Divergence, I’m pleased you agree that we should be effectively banning political donations.

<< Support politicians, candidates, and parties that are willing to stabilise the population. Put growthists last on the ballot, even if you like their other policies. Put growthist incumbents last of all >>

Yes, we should definitely be doing this. But I’m not so sure that it amounts to a solution, under the current political setup. We’d need a huge groundswell of people that understand just how bad continuous growth is and be willing to vote accordingly.

The compulsory preferential voting system blocks anything less! It effectively STEALS the vote of those who wish to vote against incumbent and alternative growthist parties!

Even if you specifically vote against Labor and Liberal and put them last and second last, your vote will most likely end up counting for the one you put second last!!

This is the extent to which the pro-growth-forever totally-antisustainable paradigm has entrenched itself. This compulsory preferential system is the most extraordinary antidemocratic RORT, designed to keep the big parties in and the new parties out!

The alternative is so simple – optional preferential voting, which is entirely different, because it is allows a true indication of the wishes of the voter.

These are the sorts of things that we need to be considering very carefully in the struggle to achieve a much lower immigration rate and ultimately a sustainable society.

I’m not sure our lobby or within it; Sustainable Population Australia or the Stable Population Party really understands the significance of this. It is not just about the logical argument for stabilising our population; it is very much about political reforms … because there are some real doozies out there that are blocking our progress.

Ludwig,

I am not sure that I understand how this would help. Lets suppose that we had optional preferential voting. We could then refuse to pass on preferences to the major parties, which sould be emotionally satisfying and make it clear that a lot of people were unhappy with them, but what good would it do otherwise? Unless we really did have a huge groundswell of support, one of those parties would still have a plurality of the vote and get elected. Business as usual.

If we target incumbent growthists for retribution, we interfere with the major parties' business model and make it harder for the party bosses to enforce party discipline, because it has become harder to get members in marginal seats re-elected. Elections in such seats often turn on a few hundred or a few thousand votes. If enough such seats change hands, then the government is out of power. They also lose if enough of their members decide to break ranks on high population growth to get re-elected.

I know it is pointless having any kind of "discussion" with you, Ludwig, as you decide upon your answer long before you have even heard the question. But someone has to try.

Your foray into voting systems as a means to gain traction for your population-management policies, is driven by your perception that Australia is run for the benefit of what you vaguely describe as "big business". Therefore you favour a system that somehow cuts them out of the loop.

>>As I keep saying, and I keep being dismayed by the lack of interest in this: the main problem seems to be the enormous bias inflicted on our government by big business, which drives unending rapid population growth<<

This is informed by your view that only governments should be allowed to make decisions - that "big business" is somehow, by definition, incapable of supporting the interests and aspirations of Australians.

Which is of course utter nonsense. While the pay scales of the tiny handful at the top of their pyramids are undoubtedly shameful, their businesses are completely focussed on the task of meeting their customers needs.

A task that they perform, on the whole, substantially more effectively than any government.

Admittedly, living in NSW does give me a uniquely sharpened perspective on exactly how appallingly inefficient government can be. But evidence exists that NSW is not unique in this respect.

Our prosperity as a country has not been achieved by governments running businesses, but by business itself.

I'm confident that voters will continue to elect a government that understands that businesses need to prosper, in order for us to prosper.

Yet you conclude that a different system would bring different results.

>>The alternative is so simple – optional preferential voting, which is entirely different, because it is allows a true indication of the wishes of the voter<<

If the "true wishes" are for a prosperous Australia, changing the system will change nothing. The only way you will achieve your ends is via a dictatorship in which public servants make all the decisions.

Dante described this in his Fourth Circle.

Divergence

I have not cast a vote for any candidate/party for several federal elections. The reason is that I want to vote against Labor and Liberal but I know my vote will end up counting for one of them.

This has stopped me from voting for environmentally friendly / sustainability-minded candidates/parties or for anyone who is better than the Liblabs.

So, anyone who understands that their vote can be STOLEN AND PLACED WHERE THE VOTER DOESN’T WANT IT TO COUNT, can’t vote… and simply HAS to lodge a blank ballot paper!

And anyone who doesn’t understand this and who wants to vote against the entrenched Liblab continuous-growth antisustainability paradigm CAN’T DO IT! They effectively vote FOR the continuation of this paradigm!!

It could not be more disgusting or more diametrically opposite to democracy, or to the very principle and purpose of voting!

As to how much of a difference it actually makes, it is hard to judge. But it is definitely one of the basic reforms that needs to happen if we are to get away from the continuous-growth-highly-antisustainable-momentum-until-we-crash political paradigm that we are currently trapped in.

I am looking firstly at the worst aspects of our political system that aid and abet antisustainability and at those that are most easily remedied. Compulsory preferential voting slots straight into both of these categories.

Banning political donations would be a whole lot more difficult.

Pericles, you amaze me. Your whole post is built on a house of cards, which is so easily demolished.

You make the assertion that I want to cut big business out of the loop, which of course is utter nonsense!

Big business, small business and in-between business have all the right in the world to lobby vigorously for what they want.

It is the government that needs to put this into perspective and not be unduly swayed by it, and by the big money behind it in the form of big donations.

Now, I’ve got some quality beach-bumming to do on this wonderful sunny day here in Noosa. Do have a nice day couped up there in inner Smogney. Cheers.

Ludwig, you amaze me.

You make the assertion that you don't want to cut big business out of the loop, which of course is utter nonsense!

>>It is the government that needs to put this into perspective and not be unduly swayed by it<<

If the government does not take into account the requirements of the businesses that provide for the needs and aspirations of you and me, that is effectively cutting them out of the loop. Even in a situation where they were not permitted to donate money, their concerns about, and recommendations for, government policy would still need to be heard, would they not?

On the other hand, the government could legitimately be accused of being "unduly swayed", if they were to give excessive credence to the half-baked bleatings of a few fringe-dwelling single-issue fanatics, don't you think?

>>Now, I’ve got some quality beach-bumming to do on this wonderful sunny day here in Noosa.<<

I did enjoy my week amongst the suntanned public-servants-pretending-to-be-surfers in Noosa, but it is so good to be back in the real world. The restaurants are way better (and much less of a rip-off) for a start.