Un-votes (from the Atlas section)

[Platypus]

preferential/alterate voting is the way to go.

They use it in Australian and NZ, and I am a big fan of their political system of compulsory preferential voting. IN NZ, it is half by party, half by locality, in australia it is all by locality.

If there were three candidates for a seat, say, a Liberal, ALP and One Nation, and the initial vote was:

ALP: 50122
ON: 3299
LIB: 48518

In the US system the ALP candidate would win with less then half of the vote. In Australia, however, the One Nation candidate would be eliminated, and the voes for him/her would then be split between the ALP candidate and the Liberal, using the second preferences of the voters, making the new total look like this:

ALP: 50296
LIB: 51643

So the Liberal actually had more support with the pulic then the ALP candidate. (I dislike this seat, I think )

With the added bonus of compulsory voting, at least in theory a candidate must have the support of 50%+1 of the VAP to be elected-true democracy, I believe.

If Australia becomes a Republic, It would be the world's most democratic country-even if they do elect idiots like Howard.

[Platypus]

A)  It's not as fun as un!  (new slogan for un-voting system)

B) Don't insult Libs by presuming that ON would make them their second choice

C) Compulsory voting is terribly un-democratic.  It forces individuals who have not been paying attention to the system to cast a ballot that they are too uninformed to make a proper decision on.  People should have the right to opt out if they so choose, even though it is one of their most fundamental responsibilities.

1. Al would have won with al(ternate voting). (It needs work...)

2. Hmmn, who will people who vote for ON preference? The right wing Liberals (biggest misnomer in poitics) or the left wing ALP? Also, I put a coupe of hundred preferences to the ALP from ON.

3. All you have to do is turn up and recieve your ballot. Then you can eat it if you want, doesnt matter. People can always protest by not voting, but if people actually turn up to the ballot box, they are more likely to vote-and if they know thy have to vote, they are more likely to pay attention. Sure, some people will just vote along pry lines, but that already happens here with the parties radical bases. if everyone had to vote, the true voice of the people would be heard because fringe groups would have less power over the parties. Also, third parties could be significantly more sucessful b/c if people voted for them then it wouldn't hurt anyone else. If we had preferential voting Nader would have won 5% or so, and Gore would still have won the presidency.

There are only three ways, in theory, that a candidate can get over 50% of the VAP-1. they are the only candidate; 2. turnout is high and there are very few candidates, or they win in a landslide 3. Turnout is high and there is preferencial voting. The first isn't democratic; the second never happens here, and the third has worked in Australia and New Zealand for decades.

[Platypus]

20% right Gustaf. The state shouldn't force people to do so, so its not like pople will be forced at gunpoint to vote. But a reasonable fee for not voting ($20, perhaps) is enough of an incentive. In theory that would mean we are paying people $20 to vote! (I know it's skewed logic )

[Platypus]

3-strikes and you face a judge. I wonder wat the judges would do.

Corey, what happens in OZ?