GarryP

No truly left of centre party could allow a Gina Rinehart to get obscenely rich off the back of national resources.

Mr Grumpy

There are 2 mutually exclusive goals/aims in this debate.

1. Do we want a voting system that represents exactly how people vote?

or

2. Do we want a voting system that provides stable Government, by ignoring minor party representation?

PR brings instability due to massive minor party representation, but is more democratic.

First past the post allows candidates to win without majority support.

Preferential forces people to have a backup plan.

StSabre

What do you expect them to live on while they are running the country? How do you persuade businessmen/doctors/other professionals with the requisite skills to give up their current jobs to get involved?

Politicians in the UK were first paid so that it wasn't only the landed gentry with independent incomes that could be MPs.

arkon

They should not get any financial advantage nor any possibility to make corrupt decisions, I just think not paying them is a start. OR they get just enough to live on. They certainly don't deserve the wages they currently get.

Preferably I'd prefer a system that doesn't have humans in the loop at all. leave it all to a computer.

GarryP

Actually it's probably better that you do pay them v well, and then clamp down on the opportunities for corruption.

That means:

• No donations to political parties, all election costs are centrally funded as well
• No continuing distortions (eg no shares, etc.)
• No post political career pay offs (similar to what is already required of civil servants).

and I'd add

• No career politicians, no economists, no lawyers, no one who's a professional liar.

BadgeIsBack

See the post below - who beat me to it!

You certainly have to provide an income, but I agree with Arkon they get paid too well. Look at the pension they get!

I don't have a big issue with the Australian system having been told over and over again that the First past the post system was itself hugely flawed. People still have the option of spoiling their vote and I hope many people do this at the next election.

I can't see the analogy either! They support Trade Unions. This doesn't make them commies in my book - just the party of the battlers. I don't mind battlers but I don't like the way Trade Unions behave, or any party that actively preen to them.

Good post.

I'm beginning to see why you are a great app developer but a struggling farmer!

fish.01

Not everywhere. Queensland and NSW use optional preferential voting.

hoofie2002

I don't see the Federal Government putting any money up to dig it out of the ground, do you ?

Mind you, Labor in NSW are happy to get there little slice ofbthe mining pie in the form of Eddie Obeids little resource deal.

And they are not national resources, don't believe the rubbish from Swan. Minerals are owned by the crown in the person of the state governments, not Canberra unless its an offshore resource. The miners pay royalties when they dig it up to the state governments.

Which means the rest of the country can kiss WA's and Queensland's arse first.

roaringmouse

Not entirely accurate - a party needs 76 seats to have a majority. Forming a government can be done when a party has less than that, such as the current government (Labor: 71 seats (was 72 when government was formed); Coalition: 72 seats). Almost winning is not the same as winning.

KJCherokee

My main point when starting this thread was that I object to the fact that my vote at the next federal election will end up helping to put either Gillard or Abbot in as PM when I don't want to vote for either of them. I live in Wayne Swan's constituency and I accept the fact that my vote probably won't make any difference to the result, but I hate to think that I have to give a preference to either him or his Liberal opponent, even if they are marked as 6 & 7 on the ballot paper, because none of the smaller parties or independents stand a chance in that electorate.

For state elections, yes - and a good thing too.

And compulsory voting for local council elections as well - I copped a $20 fine at the last Brisbane one for deciding I had more important things to do that day.

fish.01

FYI, the Brisbane City Council election uses optional preferential voting as well.

Wol

This thread certainly rings my bell! At the last election I took a marker pen along - to make certain it was read - and wrote across my enormous paper " The combination of compulsory voting and preferential voting is profoundly undemocratic and I will not take part ".

BadgeIsBack

I think I will try this tactic...but I'll spoil the paper with a diagonal mark rather than waste time.

I don't think it's profoundly undemocratic because you did get a choice and a say in the order your votes got distributed - it's just that you don't like the process.

Wol

It's undemocratic because unless I vote for a list of people I've never heard of I vote above the line - in which case someone else I've never heard of places my vote probably somewhere I would not wish.

fish.01

Is placing a number next to everyone really like voting for all of them? More like ranking them. If you put someone 47th and last on the list they won't be ringing you up thanking you for your vote