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

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
30 signatures

WILL YOU ADD YOUR SIGNATURE?

  • 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 2021-08-23 20:54:27 +1000
    Troy Arnould: In answer to your question: it is secret voting. However, one of the safeguards against electoral fraud protocols I proposed could allow a person to choose to reveal their vote but only by choosing to have a receipt printed and then admitting that the receipt in their possession was their own vote receipt. But nothing on the receipt identifies the voter: it only identifies the place of voting and a unique random number that does not even identify the time of voting. That’s all now detailed in the url link spelled out in words in my previous comment, but I updated security recommendations some weeks ago.

    Also, since my original comment, I have better understood and explored the theory behind what began as an empirical approach that worked – but I wasn’t sure why. All I knew was that it was wrong to be obsessed with 1st preferences when sometimes last preferences were more important. Now I have changed the name from APR to DCAP. Candidate Acceptance Percentage is, in FACT, the exact Percentage of voters who Accepted the Candidate as being in the top 50% of Acceptable Candidates.

    Further, I was surprised to prove that Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem is wrong, and that my DCAP counting method guarantees to give a fair result in all cases. DCAP gives the same results as the Borda count of a FULL preferential voting election, but DCAP expresses the result in a consistent user-friendly way.

    In addition, DCAP easily and fairly handles PARTIAL Preferential Voting as well as SPLIT-Partial preferential voting. SPLIT Partial preferential voting makes it far easier for voters faced with, e.g., 123 candidates from 31 Parties to choose from to elect 6 Federal Senators for NSW. Currently, voting 1-6 for your top 6 Parties risks having zero say over who wins Senator 5 or 6 and hence who may hold the balance of power. But voting 1 to 31 Parties in order of preference is very difficult, let alone preferencing 123 Candidates. in order of preference. To overcome this, a SPLIT vote allows voters to vote (e.g.) 1-7 for their favourite Parties and 25 to 31 for their least favourite parties without having to preference the many micro parties they know nothing about. DCAP allows split votes to be counted fairly, and even to automatically correct voting errors where a voter’s intention is clear.

    DCAP is totally immune to strategic voting: even if a voter voted 1-7 and 93 to 99 for 31 parties, DCAP algorithms automatically translate 93 to 99, to 25 to 31. So, voters collectively get what they voted for, with no strategies available to distort a vote. However, no vote is ever immune from Party, Media or Government misinformation and propaganda.

    Borda is often criticised (by Arrow theory, and by numerical example) as being capable of ignoring an absolute majority. The same applies to DCAP and to its previous guises as: APR (Average Preference Rating); WPC (Weighted Preference Counting); or, CPV (Consensus Preference Voting). Until recently, I conceded that an absolute majority should override WPC/APR/Etc.
    I was wrong.
    Borda/WPC/APR/DCAP override very narrow absolute majorities ONLY, repeat O N L Y when that is in fact the BEST result. This can only happen when the ‘winner’ has a minuscule absolute majority margin compared while that ‘winner’ more strongly deserving the ‘wooden spoon’ as the MOST DISLIKED candidate on preferences.

    Other ‘counting’ methods suffer from erratic tipping points and that’s why they can and do get it wrong – often when it matters most in determining the last one or two candidates elected in multiple representative electorates where such winners often hold the balance of power. In contrast, Borda and DCAP are totally ‘linear’: i.e., they have no sudden tipping points, where changing one vote can tip preferences towards a totally different candidate. This is because Borda and DCAP never eliminate candidates, never distribute preferences, they fairly take into account all preferences for all candidates, in filling all vacancies and every vote has the same say over every vacancy.

    Current eliminate & distribute ‘counting’ methods are inherently flawed: they can not guarantee fair results; plus they facilitate strategic voting trying to game the system.
    Further, some claim that partial preferential voting (but not SPLIT partial preferential voting) skews the system in favour of larger parties. In contrast, DCAP actually guarantees a “fair voting system”.

    Why the D in DCAP?
    DCAP results can seem extremely counter-intuitive. E.g.: With 4 candidates, DCAP will correctly declare candidate D, with ZERO first preferences but 100% 2nd preferences, as the CLEAR STRONG DCAP winner with a DCAP score of 66.67% despite: Candidate A getting an ‘absolute majority’ with 51% of first preferences, but with a DCAP of only 51% due to A’s getting the largest share, 49%, of 4th-or-last preferences; and Candidate B getting 25% of both 1st and last preferences; and, C receiving 24% of first preferences.

    Although absolutely correct, this DCAP result is counter-intuitive and contrary to Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. Hence the ‘D’ in DCAP to acknowledge that my D’Nalwen Certainty Theorem and DCAP guarantees a fair election counting method, and disproves Arrow’s so-called “Impossibility Theorem”, D’Nalwen being my surname in reverse. Full details are in the url link in my previous comment.

  • commented on A fair voting system 2021-08-23 09:50:39 +1000
    Does it allow for secret voting or are all votes associated to a user and searchable/traceable?

  • signed up on Subscribe 2021-08-12 18:40:33 +1000

  • followed A fair voting system 2021-06-15 10:17:44 +1000