John, it's a pity you don't spend much time talking about the byzantine nature of Senate Preference deals and the fact that the current above the line system (along with voter apathy) ensures these are the primary tool (95% last election) that determines who holds the balance of power. It is a sad mockery of democracy. I can just see Graham Richardson's sly grin when he thinks about the beauty of this rort. If preference deals are so benign then can I suggest we make voting in Senate elections optional preferential and mandate that the allocation of a "1" above the line allocates votes only to the Group (or Party) to whom it is allocated. Then let the voters use whatever how to vote messages their favourite party wants to put in front of them. The outcome would be the first truly democratic election outcome since at least 1983.

The word “deals” linked with the word “politicians” will always invoke thoughts of “something underhand”, no matter what John Warhurst believes. His claim that “…the majority of the supporters of the parties involved are already inclined to vote that way anyway” (as in preference ‘directions’) also needs to be questioned. Mr. Warhurst doesn’t have any more idea of how people will place their preferences at any one election any more than I do. If he thinks that Labor voters will automatically put 2 next to the Greens, he overlooks the fact that there are some very conservative Labor voters out there who would rather be dead than help the Greens run interference on an elected government.

The party manipulators might not have the influence over non-party members (the vast majority of voters) as they and Mr. Warhurst believe. And, given the shonky cards and illusions handed out in the recent SA election by Labor, it stands to reason that anyone with a serious interest in what happens to Australia at the hands of politicians will be very careful about how-to-vote cards and preferences.

The same goes for the Coalition. I will vote Liberal as the lesser of two evils, but I will not necessarily preference the way they want me to.

As the main hope for Labor is seen to lie in Green preferences, let’s stick with that arrangement. Bob Brown has said clearly stated that he had nothing to do with the Labor/Green preference deal. This has led some commentators to ruminate on just who runs the Greens these days, with the suggestion of creeping ‘evil’ much further to the Left than Bob Brown himself. Conservative Labor voters are going to think about these things, along with the silliness of a communist-reared Greens candidate who has been getting some publicity lately. They might be asking themselves, what is the point of electing a government if everything it does is invalidated by the Greens?

.....

.....

Don’t be fooled by John Warhurst. Politicians don’t do deals unless there is something in it for them, particularly with the Labor/Greens deal where the parties are so far apart on basic ideals. Labor is still a democratic, middle of the road party. The Greens are neither.

The most important part of the Warhurst article is this: “After all voters can quite easily throw the how-to-vote card in the bin. Many do.”

The sooner we get rid of preferential voting, the better. It aids the major parties, but it also makes them beholden to people whom most Australians do not want a bar of

Another 85 illegals arrived today. If the Greens gain the balance of power in the Senate, and Labor owes them for their preferences, how many can we expect on a daily basis then? And how long will it be before they are back to being processed on the mainland? That's what the Greens want - a return to mainland processing and an easier time for anyone wanting to come here without being invited.

When the author talks about “win-win” deals he means “win-win” for the parties, not for the electorate.

The preference system delivers otherwise unelectable minority party candidates to the Senate in a result that clearly does not reflect the electorate’s actual preference - see here for Anthony Green’s analysis of how we wound up with Fielding in the senate despite the fact that Family First attracted only 1.9% of the primary vote.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/results/sendVIC.htm

Preferences are fine as long as they’re voters’ preferences, not parties’ preferences. Electors should be free to preference as many or as few candidates as they like, with no option to vote the part ticket.

I completely agree with you Rhian- preferencing is in my opinion a very good thing IF it is by voters.
When parties do it, it's as you said, "win-win" for them, we on the other hand, lose.