[LINK] Why Electronic Voting?

[Stewart Fist]

Kim writes:
> And yes we would probably get the odd public figure (Arnie anyone?)
> but I don't know, isn't the idea of a democracy that people elect who
> they want within the limited choice they are given.  Don't we have to
> trust them in that?  What choice do we have after all?

1. I guess it boils down to whether the 'limited choice they are given' are
those given by the head offices of the two major parties, or by the
head-offices of the two major media groups.

Representative democracy selects the first, while participatory democracy
gives more power to the last (who already have far too much power).


2. On the question of
  [  ] I choose not to vote

What about the American 'Write In system' where you can nominate your own
candidate ?   

However, I suspect this is little more democratic window-dressing.
Certainly at any level other than local elections.


3. On David's concern with electoral corruption in the present system, I
would suspect that more candidates in Australia have won because of donkey
voting over the years than by any organised electoral fraud.

4. I think the problem with the Australian electoral system lies much more
in the party's selection of candidates, than in the voting system itself.

5. One major advantage of preferential voting, is that you can protest
against a major political party, while not automatically handing the
equivalent of a vote to the alternate major party.   In America, when you
voted for Nader you automatically stripped a vote from Al Gore, since, to a
very large extent (but not absolutely), it was Democratic voters who
supported the Nader (pox-on-both-your-houses) position.

The ability to use the preferential system as a protest-vote -- without
emasculating yourself in the process -- is an important aspect in what is
essentially a two-party system.


-- 
Stewart Fist, writer, journalist, film-maker
70 Middle Harbour Road, LINDFIELD, 2070, NSW, Australia
Ph +61 (2) 9416 7458