Common questions, myths, fallacies.
Preferential voting is actually good, you just don't understand how it works!
While preferential voting allows voters to rank candidates, it doesn't guarantee that every vote counts equally. If a voter's top choices are eliminated early, their preferences may not influence the final outcome. Additionally, some voters may choose not to rank all candidates, leading to their ballots being "exhausted" before the final count. This can result in a winner who doesn't have majority support from all voters who participated.
Doesn’t preferential voting ensure that every vote counts and no vote is wasted?
While preferential voting allows voters to rank candidates, it doesn't guarantee that every vote counts equally. If a voter's top choices are eliminated early, their preferences may not influence the final outcome. Additionally, some voters may choose not to rank all candidates, leading to their ballots being "exhausted" before the final count. This can result in a winner who doesn't have majority support from all voters who participated.
Doesn’t preferential voting reduce negative campaigning and promote civility?
While some proponents argue that preferential voting encourages candidates to appeal to a broader audience, evidence is mixed. Studies have found that while there may be a slight increase in positive campaigning, it doesn't eliminate negative tactics. Candidates still engage in strategic behavior, and the overall tone of campaigns may not significantly change.
Doesn’t preferential voting eliminate the spoiler effect and allow voters to support minor parties without fear?
Preferential voting can reduce the spoiler effect compared to first-past-the-post systems, but it doesn't eliminate it. Minor party candidates often struggle to gain enough first-preference votes to remain competitive, and their elimination can still influence the outcome in ways that don't reflect their supporters' intentions. Strategic voting and preference deals can also distort the impact of minor party votes. Wikipedia.
Doesn’t preferential voting ensure that winners have majority support?
Preferential voting aims for majority support, but in practice, winners may not have the majority of all votes cast. Due to ballot exhaustion (when voters don't rank all candidates), the final count may exclude a portion of the electorate. As a result, a candidate can win with a majority of the remaining votes, not necessarily a majority of all votes cast. Link.
Does preferential voting prevent extremist candidates from being elected?
Preferential voting can reduce the likelihood of extremist candidates winning by requiring broader support. However, it's not foolproof. If an extremist candidate gains significant first-preference votes and benefits from preference flows, they can still be elected.
The system encourages coalition-building but doesn't eliminate the possibility of extremist victories. Link. Link
Preferential is known for somewhat opposite effect: it creates stagnation of political spectrum, over time resulting in moderate partied labeled as extremists.
Does preferential voting eliminate strategic voting?
Preferential voting reduces some forms of strategic voting, such as the need to vote tactically for a less-preferred but more viable candidate. However, it introduces other strategic considerations, like the order of preferences and potential deals between parties on preference recommendations. Voters and parties may still engage in strategic behavior to influence outcomes. Link.
There's no alternative because it is the best system.
Many democracies use different systems — like proportional or approval voting. No system is perfect, but pretending there’s no choice just shuts down progress. Democracies should evolve, not get stuck in status quo. Our Preferential system was created over 100 years ago and has never been seriously rethought. Imagine what modern political science, data analysis, and behavioural research could come up with today. Saying “there’s no alternative” just protects a system built for a different era.