Talk:Australian electoral system: Difference between revisions

Line 16:

:::: * Some interplay of these effects (e.g. low dimensionality issue space kept low by center squeeze effects)

::: The only things that seem definite are: IRV can tether STV's otherwise multiparty rule, and single-member districts don't force two-party rule (counterexamples being runoff voting in France, approval in Greece). Even Plurality's two-party rule may sometimes be limited to a local scope (Canada, India). [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 17:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

::: I can confirm [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]]'s point; STV is not the problem for proportional representation. STV is used to elect the Senate, which has a relatively strong crossbench of minor parties and independents. It is still not fully proportional though, as Senate seats are allocated by state and territory, not by population. There's also some wastage of voting power due to the transfer method used ([[wikipedia:Single_transferable_vote#Transfers_of_surplus_votes|transfer of surplus votes in STV]]), but that's a minor problem comparatively.

::: The major problem for proportional representation is the House of Representatives, which is elected by electorate, using IRV. The electoral divisions are mostly fair, being directed by the independent [[aec.gov.au AEC]], and with limits on the disproportionality of the population in each. (I believe it's a statutory limit of 10%.) However, it suffers the problem of most electorate systems, in that the votes of whoever's against the winning candidate in that particular electorate are 'wasted'. -- [[User:V.jackson|V.jackson]] ([[User talk:V.jackson|talk]]) 03:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)