Hacker News Reader

Comment by danieltillett | Hacker News Reader

I love the Australian voting system. It is based on two seeming unrelated, but intertwined rules.

1. Instant runoff voting (preferencing the candidates from 1 to x).

2. Compulsory voting (actually a fine for not visiting the polling station and getting your name crossed off, voting is optional).

The two systems together work to keep everyone involved to a certain extent in the political system, a choice in who you can actually vote for, and historically, stable centralist governments. We have over the last decade or so ended up with less stable governments, but this is more a reflection of a convergence to the centre. The differences between the major parties is now so small that changing does not make much difference in policy.

The one downside is it does make Australia a rather boring place to live :)

View on HN

> The one downside is it does make Australia a rather boring place to live :)

That's not a bug, it's a feature. There's a reason that "may you live in interesting times" is considered a curse.

Wouldn't it also be a negative?

Basically, you cannot have radical societal or cultural changes because you have to get everyone on board ahead of time.

In a two party system and optional voting, you can have only a small fraction of the population who particularly want some changes actually get those changes. Also, this strategy can be used to destabilize a system away from local maximum (if we are searching for some better state).

Yes if you want radical change it is a negative. Having said this radical change does not have a good history. I think that gradual change that has the support of the majority is the best way to achieve lasting change for the better.

A really good current example is same sex marriage. Australia is one of the last western countries to allow this (should be implemented before the end of the year), but it now has the support of 70% of the population. I would rather see change occur that lasts, than a small minority impose their will on the majority and having to deal with the resulting backlash.

That small minority might feel quite differently. Which is the point of the QV idea, I suppose.

Another way of looking at this is that gay marriage is banned because of the will of 30% of the population

Granted a lot of this is about stickiness of laws but it seems like a huge battle has to be fought for removing systemic inequalities, when that seems to be a major problem in the current system

It's only very recently that reproductive rights have broad majority support. The Civil Rights Act could never be enacted if it had required 70% support.

Once the battle is won then these rights get protected. At a time when systemic inequalities are at the forefront, inhibiting change seems like something that would go against the general political currents.

SSM was banned when it did not have popular support and will now be unbanned when it has popular support. It is a philosophical position, but I think large change should come with popular support and if you don't have popular support for your idea then keep working until you do.

It is worth debating if the civil rights act should have been enacted before it had popular support. Rather than undermining the basis of suppression, imposing something on the majority without their support brings a resulting backlash that can last generations. We only have to look what drove the last 50 years of politics in the US south to see the result. From my comfortable perspective it might have been better to let the south come to its own opinion (with a lot of outside nudging) that things really had to change.

Well these things have popular support, it's just there's a gulf between 50% and 60%, and yet another between 60% and 70%

Its hard because laws that ensure basic civil rights go through the same process as tax law, but one is vitally more important for a better future for all

The move in support for legalising SSM has come rather fast - 5 years ago it was less than 50%.

Yes relying on achieving popular support before acting will always mean that change happens later than it really should, but I think this price is worth paying to ensure long term support.

I do think political systems that reguire building broad popular support are desirable in general because they encourage openness.

What if the status quo keeps moving in a direction that slowly makes things worse for a certain group of people?

You basically cannot get out of it unless you can convince most people that it's a good idea. With a 2-party system you can get someone who represents those people to rule for a while and maybe correct the course.

Also, with optional voting, we basically delegate decisions to those who really care about something. Having lived in a country with mandatory voting, I saw a few elections where people's views and the results of some elections were easily manipulated by false news close to the election day. People who are ambivalent I think are more likely to change their decision over such things.

> The one downside is it does make Australia a rather boring place to live :)

I don't know about boring, from my perspective it's more comical. Who's turn is it to be Prime Minister this week? and can she stack it in high heels on the grass again. We've had the same PM for nearly a year, must be time for another spill.

I would trade instability in PM's for stability in policy any day.

Your post did make me LOL remembering Julia trying to walk on grass in high heels and then faceplanting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com