<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Anthony Duff wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid20060719022207.11416.qmail@web51104.mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">--- James Gilmour <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk"><jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<pre wrap="">....the "above-the-line" voting that is used in the
Australian Federal Senate elections. It has
perverted STV-PR very severely, so that that implementation is really nothing
more than closed list party PR.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It does sound “like the "above-the-line" voting that is used in the Australian
Federal Senate elections” and the NSW upper house elections, and other Australian
elections, where it certainly *seems* to work well, and it is utilised by the vast
majority.
I know that James Gilmour is philosophically opposed to this party list option
operating within STV. He may be right, but I have seen no evidence. Perhaps I
haven’t known where to look.
</pre>
</blockquote>
CB: The system used in the state of South Australia is essentially the
same as that for the Australian Senate.<br>
High profile independent candidates tend to have "running mates" to pad
out a list of candidates and look less<br>
forlorn on the ballot paper in comparison with the party "groups".<br>
<br>
Last election, a sitting independent candidate (Nick Xenophon) did much
better than expected with the result that his <br>
flow-on mostly above-the-line preferences elected his running mate (Ann
Bressington) a complete unknown with some <br>
hobby horses that Xenophon wasn't known for. If there was no
above-the-line voting and truncation allowed, I am<br>
sure she wouldn't have been elected. <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/">http://www.seo.sa.gov.au/</a><br>
<br>
Of course with lots of candidates, compulsory voting, and having to
carefully number all the candidates below the line<br>
(at least in South Australia and for the Senate) versus a single mark
on the ballot paper for above the line, then it is not<br>
at all surprising that most voters take the much easier option. And
with the political parties generally happy and most of<br>
the voters apathetic about the "details", then of course (at least to
most) the system will "seem" to work well.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20060719022207.11416.qmail@web51104.mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Is the statement “It has perverted STV-PR very severely” based on philosophy,
impression or evidence? It is my impression that there is no perversion.</pre>
</blockquote>
CB: The philosophical position that all candidates should have the same
chance of being elected, i.e. it should the same<br>
amount of trouble for a voter to vote for candidate x as it is to vote
for candidate y, is IMO very strong (bordering on unassailable).<br>
Living in Australia all my life, my impression is more in line with
James's.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid20060719022207.11416.qmail@web51104.mail.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Independent candidates and micro-parties seem overrepresented in the ballot count.
</pre>
</blockquote>
CB: By what standard? Based on what?<br>
<br>
<br>
Chris Benham<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>