries the same. Until, perhaps, SA's federal entitlement rises back to 11 or, more likely, falls to 9. Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-38964266524806238792020-07-27T12:30:54.004+10:002020-07-27T12:30:54.004+10:00SA's parliament is about the right size to do ...SA's parliament is about the right size to do 10 5 seat electorates based on the federal seats (similar to Tasmania). Those seats are more likely to stick than the ever changing SA seats. I'm not sure if it's constitutionally possible, but SA has had multi member electorates before. Hopefully it isn't a non starter - seems to be a viable solution to SA's electoral quirks.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03536933978795184627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-62501944915488096992020-07-24T09:24:29.739+10:002020-07-24T09:24:29.739+10:00"There's a strong freedom-based argument ..."There's a strong freedom-based argument for fully fledged OPV". Indeed - it's a mild form of totalitarianism to say "Unless you number all squares, or X squares, we'll toss your vote aside". But the ballot paper could have some *persuasive* text on it rather than dogmatic instructions - something like "Place the number 1 in the square for the candidate of your choice. Your vote may be more effective if you place further numbers (2,3,4,etc) showing who you would prefer if your first choice is not elected." Then translations of the instructions into the languages commonly used in each electorate could be placed in the polling stattions.<br /><br />And yes, the display of "Just Vote 1" posters, especially in colours resembling those used by the electoral authorities, should be subject to heavy penalties. Jack Arandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06210027164177789357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-41099081356927240022020-07-24T09:15:07.588+10:002020-07-24T09:15:07.588+10:00yes look at voter intention a vote is formal to th...yes look at voter intention a vote is formal to the extent voter intention can be identified..... all ones informal, one one and nothing else formal. a 1 23333 is formal up to the second preference a tick or a cross in isolation is formal... the voter choice must be paramount..... no gamesMickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02784376200127303021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-58046182547750170112020-07-23T19:44:38.980+10:002020-07-23T19:44:38.980+10:00Thanks Jeremy; wasn't aware of that and have a...Thanks Jeremy; wasn't aware of that and have added notes to that effect. Quite a contrast to the harsh rules for voting BTL in the WA Legislative Council! Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-37983557492056709212020-07-23T19:37:08.955+10:002020-07-23T19:37:08.955+10:00Since 1996 breaks in sequence have been allowed in...Since 1996 breaks in sequence have been allowed in Western Australian Legislative Assembly elections. Neither side of politics were silly enough to worry about Langer-style campaigns and the tally of exhausted votes in preference distributions remains small. We have avoided the injustice of invalidating votes with clear intention but with irrelevant breaks in sequence.<br />There is also concern that some electors of Chinese heritage dislike writing the number 4 and have sometimes invalidated their votes through this.Jeremy Buxtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06529282562063178020noreply@blogger.com