Hmmm, not particularly convincing arguments I'm afraid Klaas. The Swedish system still requires Parliamentary (Riksdag) action does it not? In fact here is what the Swedish Government has to say on the matter:

"Fundamental laws [i.e. their Consitution] are more difficult to amend than other laws. They may only be amended or abolished if two Riksdags have adopted identically formulated decisions, with an election intervening. No other laws or ordinances may conflict with the fundamental laws."

I doubt the Swedes would be any more accommodating of radical Constitutional change than any other Democracy.

I quite like our section 128, it keeps the crazies at bay.

As to electoral systems, I think optional preferential is the most effective way in which voters can express their views, for both houses. In the case of the Senate, where corrupt practice are encouraged by above the line rorting, I would also support restriction of preference flows above the line to the specific political party - would kill preference influence peddling in its tracks.

Finally, I don't think anyone should get too excited about paradigm change anytime soon. Enjoy the majesty of minority government while you can.

Just had a quick look at the Open Party List system and I think it would be excellent for Australia, particularly the Senate (assuming we can only hope for a limited overhaul of our system).

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm

From what I gather (and bear in mind I haven't spent 10 hours studying this system), you vote for your preferred candidate and that vote counts for the candidate's party as well (no 1-300,000,000 numbering as in current Senate below-the-line voting). This would give voters a say in what order candidates are elected and would force the candidates to show their faces (for lack of a better expression) and perhpas make those party machine men more accountable.

Not being a fan of Labor's internet filter, I wonder if Victorians who voted for the ALP in the Senate in August really meant to help re-elect Sen. Conroy, again...

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

Another good article Klaas and a breath of fresh air in the debate on overdue electoral reforms in Australia.

New Zealand puts our reformist inertia to shame.

The independents and Greens would be well advised to use the Parliamentary Committee system in the next 3 years to take a fresh look at our archic and distorted electoral system.

The party lists you mentioned in Sweeden look like a big improvement that would see more independents and minor parties.

Under a similar system on the voting figures in 2010, we would have 17 Greens in the House of Reps instead of just the member for Melbourne.

Why not also take a look at the electronic voting experience overseas, to see if our tech heads could devise a much faster and less costly e-voting system as a replacement for the horse and buggy system of blunt pencils we have now that plays no small part in the massive informal vote we had in 2010.

Options to look at could include a touch screen that produces a receipt as well as 'postal' e-voting from our home PC. We now have 90% of Australian Government services on-line, voting is the last big frontier.

quickresponce,
Ref the informal votes, I don't believe they were as you say, but a direct result of Latham's idiotic interference advising silly people to vote this way.
Ref your idea of electronic voting, Good God man, where have you been hiding these last 10 years ?
Are you completely ignorant to the abuses electronic voting allows, and the endless possibility for abuse/hacking of the system, something that has been amply demonstrated so clearly in the U.S.?
Or,is that what you wish for Australia ?
No way mate, give me my bit of paper, thus there's no argument of who I voted for and it can be verified unlike your electronic garbadge.

Personally I think that we need to change the paradigm a little further and move straight to direct democracy, as compared to indirect.

Beginning with self-managing, intimately scaled communities, (small enough to allow every individual a voice in the decision making processes), directly democratic systems of government could be tiered upward through perhaps five levels within Australia or seven levels for a world government.

Looking at an example of a larger government institution, the executive could be composed of one directly controlled rep from within each region within the governed region (cities within states, villages within cities etc).

The legislature could have two houses: a House of reps made up of one directly controlled rep from each region two levels more local than the governed region (eg the village would therefore put one rep into the executive of the city and one into the house of reps of the state). The Senate could be made up of different interest groups within the region with a fluid makeup based on the relative percentage of active members each organization/interest group has.

Local control of local assets/infrastructure is democratic, but we are currently missing it. Moving toward a more localized socio-economic pattern will also be key to solving the climate change problem, so let's build a more democratic system of government into the picture.