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 A fair voting system 2022-06-23 20:29:52 +1000
    John thanks for taking the time to read PLERS.

    With regards to computer entry, AEC always enters every vote on their computer system and that is what determines the result. Doing an election night manual count would give enough information from 1st and 2nd preferences to predict a PLERS result.

    The chapter I am currently writing uses PLERS Simplified for political elections, which simplifies the count process. For Reps elections 1st pref gets a 1.0, 2nd 0.9, 3rd 0.8, etc till the 11th and all subsequent getting zero (0.0). It’s a simple process, you just add up the vote value and rank the candidates.

    Senate is a little more complex but follows similar lines.

    Regards Erik

  • commented on A fair voting system 2022-06-23 15:53:21 +1000
    John, I have clearly documented how Preferential Voting (PV) can overcome the shortcomings of First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) voting – in BOTH single member electorates and in Proportional Representation systems such as you advocate. You correctly say that PR would make life easier for the voters, the AEC, and government, but then you say “as far as fairness is concerned – [PR] is unbeatable”. The fact is PR does not guarantee a fair count and I have proved this with examples, and proved that Preferential Voting beats PR in fairness.

    I have clearly demonstrated clear numerical examples how the PR system you advocate can get it WRONG, but that those problems can be reduced by adding Preferential Voting and, better still, even totally eliminated by counting the votes via DPAP. DCAP/DPAP totally eliminates the problems of electing Parties or Candidates contrary to voters’ collective preferences. Without PV PR totally ignore everything except first preferences and that risks unfair results.

    DPAP is the ONLY guaranteed fair vote counting method that allow you, John, to vote only for the party you want, while allowing others to use full or partial or split preferential voting as they see fit, and yet every vote still carries exactly the same value. The Borda Count comes close, but can’t handle partial preferential voting. PLERS comes closer, but it does NOT handle partial preferential voting fairly because it does not count partial preferential votes linearly – unless Erik has changed his system to overcome that fault since I pointed it out some months ago in this forum.

    DCAP facilitates high security against electoral fraud. It suits transparent block-chain security with a complete audit trail from paper ballot paper and/or electronic screen voting all the way from polling booth to final declaration. Being totally linear, the results from different polling places, as extremely small digital files, are easily and instantly aggregated as highly secure digital files that are very difficult to alter because they can be checked against the individual votes retained in the polling place machines. The fact that voting machine fraud is widespread in some countries simply highlights the need for legislation for machines and procedures to be rigidly controlled. As outlined in links given previously, individual voters can choose to receive anonymous receipts showing their actual vote as scanned and/or as approved on screen, that they can the check that their vote was actually correctly recorded and counted. Further, the online semi-real-time output summaries from individual polling stations can be made transparent to the media, public, candidates and parties. All this make voting fraud difficult and auditing easy.

    The fact is DCAP/DPAP can fix PR’s serious fault that it can give parties more seats than they deserve – as I have documented. So, your claim that: “(The Israeli system) is a fair system” is clearly not necessarily true. Also, while “Voters would be very reluctant to vote for a party that could form a coalition with a party they despise. (and) Pre-election promises about forming coalitions are usually widely known and adhered to,” there are plenty of Israeli and Kiwi voters, who despair over parties and candidates betraying their trust – plus Aussie voters betrayed where promised policies are ignored etc.
    While traditional Preferential Vote counting is a slow error-prone process because candidates are eliminated and preferences distributed (often more than 100 times in a mathematically chaotic process with numerous unpredictable tipping points) DPAP requires no time-wasting sifting through preferences. DPAP never distributes preferences – but all preferences are taken into account fairly. DPAP never “eliminates” any Candidate or Party in the count, all are accurately rated into a hierarchy. Everything is decided in a quick efficient linear manner.

    In summary, if you want to guarantee a fair and just level playing field, then Preferential Voting using DPAP’s fair counting system is required in a Proportional Representation system, even when voting for a large number of representatives. While voters wanting to ensure a fair and just result need to fill in more preferences, voters have the option to vote as little or much as they choose and all votes are counted equally.

  • commented on A fair voting system 2022-06-23 12:24:58 +1000
    Erik,
    Preferential voting for multiple seats in a single electorate using proportional representation (PR), would not achieve much at all. There would hardly be any difference in outcome compared to voting for a single candidate.
    I agree that PR is difficult to achieve. It would require a constitutional change in Australia. I do not agree that it is difficult to implement. It would make life easier for the voters, the AEC, and government. And as far as fairness is concerned – it is unbeatable.

    I do think your PLERS is a fairer system, compared to existing preferential voting and other alternatives. However, it requires a spreadsheet to process results. The existing system has a method that can be counted manually by stacking and eliminating votes in a process that is easily checked and monitored – by people. It is slow, but traceable.
    Your method (PLERS) requires data-entry into a spreadsheet – which I guarantee you is a much slower and error-prone process. Preferably this would be done on 3 spreadsheets simultaneously, so that the results can be compared. If they don’t match – start again. If you were to combine PLERS with voting for multiple seats in a single electorate using proportional representation, i.e. all of Australia in a federal election, you would also have to combine spreadsheets from regional counting centres in a country-wide spreadsheet. Another error-prone level of complexity. Mistakes are inevitable and voters would lose confidence. I foresee very long wait times before election results are confirmed.
    PLERS would be OK if we got the input for the spreadsheets directly from a voting machine. However voting machines are not allowed in Australia – and I agree with that. It is too easy to manipulate – as is the merging of spreadsheets.

    Forgive me for my opinion, but I still dislike any form of preferential voting – even PLERS, because it is simply too complex and achieves nothing in a PR system.

  • commented on A fair voting system 2022-06-23 12:22:42 +1000
    Peter,
    1. This is not my system. This is a system used in many countries, Israel among others, as you have stated. The Israeli system does create a complex of parties with – in our eyes – ‘unstable’ governments. The parties and their policies are a direct reflection of the diverse opinions of the citizens of Israel. It is a fair system. Sometimes this means failures to govern, and a re-election is required. But when it works – it works very well.

    2. I retract my ‘THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE’. It is possible, though extremely unlikely. Your example states a party with 30% of the vote may be considered by 51 to 70% of the voters to be the worst possible choice. Well then, the parties these ‘51 to 70%’ voted for can form a coalition. But realistically, the opinions of voters are reflected in the parties they vote for – otherwise why vote for them. No party would form a coalition with a party that has alienated itself from more than 50% of the voters. Voters would be very reluctant to vote for a party that could form a coalition with a party they despise. Pre-election promises about forming coalitions are usually widely known and adhered to. Theoretically it can happen – but in practice it hardly ever does, and when it happens the government does not last long – and a re-election is required – like in Israel.

    Preferential voting is simply not required in a proportional representation system when voting for a large group of representatives. We do not have to sift through preferences per regional seat to determine a winner per seat. We just vote for one candidate by ticking his name on a list. If party X has 30% of the vote – they get 30% of the seats – fair and transparent. And simple to count.