Stickman, can you point out one thing I have said that is wrong?

Of course not! You leftist types are all the same, slogans & personal insults because you have no arguments.

The irony is that what Wolddring is asking for, namely, proportional representation, could never happen as you leftist types wouldn't allow it, as you didn't with Hanson.

Nazi's? Well, those who espouse totalitarian ideologies, don't allow others to have different views (by labelling them racists when in effect leftists truly are bigots, those who believe in cultural relativism are simply weak people who can't tell the "ethnic other" off for mutilating his daughters genitals for example.

One day, leftists will be known as the bigots they are, who view non-whites as lesser beings. Don't you think it's bizarre that feminists ignore Muslim womens groups who say that Islam oppresses them?

Again, point out where I'm wrong, don't be a slogan.

I have read 13 comments with interest. A rejoinder to some of them follows - soread over two posts. (Klaas Woldring)

Gnudwoch proposes a different type of remedy to current problems but it is still based on the single-member district system under which either a very minority is not reprented or, in many instances, even a majority is not represented because both major parties often rely on preferences of minor parties and independents to get over 50%. PR overcomes this problem.

Hasbeen opposes a Parliament of Independents. Proportional Representation actually encourages the formation of a plurality of parties which actually removes the need for Independents. In the over 25 PR systems I mentioned there are hardly Independents. Hasbeen also criticised the small vote for the minor parties. In my article I explain why minor parties are minor parties.

Col Rouge suggests that "PR erodes the fundamental relationship between a representative and their electorate" and this, in his view, is undemocratic.
Well Col, as explained above with the single-member district system only a minority of voters are in fact represented by their first choice candidate. The idea that the MP represents the entire electorate is a myth of course. I live in the federal electorate of Robertson where Jim Lloyd is the Liberal MP. I do not find that Mr. Lloyd represents me in any meaningul fashion.

The first -past-the post system suffers even more from this problem in that there are no second preferences to be distributed. The preferential system should not be confused with Proportional Represention though.

Kalin states that small parties stand for special interest platforms. Many have a broad platform though, eg. the Australian Democrats, the Greens, earlier the Australia Party, the DLP. Most parties in countries which operate with a PR electoral system have far-ranging platforms. The advantage is that the diversity of views is reflected in Parliament, in an independent and open fashion. Not behind closed doors as with the major parties, which are essentially dominated by powerful executives. I much prefer to have these diversities have independent voices and standing in the Legislature

Second post in reply.

Benjamin is wondering what I would say if One Nation received 10% of the seats based on 10% of the vote. I would say that is democracy at work! That is where they deserve(d) to be heard. Benjamin also underestimates the capacity of Australians to deal with potentially difficult minorities. He seems to think that this can only de done in Europe. It was actually the Tasmanian Chief Justic Inglis Clarke who was the co-inventor of what became known as the Hare-Clarke system of PR!!
More than 100 years ago.

Blackburnian is concerned about the PR list system. Most European systems are list systems. In NZ a mix of Local MP's and List MPs, that is a mix of the old system and PR, was introduced. Critics have opposed that for a variety of reasons the major one probably being that the list MPs would be regarded as second class MPs. This has not happened. Result has been much greater diversity of representation in the Parliament.

Finally, there was some support for voluntary voting. I am all for that because it would reduce the total votes for the major parties but not for the minor parties. Thus the chances of system change would increase. For the opposite reason the major parties are not interested in that. Another reform ssuggested was that voters need to be involved in voting senior executives in for key agencies, such as the ABC, the Reserve Bank and many others. Full marks. The stacking of a whole range of senior public board with cronies of the PM is a disgrace but this importance channel of influence it is open to both major parties and the public have to suffer this addition extension of power. It greatly detracts from a socalled democratic system that isn't democratic by any reasonable standard.