Should we adopt First-Past-The-Post Voting?

This question is prompted by the resurrection of the DLP, who have won the last two seats in the
Victorian Upper House after distribution of preferences.

I thought they were completely extinct, and this win has shocked Premier Steve Bracks and probably
politicians from all the other parties as well.

It really is a bit silly, and of course this is how we got stuck with Steve Fielding in the Federal
Senate. If major candidates don't get over the line, the votes just keep filtering down to the
last on the list who are clearly unwanted by everybody. This really works against democracy, in that
we end up being represented by the candidates of the loony fringes, who may be elected with about
1% of the primary vote.

It's not a question that's actively engaged me until recently, first with the win of Fielding, and
now with these two DLP members, but now I'm really inclined to think the system should be changed,
and soon.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/12/12/1165685681111.html?from=top5

As you pointed out, it causes nutjobs to be elected on preferences in the upper houses. Also, on lower house ballots, it does force you to, in the end, vote for "one or the other" regarding the major parties - which is kinda undemocratic in my mind. I can understand the argument that it makes sure the candidate that the majority prefers wins. However, the reason why it exists is so both the conservative parties (Libs and Nats) can coexist, without acting as spoilers to eachother...

As for the DLP, What the hell? Is it the 1950s again??? The cold war is over! Jesus, I thought Santamaria and his hateful little cult were gone for good. I smell Liberal party bullshit behind this...

that got him across the line. Stupid bastards, they don't care who they preference as long as it
isn't the Greens. They did the same federally in 2004 by preferencing Families First, and they've
learned nothing from that experience.

And now Bracks is demanding a recount for both seats because he can't believe where the idiocy got
them.

:banghead:

where the DLP where thought to have a seat originally it really wasn't down to preferences but down to the fact there is a huge ex Italian/Greek post war migrant population who are all staunch working class people who would die before voting against labor (note that refers to working people not the ALP) but who are also staunch Catholics who will never ever be on board with gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research, turns out they were beaten anyway.

Preferential voting is preferable to a straight first past the post system which regularly sees a party elected with a much smaller mandate than can be delivered through preferential first past the post.

Nobody is forced to follow the parties suggestions for voting - no-one can decide your preferences except for yourself, people who abdicate their responsibilities and allow a party to distribute their votes shouldn't complain when those votes elect a FF or DLP member.

As you pointed out, it causes nutjobs to be elected on preferences in the upper houses.

Actually it causes those who recieve the requisite number of votes to be elected - that's democracy, also I think you are confusing PROPORTIONAL voting with PREFERENTIAL. Preferential voting is not what allows smaller parties to be represented in the upper house - it is the same system in the lower house after all - it's the proportional nature of the counting that enables smaller parties

However, the reason why it exists is so both the conservative parties (Libs and Nats) can coexist, without acting as spoilers to eachother...

Not really sure where you get this from, if we're talking about proportional representation well it was the current ALP government that instituted it in the upper house - certainly wasn't done to assist the reactionaries.

If we're talking preferential voting (which is not the reason FF were elected Federally and DLP were elected in Vic) then yes it was considered neccesary to stop the splitting of the vote on the right however if it didn't exist you wouldn't find so many state Labour govts in power right now given the Green vote is almost 100% split off from former ALP voters.

This really works against democracy, in thatb we end up being represented by the candidates of the loony fringes, who may be elected with about 1% of the primary vote.

this only makes sense if you subscribe to the theory that democracy = the dictatorship of the majority which it doesn't

I am well aware that upper house ballots use proportional voting. PREFERENTIAL VOTING is what is responsible for some party having a representative elected even though they got little of the primary vote, but built their quota numbers up through preferences. Yes I am aware that you can distribute your preferences how you want, but not everyone does. A lot of people vote above the line and even those who vote below the line often only give a crap about their first few preferences and then just donkey the rest - that has an effect on how people are elected.

Also, PREFERENTIAL voting was implemented by the conservative government of Billy Hughes in 1918, in response to the rise of the Country Party and its potential to split the non-Labor vote.

I wasn't talking about proportional representation at all. Proportional representation is one of the most democratic systems there is, and I am all for it.

than first past the post, while it may not provide the candidate who is most LIKED it does confer office to the least OBJECTIONABLE. Esra Star probably puts it better and most concisely than I do.

It implies that the election is some sort of a race where a goal is clearly defined.
If you have eleven candidates, it becomes possible to win an election with only 10% of
the votes.
The attraction of supporting stooge candidates to erode opposition votes would
be too great.
That's how Lamont lost.
Preferential ain't perfect, but FPTP is sham democracy. Just look at the US. QED