I agree, the current system is an invitaiton to cynical manipulation and does not reflect voters' real preferences. As it suits the major parties as well as the fringe element, though, i doubt we'll see reform any time soon.

Chris C
I like your suggestion - it seems a good compromise allowing those who can't be bothered to work out their own preferences to stick to the party line, while those of us voting below the line don't need to label 60+ boxes and allocate preferences between equally loathed candidates.

"Green and Joyce are right. The present system of preferential voting has been stretched to ridiculous limits and in future it should be changed."

I suspect a lot of Australians would agree. The catch is: what system will take its place. In my view (and that of most European countries) is that a form of proportional representation results in a parliament that actually reflects the voting preferences of the voters.

For some reason the Australian mindset is incapable of seriously addressing this issue.

The article is intended to illustrate the incongruity of mis-matched shady preference deals, not necessarily to slag Pauline. It was expert political analyst Anthony Green who insisted a vote for the Sex Party should not mean a vote for Pauline Hanson or One Nation. Neither should a vote for Katter or Palmer end up with the Greens or Labor against the political leanings of most of their supporters.

Mucking around with Xenophon's preferences would definitely be a bit of a gamble. - I think I'll just make it simple and vote above the line for Pauline.

...40% of posters on this link register support for Pauline Hanson: Hardly a fringe element I would think.

I can't believe anyone, other than a few racist, mindless, 'deliverance country' folk, would give Pauline Hanson even a second glance.

She had her chance, and no one outside the redneck areas of Queensland (a bit like Katter really) gave her the time of day.

Get over it people...