Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes (Post 10609993)

Are you suggesting that the Oz Labor Party is slightly right of centre??? They seem as commie to me as any other Labour Party.

Just wondering. :unsure:

Originally Posted by Swerv-o (Post 10609926)

There's a lot of professions that should be more like that sadly. And welcome back - it's been a while...





The issues of first past the post is certainly exaggerated by voter apathy, where you are essentially ending up with the candidate that the majority of the people who voted voted for.

PR is OK, but inevitably leads to lots of horrible splinter parties and consequently unstable governments. Have a look at Belgium as an example...


S

Originally Posted by arkon (Post 10609832)

What a great idea, gets my vote. I would also like to suggest politicians don't get paid to do the job. They do it for free for the love of the country.

Originally Posted by StSabre (Post 10610100)

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.

Originally Posted by arkon (Post 10610189)

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.

Originally Posted by arkon (Post 10609832)

What a great idea, gets my vote. I would also like to suggest politicians don't get paid to do the job. They do it for free for the love of the country.

Originally Posted by StSabre (Post 10610100)

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.

Originally Posted by Mr Grumpy (Post 10609918)

The preferential voting system is fair fairer then the fascist first past the post system. That system is where you can be ruled by someone the vast majority of people don't want. Atleast in preferential you can choose the next least bad option.

Ultimately the best voting system in the world is the pure proportional representation system where there are no electorates or 'communities' and it is a purely statistical numbers game. You get 10% of the vote you get 10% of the seats ect.

Originally Posted by Sherlock Holmes (Post 10609993)

Are you suggesting that the Oz Labor Party is slightly right of centre??? They seem as commie to me as any other Labour Party.

Just wondering. :unsure:

Originally Posted by Mr Grumpy (Post 10610078)

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.

Originally Posted by arkon (Post 10610189)

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.

Originally Posted by KJCherokee (Post 10609569)

.... The only way you can register your disgust at the majors is by spoiling your ballot paper - you have to turn up at the polling booth or cop the fine.....

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 10610002)

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

Originally Posted by KJCherokee (Post 10609766)

The lower house (House of Representatives) has 150 members, so a party needs 76 seats to form government.

Originally Posted by KJCherokee (Post 10609815)

There's an interesting example of a House of Representative election on the AEC website which indicates how the candidate who got nearly 50% of the first preference votes can end up losing.

Originally Posted by fish.01

Not everywhere. Queensland and NSW use optional preferential voting.

Originally Posted by KJCherokee (Post 10611448)

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.

Originally Posted by KJCherokee (Post 10611448)

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.

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 10612084)

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 ".

Originally Posted by BadgeIsBack (Post 10612184)

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.

Originally Posted by Wol (Post 10612197)

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.