tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post7200516338081904117..comments2024-03-17T21:29:12.457+11:00Comments on Dr Kevin Bonham: Mackerras Piece Misleading On Senate ReformKevin Bonhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-53694645998120858672015-12-13T23:16:07.504+11:002015-12-13T23:16:07.504+11:00My major concerns with pure STV as well as those m...My major concerns with pure STV as well as those mentioned above are:<br /><br />1. The practicality (or not) of counting it - data entry costs would skyrocket.<br /><br />2. Some voters accustomed to the current system will just vote 1. Either these votes become informal or they are allowed to exhaust. In both cases (especially the first) parties prone to receiving such votes suffer.<br /><br />I agree totally with the "irrational brain worm" comment. The combination of that notion for an election with 12 vacancies and a lack of adequate savings provisions caused a ridiculous informal rate of 7.5% in the non-compulsory postal vote for Hobart City Council last year.Kevin Bonhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06845545257440242894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4052593945054595675.post-20758600576304496232015-12-13T11:59:34.708+11:002015-12-13T11:59:34.708+11:00Kevin, I agree with you. Professor Mackerras' ...Kevin, I agree with you. Professor Mackerras' comments are a bit hard to follow. While I strongly agree with him that party list systems are undesirable, and that Australian constitutional provisions most likely make it impossible for Australian legislatures to enact pure party list systems for our country, his claim that the NSW LC actually is a party list system clearly isn't right. My guess is that it simply seems so to him because of its large magnitude, which significantly reduces the impact of preferences (vis-a-vis full quotas achieved) in deciding results, but that doesn't change its nature. Perhaps the unhappy experience of the ACT's modified-D'Hondt exercise in '89 and '92 influences his opinion - I don't know.<br /><br />The present 'cause' of improving senate-style electoral systems involves shades of grey, proposals for partial improvements, and compromises. There's a large majority of the psephologically-minded in agreement that GVTickets are obnoxious, but holding out for STV purism (if that's what MM is saying) can be a barrier to improvements. The JSCEM proposals are partial improvements, and yes they include an inappropriate way of dealing with 'too many' small parties, but the wise course of action would be to bank what improvements parliament might pass in the near future and keep trying.<br /><br />STV purity - by which I mean highly individual-candidate based rules, no party boxes, no auto-tickets, etc - is conceptually very attractive, but it tends to work optimally with manageable numbers of candidates, as in the simplistic illustrations with 'candidates ABCDE', or at least with fewer than around 25-30, as in ACT and Tasmanian elections. For real elections with 50+ candidates some accomodation can be allowed for the needs of real voters and the conveniences they might desire, provided that such compromises should not have biased impacts between different parties and candidates.<br /><br />NSWLC-style options for 'above the line' voting are clearly more democratic than the present Senate version, and a case can be made that many voters are actually comfortable bundling their preference sequences by party in that manner.<br /><br />Similarly, optional preferencing with a minimum number of preferences is less damaging than full compulsory preferencing (both these rules operate to invalidate some people's votes for no good reason!), even if the 'minimum number of preferences = the same number as there are seats to fill' notion is an irrational brain worm (with a few real negatives).<br /><br />It's regrettable (but entirely predictable?) that many commentators - and the current major parties as well as most of the Senate cross bench - are entangling issues of fair voting design with hopes/expectations of partisan outcomes, including views on whether or not seeing diverse non-major-party senators get elected is desirable. As you've argued before, minor party candidates are completely legitimate - but they should succeed or fail within sensible rules.<br /><br />Malcolm Baalman<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17207687947495129674noreply@blogger.com