Sunday, June 7, 2020

Australia: Black Lands Matter



Australia needs to get its own house in order before commenting on racism in America. It is a bit too easy to say "Black Lives Matter", but then not give up anything. But I think recent developments in our understanding of history clearly point to what should be given up.

What we now fully understand is that Aboriginal people, across the whole country, managed the landscape for safety and for productivity. This was effectively farming, and contradicts the view that they were  merely subsisting off land left in its natural state.

After the demise of the megafauna, the Aboriginal people stepped into the breach. The megafauna used to munch and muscle their way through the forests, stopping the understorey building up dangerously. The Aboriginal people developed a system of low level continuous burning to do that job. They also became the top predator, so that kangeroos and other herbivores didn't overgraze.

European settlers and their diseases massively reduced the Aboriginal population. The Sydney area was open woodland when Cook and then settlers arrived. Later, explorers travelling over land saw smoke from fires in all directions. But very soon the dense forests that we are familiar with had taken over, and we new arrivals thought that was the natural state. In fact it had never existed before. Worse still, the Aboriginal practice of burning, though necessary, had had the effect that fire tolerant and fire dependent species were now much more common. We were all setup for the bushfire disasters that have plagued us ever since.

The problems are related and I will propose a solution to both. It needs to be said that the Aboriginal people are not a single legal entity, so we can't just give the forests back to them. Indeed it would not be wise to go that far, because the National Parks are now something that all Australians, and the ancestors who were the ancient owners, would want to keep close to a natural condition.
  • The plan would be gradually expanded. Initially it would cover land where bushfires are likely and dangerous.
  • Those Aboriginal people wishing to actively participate would become the beneficial owners able to: sell hunting licenses, charge for entry or camping, sell natural produce such as kangeroo meat.
  • The Aboriginal people would work with government scientists to plan for returning the forests to a more natural and safer and more productive state.
    • This includes the removal, or at least reduction, of non-native species of plants and animals.
    • Keeping the forest thinned out and with low level vegetation reduced. Cultural burning should be part of this, but sequestering carbon would be better if possible.
  • Those doing the work in the Parks would be paid, proportionately to their involvement. Those with more involvement will also receive more of the benefits.
Training will obviously be an important activity. We want Aboriginal people to be well off, well educated, and honouring their ancestors by caring for the land. Then we will be well placed to advise other countries on race relations. Reducing the bushfires will also be nice.

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

Counting votes in optional preferential

The Australian Senate has optional preferential voting. That means voters can number some candidates (or parties), but not number all of them. As I understand it counting goes like this, assuming you have 6 spots to fill:
  • Divide the number of valid votes 7 (number of winners + 1), rounding down, then add 1 for luck. This is the quota. You need a quota of votes to win a seat.
  • Count votes till someone has a quota. Now only 5 more to go. The rest of the winner's votes (their excess) continues in the count going to lower preferences. Except that doing it that way would be non-reproducible, so actually all the winner's votes continue, but only counting as an appropriate fraction.
  • Except that some votes are now exhausted because they didn't vote below that winner. Now the quota needs to be lowered appropriately, otherwise you might not get enough winners.
  • And so on till you have your 6 winners.
Do they actually reduce the quota? I left a question on Antony Green's web site but didn't get an answer.
To only reduce the quota for subsequent candidates is unfair. The people who vote for the most popular candidates get votes that count less. But going back and changing the quota for previously confirmed candidates could change the count. Maybe they push on with the original quota, hoping they'll get 6 people elected. But that is bad even if it works.
The correct answer is to set the quota to the smallest quota which will elect 6 candidates. So that if you reduce the quota by even one it will lead to 7 candidates getting a quota. The point is that you want to discard the largest number of votes, because that is where the loony single issue supporters are lurking. This is what easily happens when only one person is being elected: almost half the votes can be discarded.
With this counting method, I now think optional preferential Senate voting is ok, minimizing the chances of extremist parties.