President Clown’s Unbeatable Logic

[Grandad]

....... our constitution states categorically that representatives must be elected by direct vote. There is nowhere in the constitution that says representatives can be elected by preferential voting.

Definition of "Direct Election" (AKA Direct Vote) from Cambridge Dictionary

direct election
noun [ C ]
US/dəˈrekt ɪˈlek·ʃən, dɑɪ-/

POLITICS & GOVERNMENT
an election in which citizens vote for themselves instead of representatives voting for them

Seems pretty clear to me. Preferential or popular makes zero difference.

Jim

[Newcastle George]

Direct election - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org › wiki › Direct_election
"Direct election is a system of choosing political officeholders in which the voters directly cast ballots for the persons or political party that they desire".

Not proxy votes.

George

[T1 Terry]

On preferential voting.

Let's say there are 3 candidates running for an important position.

You believe A is the absolute bee's knees and will do a great job.
Candidate B is not bad. He'll do a good job but not as well A.
C is a complete moron and the country/county/city/state will suffer badly if he wins.

You vote for A and there it is a "first past the post" style election.

A doesn't do well at all. He's out of the running and it's now between B & C. And it's a close race.

Do you still think first past the post is a good system? Or do you want your voice to still be heard?

Jim

Here is where the big "but" comes into it. The voter should mark the preference and only 1 other candidate, not 1 to 30 or what ever the field is ..... the preferences from candidate 1 who doesn't get up no longer exists, the voter's second preference gets added to the tally of each candidate, maybe as a half vote? Now it becomes first past the post, a Liberal voter can add a half vote for a National Party member or vice versa, that way a vote for one party isn't automatically a vote for the other party ensuring one of the candidates gets up. Same goes for Labor and say the Greens etc ... that way we don't get that crazy thing where someone gets up because of the fall of preferential votes passed from one failed candidate to the next and they get up even though they had bugger all actual votes cast for them.
This would give genuine independents a fairer go and maybe gradually filter out the number of candidates in any one seat and better reflect who the voters really wanted ....

T1 Terry

[native pepper]

....... our constitution states categorically that representatives must be elected by direct vote. There is nowhere in the constitution that says representatives can be elected by preferential voting.

Definition of "Direct Election" (AKA Direct Vote) from Cambridge Dictionary

direct election
noun [ C ]
US/dəˈrekt ɪˈlek·ʃən, dɑɪ-/

POLITICS & GOVERNMENT
an election in which citizens vote for themselves instead of representatives voting for them

Seems pretty clear to me. Preferential or popular makes zero difference.

Jim

Further on in section 24 of the Aus constitution it states, "a vote one value", so votes can't by used again for preferencing, which makes every politician ineligible to hold office because they were elected unconstitutionally. It amazes me that virtually no one, including politicians have a clue as to what is in our Aus constitution and state constitutions. It should be compulsory to educate children in the constitutions, as it is every one relies on what they are told by politicians and their vested interests, not the facts. Which is par for the course in our disney land societies, where fantasy overrides reality, if that were not so, we would have no global warming, no wars, sustainable economies and peaceful happy societies. Yet we have the opposite.

Many years ago, a bloke challenged the election of politicians as unconstitutional through the high court, they locked him away and nothing more has been said or heard about it. Years ago when at a social gathering after a gig in the ACT, was talking to a lawyer who claimed to deal in the constitution and was pretty out of it, I put the question to him and he refused to answer, mumbling about it not being in the public interest to bring up such things and that precedents have been established that must be adhered to. You can make up your own minds as to the veracity of what I say, by reading the constitution.

[Grandad]

....... our constitution states categorically that representatives must be elected by direct vote. There is nowhere in the constitution that says representatives can be elected by preferential voting.

I already am aware that somewhere in the constitution states every vote must be a direct vote. We all vote directly for the representative we want. We are NOT like say the presidential vote in the USA, on who's constitution ours was based, where the people vote for a representative in the Electoral College who in turn decides who will be president.

This was a clause introduced into their constitution as a compromise amongst their founding fathers who were split on the matter of democracy. Some were in favour of a democracy. Others, such as Benjamin Franklin were against it.

One of his famous quotes is "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep demanding a recount."

it is well documented that our own version of "founding fathers" disagreed with Franklin. Thus, the phrase you are quoting.

Further on in section 24 of the Aus constitution, it states, "a vote one value", so votes can't by used again for referencing, ..........

Personally, I would say "a vote one value" means one vote, one value. Or, in other words, everyone's vote is equal. Mine is worth no more or less than yours for example. So long as we both have preferential voting available to us, which we do, then that stipulation is met.

At any rate, here is Section 24. In it's entirety.....

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 24
Constitution of House of Representatives
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.

The number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people, and shall, until the Parliament otherwise provides, be determined, whenever necessary, in the following manner:

(i) a quota shall be ascertained by dividing the number of the people of the Commonwealth, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by twice the number of the senators;

(ii) the number of members to be chosen in each State shall be determined by dividing the number of the people of the State, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by the quota; and if on such division there is a remainder greater than one-half of the quota, one more member shall be chosen in the State.

But notwithstanding anything in this section, five members at least shall be chosen in each Original State.

No mention of voting by the people in an election.


Jim

[Grandad]

Here is where the big "but" comes into it. The voter should mark the preference and only 1 other candidate, not 1 to 30 or what ever the field is .....

I totally agree. Only one other candidate? Yeah, ok. I'd be ok with that. I may prefer 2 or even 3 further preferences but we seem to be in agreement on the main issue.
I personally further believe these preferences should be decided by the voter. Not the party we are voting for. Thus my earlier suggestion for abolishing "How To Vote" cards. We decide. Not the party. Yes, I'm aware we can choose our own now, but how many of us actually do that? Especially when there maybe 30 of the buggers as you suggest.

the preferences from candidate 1 who doesn't get up no longer exists, the voter's second preference gets added to the tally of each candidate, maybe as a half vote? Now it becomes first past the post, a Liberal voter can add a half vote for a National Party member or vice versa, that way a vote for one party isn't automatically a vote for the other party ensuring one of the candidates gets up. Same goes for Labor and say the Greens etc ... that way we don't get that crazy thing where someone gets up because of the fall of preferential votes passed from one failed candidate to the next and they get up even though they had bugger all actual votes cast for them.
This would give genuine independents a fairer go and maybe gradually filter out the number of candidates in any one seat and better reflect who the voters really wanted ....

Now.....Terry....... I have seen you explain many very high tech and complicated issues in a manner that even I can follow. Ok, I may not understand enough to explain it to somebody else I do understand the issue on a surface understanding by the time you finish explaining it to us.

But, this last quote of yours, your skills at explaining seem to have let you down. I'm afraid you've lost me. I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Obviously, its to do with how the preferences are actually passed out. I admit I didn't totally know how this was done so I had a quick look.
Here's a quick link from the AEC that explains what is done now. https://www.aec.gov.au/voting/counting/hor_count.htm

I can't see anything there I would not agree with, until we get to the Two Party Preferred part. That may be what you're referring to in your post.

Am I on the right track?

I'd like to understand before I comment. We may well be agreeing with each other.

Jim

[native pepper]

I already am aware that somewhere in the constitution states every vote must be a direct vote. We all vote directly for the representative we want. We are NOT like say the presidential vote in the USA, on who's constitution ours was based, where the people vote for a representative in the Electoral College who in turn decides who will be president.

This was a clause introduced into their constitution as a compromise amongst their founding fathers who were split on the matter of democracy. Some were in favour of a democracy. Others, such as Benjamin Franklin were against it.

One of his famous quotes is "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep demanding a recount."

it is well documented that our own version of "founding fathers" disagreed with Franklin. Thus, the phrase you are quoting.

Further on in section 24 of the Aus constitution, it states, "a vote one value", so votes can't by used again for referencing, ..........

Personally, I would say "a vote one value" means one vote, one value. Or, in other words, everyone's vote is equal. Mine is worth no more or less than yours for example. So long as we both have preferential voting available to us, which we do, then that stipulation is met.

At any rate, here is Section 24. In it's entirety.....

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 24
Constitution of House of Representatives
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, and the number of such members shall be, as nearly as practicable, twice the number of the senators.

The number of members chosen in the several States shall be in proportion to the respective numbers of their people, and shall, until the Parliament otherwise provides, be determined, whenever necessary, in the following manner:

(i) a quota shall be ascertained by dividing the number of the people of the Commonwealth, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by twice the number of the senators;

(ii) the number of members to be chosen in each State shall be determined by dividing the number of the people of the State, as shown by the latest statistics of the Commonwealth, by the quota; and if on such division there is a remainder greater than one-half of the quota, one more member shall be chosen in the State.

But notwithstanding anything in this section, five members at least shall be chosen in each Original State.

No mention of voting by the people in an election.


Jim

Jim, a preferential vote is not a direct vote, but an indirect vote as it comes via another candidate and not directly from the voter, so can't possibly be a direct vote. A direct vote goes from the voter to the candidate, an indirect vote goes from the voter to their candidate of choice and then to another candidate, indirectly.

" One vote one value", means exactly that, the vote only has a value once, not more times via preferences.

Terry makes some good points which would help improve outcomes, but as long as we have preferential voting, we will never get truly representative governance. They make deals with preferences between parties, so preference votes always go to the major parties in the end, which to me is totally corrupt. It's the same in parliament, they make deals to get their agenda's through, by giving other parties or independents payment in kind for them to chance their mind and vote for what the parties want. This is outright bribery and more examples of corrupt practises controlling our parliamentary system.

Preferential voting was brought in about 1918 I think, the liberals brought it in to try to stop labor gaining governance of the country. Thing is it it did the opposite, even though the labs fervently fought against it's introduction,since both parties have used it to maintain their duopoly. Greens, One nation etc, are really just left or right offshoots of the major parties and that's proven by parliamentary voting patterns. The duopoly can only maintain power, by using preferential voting and as our country started off with constitutional voting practises Then party politics (elitist wealthy) took over, and direct voting, one vote one value went unconstitutionally out the window. With indirect votes having many values through preferencing used to get the outcome the parties want and not what the people voted for.

It's getting interesting in the good ole USA, the rump is trying every trick in the book, even making up unbelievable, trying claims and accusations, trying to coerce voting officials to go against the results and wishes of the people to keep him in power. It's just another glaring example of the mental state of all ideologues, they just can't handle reality and that's why our societies are collapsing, they are run by those living in fantasy land delusions and shit scared of reality.

As to a better system, simple, governance by online referendum style voting and no politicians, as this system is definitely not working, but getting worse almost daily. With no lobbyists or companies offering jobs after parliament to influence decisions, or being able to make donations to parties to get what they want. Then we would get what the people really want and then we can only blame ourselves when we get it wrong, it would mean the saving of many billions each year that current governments give away in incompetence, bad purchases, grants, over payments, tax and other subsidies to profit growth businesses.

[Greynomad]

NP & Jim,
TL:DR

[Greynomad]

Nothing on major TV News, but ABC radio reported t’other day that Soon-to-be-ex President Clown has sacked his Cybersecurity Chief for issuing a ‘misleading statement’.
He re-Tweeted a statement from the head of election monitoring (dunno his title) that the 2020 Election was the most secure in US history, and they found NO evidence of voter fraud or corruption.

[Dot]

Just saying. I agree with everything NP says, their system is really very open to fraud as it really has no checks and balances between states and the feds with no real or proper oversight. The electoral college is a gerrymander and is open ended, even if somebody wins a states electoral college vote, they state does not have to give those college seats to the winner, if they were game they can quite lawfully under the constitution give the electoral college votes to the loser. It really relays on people acting in good faith but falls down with somebody like Trump. The electoral college system was put in place because the fore fathers were concerned that the people could get it wrong and the state electoral college could oversee the vote and if necessary change it. It’s a very weird format, it’s only a a democracy if it goes the way they want and is really designed to leave out or disempower minorities, blacks, natives, Mexicans etc. I may not be 100% accurate but this is my rough understanding of it, we may not have a perfect system either but it’s miles better than theirs.