Your quote of the Greens is spot on, but you will admit that it has nothing to do with the IRV system but rather, as I said earlier, a lack of education. Also the number of seats won by a minor party will always be low due to the size of the electorates. Major parties are obviously more likely to take seats. It isn't meant to be a proportional system, we have that for the upper house.
Also, your comments are about third party and minor party representation is still misleading. Take for example the Tasmanian Legislative Council. According to you, since they are elected via IRV, they should be mostly ALP or coalition. Yet when your look at the results you will see that 11 of the 15 seats are independents!
As for whether voters actually do vote insincerely, I put more stock into the research we have done over the past for years at The Center for Election Science than in a wikipedia entry which most assuredly has been heavily tuned by FairVote, a highly dishonest pro-IRV organization.
Besides the Greens, Labour, the coalition of Liberal, Nationals, the Liberal Nationals, the Country Liberals, there are 4 independents. Definitely a two party system here. Of course there are two strong opposing groups because of the dichotomous nature of politics. Besides the point that major parties are major for a reason (generally popular).
And there are only 150 seats in the house of reps not 564. How can you trust or support a website that is completely wrong like that?
Besides the Greens, Labour, the coalition of Liberal, Nationals, the Liberal Nationals, the Country Liberals, there are 4 independents. Definitely a two party system here. Of course there are two strong opposing groups because of the dichotomous nature of politics.
Interesting that only this website of yours says NatLib and there are only 150 seats in the house of reps not 564. How can you trust or support a website that is completely wrong like that?
There's nothing to agree or disagree with here. This is just objective statistical fact.
quite, and you are in the wrong. Ps, did you read the wikipedia cited articles about IRV and it not leading to strategic voting in practice?
I read it, but disagree. They are ignoring the actual political situation here in Australia and don't include the recent election results which have shown an increase in third party and independent voting.
Also, the strategic voting argument of putting a less preferred candidate first also ignores the benefits to the party of having more primary votes. In Australia, the primary vote count is the basis for government funding of the campaign.
For example, if you are for the Tea Party, and are a Republican, by approving of both the TP and mainstream candidate (who is presumably more towards the center), you are going to disadvantage your preferred candidate.
IRV is much worse in that regard. With Approval Voting, you would be strategically advised to vote for the Republican. But then you could still safely vote for the Tea Party candidate. And if it turns out enough people preferred the TP candidate, then he can win even if voters like you thought he had no chance.
But with IRV, your best tactic would be to insincerely rank the Republican in first place. And with a ranked ballot, most voters naively do that anyway, as we can tell from decades of use of IRV in e.g. Australia. That means if you don't think the TP candidate can win, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is why Approval Voting is far far more fair to minor party and independent candidates than any ranked system.
Rubbish. With IRV you would vote for your preferred candidate from Tea Party, and then the second preferred candidate the Republican. You wouldn't vote Republican first unless you were ignorant of the system.
Decades of voting in Australia doesn't tell you jack if you've never voted here. It has all to do with the mentality and misconceptions of the voting public not the system. This was highlighted last election when both major parties were trying to argue that a vote for the third party (greens) was a vote for their opposite number. The problem with IRV in Australia is that the public is uninformed. That is changing and if you look at the last election results you'll see the results are showing a shift away from the entrenched two-party mentality.
What does IRV have to do with the discussion in this thread branch, which is about Approval Voting vs a Condorcet Variant (Schulze, specifically)?
Well if you followed the thread to which I replied.
The problem with the schulze method is that it is too difficult for the average voter to wrap their head around
And I reinforced this with an example of a slightly more complex voting system than plurality voting is misunderstood by the general public.
IRV for single-winner elections is broken in similar ways to Plurality Voting, which is why you hear those complaints. They're just as true in IRV as they are in Plurality (first-past-the-post) voting. What IRV does is give the illusion that 3rd parties are better represented. Both encourage strategic voting which marginalizes alternative candidates.
And it seems even intelligent slashdotters don't understand IRV either if you think that IRV encourages tactical or strategic voting. If you refer to the wikipedia article on it you will see that this is incorrect. Strategic voting is not an issue in practice. While it may not be as accurate it is more easily understood by voters than Schulze. But perhaps you have a more scientific rather than engineering mindset (ie, it has to be correct and complex over a simple and elegant solution).
We have IRV or Preferential Voting here in Australia and yet we still have a lot of people that talk about a wasted vote, or say that a vote for the Greens is a vote for one of the other major parties.
The only value I can see in this would be if the resulting decrypted picture contains an individual tag for whoever decrypted it. Then when they save it via the gaping analogue hole or a simple print-screen, then the original poster has a chance to find out who released the copy and can suit them.
Use feedback from previous dates. For example, they rated themselves as athletic, when in fact they are overweight. The previous date then rates them in a anonymous and hidden manner. Then you can browse the two versions listed. Like the saying that there is the person you perceive yourself to be, the person other people see you as and the person you really are.
Interesting, I would have thought the ONE country that would allow the people to sue the government would be the US. You know land of the free and all that... Suing the government happens here in Australia and the UK all the time. In fact there is a great movie about it, The Castle.
There are no software patents in Australia, which is where the trial is being held. This is about a copyright and contract agreements with a dash of defamation.
It is a confusing vote, but from the homepage of votewatch.eu:
ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement): the conservative forces (EPP and ECR groups) have succeeded in having their form of the resolution adopted in the European Parliament's plenary.
The first form of the document, drafted by the center-left forces (GUE/NGL+Greens/EFA+S&D+ALDE) was rejected (306 votes to 321), as 13 socialist and 11 liberal MEPs voted against it, together with the EPP and ECR.
Actually you mean preferential voting if you are voting for a single representative. Proportional voting only works if you are voting for more than one position. That is, the single representative can only be 100%, but if there is a council of say 10 people, then you can use the proportional or STV system that you linked to.
Seems to be a trend. Parks Victoria is attempting to charge photographers for taking photos of state parks. I wonder if you could counter with a fraud charge?
They are acquiring access. That is, renting access to the "fit-for-use" pits and ducts from Telstra. I hope that this is only a mistake in the reporting, but perhaps there is a buy option at the end of the lease. http://www.commsday.com/commsday/?p=1134
I think that there is a "fit-for-use" clause. I noticed it in one of the briefings. Of course, migrating to fibre means that these problems should no longer be problems.
Except the tax is clearly printed on every receipt.
Selling something at the advertised price is great for consumers. In fact, there has been a recent ruling that restaurants can't put a hidden surcharge on for holidays. If they want to charge more, they have to print other menus.
Slashdot Mirror
Your quote of the Greens is spot on, but you will admit that it has nothing to do with the IRV system but rather, as I said earlier, a lack of education. Also the number of seats won by a minor party will always be low due to the size of the electorates. Major parties are obviously more likely to take seats. It isn't meant to be a proportional system, we have that for the upper house.
Also, your comments are about third party and minor party representation is still misleading. Take for example the Tasmanian Legislative Council. According to you, since they are elected via IRV, they should be mostly ALP or coalition. Yet when your look at the results you will see that 11 of the 15 seats are independents!
As for whether voters actually do vote insincerely, I put more stock into the research we have done over the past for years at The Center for Election Science than in a wikipedia entry which most assuredly has been heavily tuned by FairVote, a highly dishonest pro-IRV organization.
You might have your little beef with FairVote whoever they are, but nothing stopping you putting your position up with citations on wikipedia. The article I mentioned cites three references. "Collective Decisions and Voting" by Nicolaus Tideman, "Single transferable vote resists strategic voting" and "An investigation into the relative manipulability of four voting systems". Your argument is remains uncited and the amount of intellectual dishonesty coming from you does your argument no favours.
Besides the Greens, Labour, the coalition of Liberal, Nationals, the Liberal Nationals, the Country Liberals, there are 4 independents. Definitely a two party system here. Of course there are two strong opposing groups because of the dichotomous nature of politics. Besides the point that major parties are major for a reason (generally popular).
And there are only 150 seats in the house of reps not 564. How can you trust or support a website that is completely wrong like that?
Out of 564 seats in the IRV-elected House of Representatives, ONE was won by a third party in the last AU election
Official Election results. or By party
Besides the Greens, Labour, the coalition of Liberal, Nationals, the Liberal Nationals, the Country Liberals, there are 4 independents. Definitely a two party system here. Of course there are two strong opposing groups because of the dichotomous nature of politics.
Interesting that only this website of yours says NatLib and there are only 150 seats in the house of reps not 564. How can you trust or support a website that is completely wrong like that?
There's nothing to agree or disagree with here. This is just objective statistical fact.
quite, and you are in the wrong. Ps, did you read the wikipedia cited articles about IRV and it not leading to strategic voting in practice?
35 DHCP transactions of ~100kB each?
I read it, but disagree. They are ignoring the actual political situation here in Australia and don't include the recent election results which have shown an increase in third party and independent voting.
Also, the strategic voting argument of putting a less preferred candidate first also ignores the benefits to the party of having more primary votes. In Australia, the primary vote count is the basis for government funding of the campaign.
For example, if you are for the Tea Party, and are a Republican, by approving of both the TP and mainstream candidate (who is presumably more towards the center), you are going to disadvantage your preferred candidate.
IRV is much worse in that regard. With Approval Voting, you would be strategically advised to vote for the Republican. But then you could still safely vote for the Tea Party candidate. And if it turns out enough people preferred the TP candidate, then he can win even if voters like you thought he had no chance.
But with IRV, your best tactic would be to insincerely rank the Republican in first place. And with a ranked ballot, most voters naively do that anyway, as we can tell from decades of use of IRV in e.g. Australia. That means if you don't think the TP candidate can win, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is why Approval Voting is far far more fair to minor party and independent candidates than any ranked system.
Rubbish. With IRV you would vote for your preferred candidate from Tea Party, and then the second preferred candidate the Republican. You wouldn't vote Republican first unless you were ignorant of the system.
Decades of voting in Australia doesn't tell you jack if you've never voted here. It has all to do with the mentality and misconceptions of the voting public not the system. This was highlighted last election when both major parties were trying to argue that a vote for the third party (greens) was a vote for their opposite number. The problem with IRV in Australia is that the public is uninformed. That is changing and if you look at the last election results you'll see the results are showing a shift away from the entrenched two-party mentality.
What does IRV have to do with the discussion in this thread branch, which is about Approval Voting vs a Condorcet Variant (Schulze, specifically)?
Well if you followed the thread to which I replied.
The problem with the schulze method is that it is too difficult for the average voter to wrap their head around
And I reinforced this with an example of a slightly more complex voting system than plurality voting is misunderstood by the general public.
IRV for single-winner elections is broken in similar ways to Plurality Voting, which is why you hear those complaints. They're just as true in IRV as they are in Plurality (first-past-the-post) voting. What IRV does is give the illusion that 3rd parties are better represented. Both encourage strategic voting which marginalizes alternative candidates.
And it seems even intelligent slashdotters don't understand IRV either if you think that IRV encourages tactical or strategic voting. If you refer to the wikipedia article on it you will see that this is incorrect. Strategic voting is not an issue in practice. While it may not be as accurate it is more easily understood by voters than Schulze. But perhaps you have a more scientific rather than engineering mindset (ie, it has to be correct and complex over a simple and elegant solution).
We have IRV or Preferential Voting here in Australia and yet we still have a lot of people that talk about a wasted vote, or say that a vote for the Greens is a vote for one of the other major parties.
This second step makes him not "natural born."
Yeah but he is white.
Megawatt Electrical to distinguish from the thermal output.
The only value I can see in this would be if the resulting decrypted picture contains an individual tag for whoever decrypted it. Then when they save it via the gaping analogue hole or a simple print-screen, then the original poster has a chance to find out who released the copy and can suit them.
As was previously posted there is a video of the high speed taxi here. Very grainy and distant though.
No Fat Chicks payments? I'm all for fit and healthy women, but sounds a little discriminatory.
Use feedback from previous dates. For example, they rated themselves as athletic, when in fact they are overweight. The previous date then rates them in a anonymous and hidden manner. Then you can browse the two versions listed. Like the saying that there is the person you perceive yourself to be, the person other people see you as and the person you really are.
Interesting, I would have thought the ONE country that would allow the people to sue the government would be the US. You know land of the free and all that... Suing the government happens here in Australia and the UK all the time. In fact there is a great movie about it, The Castle.
There are no software patents in Australia, which is where the trial is being held. This is about a copyright and contract agreements with a dash of defamation.
ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement): the conservative forces (EPP and ECR groups) have succeeded in having their form of the resolution adopted in the European Parliament's plenary. The first form of the document, drafted by the center-left forces (GUE/NGL+Greens/EFA+S&D+ALDE) was rejected (306 votes to 321), as 13 socialist and 11 liberal MEPs voted against it, together with the EPP and ECR.
I think a better translation would be "Looking silly" or maybe "looking like a clown". Very appropriate.
And another article to support your health concerns.
Actually you mean preferential voting if you are voting for a single representative. Proportional voting only works if you are voting for more than one position. That is, the single representative can only be 100%, but if there is a council of say 10 people, then you can use the proportional or STV system that you linked to.
Seems to be a trend. Parks Victoria is attempting to charge photographers for taking photos of state parks. I wonder if you could counter with a fraud charge?
Flashing Norwegians? Pics or it didn't happen.
They are acquiring access. That is, renting access to the "fit-for-use" pits and ducts from Telstra. I hope that this is only a mistake in the reporting, but perhaps there is a buy option at the end of the lease. http://www.commsday.com/commsday/?p=1134
I think that there is a "fit-for-use" clause. I noticed it in one of the briefings. Of course, migrating to fibre means that these problems should no longer be problems.
Selling something at the advertised price is great for consumers. In fact, there has been a recent ruling that restaurants can't put a hidden surcharge on for holidays. If they want to charge more, they have to print other menus.