NEWS

Vale Bob Hawke

Vale Bob Hawke, our 23rd Prime Minister.

Vote Australia extends its condolences to the family of Bob Hawke, our 23rd Prime Minister, who passed away yesterday.  We thank him for his service to our country, and that he Rests In Peace.

COMMENTS

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

JOIN THE FIGHT

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

  • donated 2023-05-19 19:20:45 +1000

  • commented on A fair voting system 2023-04-30 16:55:07 +1000
    A summary/update of my earlier comments.
    Only, repeat ONLY, Borda-style counts guarantee fair counting of preferential voting elections for single or multimember electorates. Historically, Borda counts have been rejected (18 to 20th century, e.g. “Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem”) because they will contradict an “Absolute Majority” – but that’s only when the voters make it clear that the “absolute” majority is weak AND that preferences prove that there is a MORE-preferred candidate.

    E.g., If Candidate A gets 51% of first preferences and 49% of last preferences, but Candidate D (of 4 candidates) gets 0% 1st preferences but 100% of 2nd preferences (extremely unlikely but this is s reductio-ad-absurdum proof) hence Candidate D is clearly the preferred candidate with an average preference of 2.000 which is much closer to average 1st preferences than A’s average of 2.470. Another way of expressing that is is that A is only 51.000% of the way to winning unanimously, whereas D is (1-(2.000-1)/(4-1)) = 66.667% of the way towards unanimous 1st preferences – (two steps out of 3 steps from last of 4th to 2nd out of 4). That’s my DCAP count where DCAP=100x(1-(PrefAv-1)/(Candidates-1). The Borda count applicable is Borda=DCAPx(Candidates-1)xVoters = 153 for A for 100 voters, and 200 for D in the above example.

    DCAP easily accepts Partial Preferential Votes and SPLIT Partial Preferential Votes (e.g., if there are 9 candidates and a voter votes 1st 2nd & 3rd preferences and 8th & 9th preferences then DCAP “normalises” that vote by filling the 4 empty preference boxes with the average (5.5) of the 4 missing numbers (4, 5, 6 & 7). Further DCAP can often correct voters errors such as omitting a number of duplicating a number, provided that the voter’s intention is logically clear. “Normalising” ensures that every vote carries exactly the same weight as every other vote.

    DCAP is the “Candidate” version count for single-member electorates, whereas DPAP is the “Party” version which allows for fair proportional representation on a Party basis in multi-member electorates.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-04-30 16:06:02 +1000
    I plead ignorance re block-chain techniques. But yes we need robust voter ID. My main concern is as I’ve expressed in the “A Fair Voting System”. This section is about Compulsory Voting which I strongly endorse as a Responsibility to earn our Rights.

  • commented on Compulsory voting 2023-04-30 14:37:12 +1000
    Which consensus do you guys suggest? PoW? PoET?