VEC SHOULD EXPLAIN HOW PREFERENTIAL VOTES WORK

I think I understand why Melva Stott (GA 28/11) has an issue with preferential voting.

I would like the opportunity to explain why it is a better alternative than first past the post.

To be fair, this really should be part of any high school civics class but perhaps it isn’t.

In a first past the post system with say, six candidates, it’s possible that the one with the most first preferences might only get 30 per cent of the vote with 70 per cent voting for one of the other five.

Would you say it is fair that the person with the most votes gets elected when 70 per cent voted against that person?

Preferential voting tries to give effect to the proposition that at least 50 per cent of the population should get a say in the person who is ultimately elected.

The alternative to a preferential system would be to have a run-off election if no one achieves 50 per cent in the first round.

I am on fairly safe ground I think when I say that most people would not relish the opportunity of having to front up to the polls for a second time to resolve this issue.

Preferential voting seeks to fix this in one step.

I think it’s an obligation on the VEC to explain this, given their role is to help the citizenry to make informed choices.

Why isn’t there more information not only about our obligations as voters but also about the more practical aspects?

They are amply funded to undertake this most serious task.

They should just do it. The level of informal votes is still unacceptably high. Kevin V Russell, Geelong