I'd like optional preferential voting back, so I can vote for who I want but exclude those who are repugnant to me.

What and the current two party dictatorship would actually have to fight for real votes with real policies against small irrelavant parties and independants who actually attract real people to their cause and just might get voted in by the few percent of the electorate vitally interested enough to want to vote! Get real.

DKit

OK Alan, but my recent vote was ONE of the above, but not the other two. Of course it would have been deemed informal. But if 8% of us did that, it might get the attention of complacent parties.

Nevertheless, I think your proposal addresses some of the problem of "you must fill all the boxes".

So let me get this straight, your version of "none of the above" would only mean that the people who voted NOTA would be officially recognized- but the second largest party would get in, and hopefully be feeling very silly about it (assuming they could even give a toss as opposed to realize that they now only have to pander to an ever smaller ratio of swinging voters)?

This will not work- our system's problem is that the party with the MOST sitting members in Parliament (a gravely skewed ratio compared to those of where the votes actually went) automatically become the supreme government body who can have ultimate say in every corner of our lives for the next three years.
As such, there is the compulsion to vote 'the least bad of the two likely to get in'

Instead, I endorse
-Voluntary voting (because some people can actually be neutral or not care)
-Optional preferential voting
-Completely redefine the government and how we vote for them to make it more democratic (such as directly elected executive portfolios and possibly scrap parliament, or automatically make ALL of parliament the executive instead of one minority).
-CIR- to completely suppress and override politician motions that get out of line.

There is simply no function for NOTA, either;
1- it doesn't actually affect candidates
2- it disqualifies, say, so many (or all parties) but leaves others to form government, creating a new system of hegemony that rides the back of ignorant schmucks thinking that NOTA is an important message
3- it disqualifies ALL government in the election, leaving us with no government at all- meaning either the past government fills in (leaving them in power), or calls a new election until people get sick of it (and are more likely to vote a major).

The problem with so many people thinking about political reform is that they are off in lala-land believing that politicians are only socially aloof at the very worst, and could be shaken back into 'understanding what's important' by a bit of symbolism.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11107#186356

Candide, i disagree with both of you. Optional preferential voting is a bad idea.

If you are not intellectually capable of deciding which of the 2 Major Mistakes is the least worst of the 2 objectionable alternatives? If you are determinedly, so inclined then the NOTA option should be what you are doing & available to you.

Don't you enjoy putting the 2 worst candidates Last & Second Last? I do.

Gday Alan, on the right track.

Some holes in your arguments.

1, Not in the senate election process. There are more than enough minor party alternatives, providing diversity of political views & Candidate Quality. Its just impossible for any voter, to not be able to find a minor party or independent candidate worthy of being given a chance.

2, Whats the point if there is no sanction? If the NOTA vote reaches a set minimum level, say 15%, then all parties must be forced to replace their candidates with better Quality individuals who are better known, more acceptable in the electorate & they must replace their policies with more widely accepted alternatives.

3, Electoral reform must go inside the parties, for selection of candidates & policy. The only reason a decent honest candidate like Barnaby Joyce or Pauline Hanson ever makes it into parliament is because all 4 of the Major Mistakes, Labour, liberal, Red/green or national, believe the seat is unwinnable, at best marginal.

For Safe seats they always do an extensive vetting process to make sure, they have a Dishonest, Corruptible, Scumbag or "Conga Line of S*@#holes".

4, a better alternative for non compulsory voting might be to offer a tax cut to "Good, or More Committed Citizens" who are willing to vote, do jury duty, Attend/Vote at Local Government meetings, etc.

Debates on electoral reform are ignored by Myopic Barracker's on both sides of Politics.

Do they wonder why 90% of the population are so disillusioned with Politicians, Bureaucrooks, Plus the Academics & Journalists who support them?

Friday, 05/11/2010, "Cracker Night" night is rapidly approaching.

All too true, Formersnag. Ofcourse,"they [do not]wonder why...",for the reasons you have given, and why they are united in opposition to NOTA. Leslie