PETITION

Enquiry into Preferential Voting

Dear Prime Minister and Premiers, many voters feel disenfranchised when the candidate who receives their first preference vote and gets the most primary votes, loses because preferences from other candidates results in a candidate winning who had a lower primary vote.

Please conduct an enquiry into preferential voting to determine whether it is fair and whether an alternative system may be more equitable to voters.

Who's signing

Ray Barratt
Donna Filson
Frank P Mcenroe
Di Jones
Glenn Lee
Paul Turner
Jessie Dean
Matt Leonard
Heather Searle
Steve Mcconnell
Toni Van De Lustgraaf
Barry Halstead
Patricia Lanes
Denise Fiegert
Diane Savill
Emma Lawson
Stephanie Majewski
Vanessa Homan
Phyllis Hannaford
Liam Leonard
Craig Evans
Janice Woods
Neil Hamilton
John Capp
Bronwyn Schulz
31 signatures

WILL YOU ADD YOUR SIGNATURE?

  • Ray Barratt
    signed 2022-05-21 18:24:55 +1000
    Preferential voting was brought in when the population was very low, time to abolish it. First past the post.
  • Donna Filson
    signed 2019-05-28 12:33:45 +1000
  • Frank P Mcenroe
    signed 2019-05-25 09:16:51 +1000
    WE need to change the system if we are to have just one vote for one Party, in the UK the DUP received a total of just over 200.000 votes they won 10 seats, and control the government, two other Party’s received almost 4.000.000 votes each they won 1 seat, that’s the same as having a cricket match where 1 team has 11 players and the other team 168 players . in India the PM s Party received 200.000.000 votes said to be a landslide win, yet 700.000.000 did not vote for him, that’s how the one voting system works, the minority always win, and that is why there is so much corruption in politics,
  • Di Jones
    signed 2019-05-25 09:09:23 +1000
    The voting system here in Australia is a farce. One person one vote.
  • Glenn Lee
    signed 2019-05-25 08:08:41 +1000
  • Paul Turner
    signed 2019-05-24 22:02:01 +1000
    sick of this preferential voting crap,,I vote for a particular person I’m sick of my vote finishing up with someone I didnt want in the first place,,first past the post wins the race,,only competition on earth where a person with the least votes to their name can win the race,,bloody ludicrous
  • Jessie Dean
    signed 2019-05-24 14:38:02 +1000
  • Matt Leonard
    signed 2019-05-24 12:24:20 +1000
  • Heather Searle
    signed 2019-05-24 10:22:49 +1000
  • Steve Mcconnell
    signed 2019-05-23 20:18:38 +1000
  • Toni Van De Lustgraaf
    signed 2019-05-23 20:02:55 +1000
  • Barry Halstead
    signed 2019-05-23 17:38:58 +1000
  • Patricia Lanes
    signed 2019-05-23 16:39:58 +1000
  • Denise Fiegert
    signed 2019-05-23 03:09:57 +1000
    No more preference voting
  • Diane Savill
    signed 2019-05-23 01:01:18 +1000
  • Emma Lawson
    signed via 2019-05-22 16:56:59 +1000
  • Stephanie Majewski
    signed 2019-05-22 14:46:18 +1000
  • Vanessa Homan
    signed 2019-05-22 05:43:24 +1000
  • Phyllis Hannaford
    signed 2019-05-22 04:00:44 +1000
  • Liam Leonard
    signed 2019-05-21 20:18:23 +1000
    Preferential votes is a dictatorship for the 2 party preffered system. We should also get to vote for a prime minister. We should be voting for our leader. Not the parties leader they dictate to us. 8 prime ministers in 4 years.
  • Craig Evans
    signed 2019-05-21 02:09:29 +1000
  • Janice Woods
    signed 2019-05-20 15:00:20 +1000
    We need this before the next election.

    Preferential voting is past its use by now. Time to look at an alternative which the major parties are unable to manipulate our votes
  • Neil Hamilton
    signed 2019-02-13 16:52:34 +1100
    Abolish preferential voting and bring in the candidate with the most votes wins ( first past the post )
  • John Capp
    signed 2019-02-12 12:42:44 +1100
    Your vote is for who you voted for only this vote should not go to any other candidates if the person doesn’t get enough votes.
  • Bronwyn Schulz
    signed 2019-02-12 12:00:52 +1100
    Preferential voting takes away the voters right to choose because of backroom deals.

JOIN THE FIGHT

Add your name and let’s keep Australian elections free and fair.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-09-14 22:49:29 +1000
    John de Wit, less empty negative comments please.

    I’m happy to answer real questions if you’re not yet clear how DCAP works to guarantee fair results. I sympathise – it took me ages to fully understand why current voting systems fail voters and then years to work out how to correct it and then to twig to the simple maths behind it and finally to be able to give simple examples that demonstrate it.

    E.g. it is not obvious that my DCAP system is correct when it will declare that Party D, of 4 parties standing, and with 45% first preferences is the winner despite Party A having 51% first preferences. But that is correct IF, repeat IF, in the election Party A had 49% of 4th (or LAST) preferences and party D had 55% of 2nd preferences. I have proved that particular case, no matter what preferences parties B and C get within the values I specified. Can anyone prove me mathematically &/or logically wrong there? No way! The correct Proportional results in a 100 seat electorate is NOT A=51 seats and D=45 Seats. The correct results is A=27 Seats and D=41 seats with B&C sharing the remaining 33 seats.

    So, it will not be a majority Government for A in its own right. Rather, it will be a minority government, of probably D in coalition with B or C; or, a slim chance of A running a minority government. Apart from the speculation of who will arrange a coalition; who can logically prove I’m wrong and that that voters preferences showed that they collectively wanted A as a majority government? It can’t be done unless you ignore voters’ clear collective preferences. The fact is that a marginal “absolute majorities” may be a real win; or, a travesty of electoral justice simply because Distribution of Preferences (AKA Instant Run Off) and First-Past-The-Post systems are inherently incapable of guaranteeing a fair result.

    I have proved that. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-09-14 16:55:04 +1000
    Peter Newland,
    Your arithmetic is very complex compared to a single vote for the party of your choice. There is no assumption that you should agree with every policy of that party. You just choose the party and candidate you think is best.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-09-14 16:17:29 +1000
    For those interested, the simple arithmetic to convert my earlier example with preferences
    1 2 3
    A 40 0 60
    B 40 60 0
    C 20 40 40
    into number of seats earned under Proportional Preferential counted by Borda or DCAP
    First, Preference AVerages (PAVs)
    PAVa = (40×1 + 0×2 + 60×3)/100votes = 2.2
    PAVb = (40×1 + 60×2 + 0×3)/100votes = 1.6
    PAVc = (20×1 + 40×2 + 40×3)/100votes = 2.2
    B, with PAV = 1.6 is clearly the closest to unanimously first preference of PAV=1.
    A and C tie for second place with PAVs = 2.2.
    A’s downfall is that it is significantly more unpopular than it is popular.

    Then, to translate that into seats, first calculate DCAP scores where
    DCAP=100x(1-(PAV-1)/(Cn-1)).
    DCAPa= 40, DCAPb=70, and DCAPc=40 , which adds to 150.
    So, scaling that to the 100 seat vacancies and with rounding (arbitrarily, in favour of 1st preference tallies to remove the dead heat for 2nd place),
    we get A=27 seats, B=47 seats and C=26 seats.

    For more explanation, including on Borda, see https://tinyurl.com/ElectoralReformOz starting with the 1-page [Absolute Majority v Democracy.pdf] and then perhaps browse the [0-Voting Reform – how … ] directory.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-09-14 15:21:54 +1000
    John de Wit, those arguments are seriously flawed.
    Using Proportional Representation without Preferences, as you propose, effectively assumes that a vote for a party totally agrees with that party and has no preference for any of the other parties. No wonder people are reluctant to vote under such conditions – who could possibly endorse every policy of a party???

    More to the point, the arguments you gave in no way refutes my proof that Preferential Proportional representation adds value because it is well able to discriminate between parties with equal primary votes based on the collective preferences of the voters.