Comments on: Wake Me up When November Ends http://www.undiplomatic.net/2009/06/30/wake-me-up-when-november-ends/ Bringing foreign policy back, girl. Those other countries don't know how to act. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 07:41:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Adam Driver http://www.undiplomatic.net/2009/06/30/wake-me-up-when-november-ends/#comment-40717 Adam Driver Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:54:22 +0000 http://www.undiplomatic.net/?p=3424#comment-40717 I just thought I'd point out that IRV (also called Single Transferable Vote) is used for state and federal elections in Australia (and has been since about the 1940s I believe). It generally works very well and we certainly don't have the problems with post-election court cases that sometimes occur in the US. Also, it does mean that the winner in any single electorate does get more than 50%, even if a portion of that is 2nd or 3rd choice votes. It is much cheaper as you noted than a run off election, although of course the drawback is you can't vote for the same candidate twice (ie., 1st and 2nd round). The one issue I would say we have with this system relates to voter apathy (and remember Australia has compulsory voting). The ballot paper usually gives you the option of ranking the candidates 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., or just voting for one candidate. In that case preferences (ie., 2nd, 3rd choice etc.,) are determined by a pre-defined list lodged by that candidate (or party) with the electoral commission. Voters can review these in advance on the electoral commission website, but of course most don't. That means the parties are relatively free to make preference deals with each other safe in the knowledge a fair proportion of voters will vote for their first choice only without bothering to find out where their 2nd and 3rd preferences are going. However, on balance I would say it's a pretty fair and well functioning system. I just thought I’d point out that IRV (also called Single Transferable Vote) is used for state and federal elections in Australia (and has been since about the 1940s I believe). It generally works very well and we certainly don’t have the problems with post-election court cases that sometimes occur in the US. Also, it does mean that the winner in any single electorate does get more than 50%, even if a portion of that is 2nd or 3rd choice votes.

It is much cheaper as you noted than a run off election, although of course the drawback is you can’t vote for the same candidate twice (ie., 1st and 2nd round).

The one issue I would say we have with this system relates to voter apathy (and remember Australia has compulsory voting). The ballot paper usually gives you the option of ranking the candidates 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., or just voting for one candidate. In that case preferences (ie., 2nd, 3rd choice etc.,) are determined by a pre-defined list lodged by that candidate (or party) with the electoral commission. Voters can review these in advance on the electoral commission website, but of course most don’t. That means the parties are relatively free to make preference deals with each other safe in the knowledge a fair proportion of voters will vote for their first choice only without bothering to find out where their 2nd and 3rd preferences are going.

However, on balance I would say it’s a pretty fair and well functioning system.

]]>