Saturday, March 04, 2006

Australian Prime Minister John Howard

This week Australian Prime Minister John Howard will mark ten years in office. Howard is a member of the Liberal Party and was elected in a partisan election using ranked choice voting. His Liberal Party replaced the Labor Party in office when they took control of the government in 1996.

Howard's term in office has been marked by an enormously stable and robust economic boom. The Sydney stock market's capitalization has swung skyward. Inflation is down to about 2.5%. Employment has increased. Today, more Australians own stock than belong to labor unions.

Ranked Choice Voting in Australia has helped allow that country to have a stable government with a multi-party system.


At 12:48 PM, Blogger Lee said...

How are each party's candidates selected?

My sources claim that Howard was appointed by a PR-elected parliament, which is entirely different than so-called "ranked choice" voting in SF. (SF uses straight IRV for all offices, and voters are VERY happy with it)

PR elections have entirely different effects than IRV, and it doesn't help to confuse them. The telling indicator that Howard is not directly elected by IRV is that he helped invade Iraq. I don't believe that a careless partisan warmonger would have any chance of winning a real IRV election, but I'm not going to double-check again to see if you are wrong or right because this subject has already come up elsewhere.

However, the president of Ireland is supposedly directly elected with IRV, and Ireland is now doing better than Australia. (booming economy. ending internal strife, no invasions launched.

If you are SURE that the Aus PM is directly elected using IRV, I hope you clarify it.

Otherwise, I still hope you clarify and be more careful about claiming that PR is IRV.

PR is basically plurality in disguise and does not have most of the benefits of IRV. Minority-party voters have no real power under either PR or plurality system, but PR gives them a lame-duck spokesman for a lame-duck party with little connection to actual voters except a powerless voice for party insiders. Just ask the next Iraqi bomber you meet if they are happy with their govt.

In contrast, IRV elections demand super-majority politics to win, and any campaign that doesn't treat all voters equally and reach out to as many voters as possible will lose to the campaign that does it right.

ftr, "Ranked Choice Voting" was coined by an opoonent of IRV to help stall SF's modernization. Since then, "RCV" is being pushed by PR lobbyists trying to use the overwhelming benefits of IRV to bait-and-switch and confuse activists into unintentionally promoting PR, which has already been repealed by almost every US city that tried it, for rational reasons. (it doesn't help voters)

Get real: PR will never replace American single district elections, and trying to confuse it with IRV is just more fiddling while the national treasury is looted. The people who are intentionally causing this confusion are going to face bad karma for every additional victim of the plurality poitics while IRV modernization is delayed by the confusion. If you talk to enough Democrat officials, it will be undeniable that ending this confusion with PR is THE biggest hurdle for IRV (the fear of ending primaries is also widespread, but more easily solved, simply by agreeing to keep the primary.)

(The real karma is that you could be sent back to a war-torn nation still using single-choce, non-ranked voting. That's the problem with not teaching buddhism to everyone: Americans think that they will never face the music, so the problems never stop)
Once the first state or nation modernizes to natiownide IRV without any PR, the benefits for voters/peace will be so obvious that national PR will be phased out worldwide. IRV empowers minority/all voters, not party leaders & war-mongers.

Or you can keep talking about PR and stall IRV a little longer.

(If you just want a better name for IRV, try "Inclusive Ranked Voting" which is the most accurate term, because IRV includes the most voters in the governing majority. ("Ranked Pairs" (IRV-P), if ever actually used anywhere, is FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT to IRV. There is no point in dicussing it further until you have an actual politician willing to waste their time on it. Please don't try to waste our time on it either. (this is a note to the IRV-P trolls who consistently lie about hypothetical effects of IRV using made up unrealistic sample ballots.

note to IRV-P' squackers, before you start again: your karma is gonna keep getting you as long as keep acting like a decapitated chicken to waste our time. IRV is moving in congress, legislatures, city hall, the DNC chair's hands, and A.P.

IRV-P is as dead as ever just like the guy you claim "invented" it. IRV-P would make sense for very small elections like those silly examples that you can't seem to get beyond. (Going back to school and suggesting IRV-P for classroom elections for eraser-clapper would be about 5-10,000 times more effective than posting here again.)

At 2:31 PM, Anonymous Georgeipqwg said...

According to an official site of Australia:

The prime minister is almost always the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives, the 150-seat lower house of the bicameral parliament. Members of the House of Representatives, or MHRs, are elected from single-member constituencies, known as divisions. The upper house is the 76-seat Senate, in which each state is represented by twelve Senators, regardless of population size, and each mainland territory by two. Elections for both chambers are held every three years, usually with one half of the Senate being eligible for reelection.

At 3:23 PM, Anonymous Jesse said...

[[ "Ranked Pairs" (IRV-P), if ever actually used anywhere, is FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT to IRV. ]]

I'm assuming you mean Condorcet methods here.. I've never heard it called IRV-P, though, and that's a misleading name. What you said about functional equivalence is simply false: it's easy to find situations where the IRV winner is not the Condorcet winner.

IRV is a form of ranked choice voting, because you rank candidates in order. Condorcet methods are also forms of ranked choice voting, but they are not forms of IRV.

It's become clear that you don't understand the different election methods, Lee, but the least you could do is stop making your ignorance so obvious. All you're doing is making the election reform movement look like a bunch of fools.

At 3:41 PM, Anonymous Jesse said...

BTW, here are descriptions of Australia's voting systems: (Senate) (House)

As you can see, they refer to IRV as "preferential voting", and it is used for House elections. Senators are elected through proportional representation.

The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with majority support in the House. He isn't directly elected with IRV (the PM isn't directly elected at all in parliamentary systems), but House members are, which means the PM is *indirectly* elected with IRV.


Post a Comment

<< Home