The 'voter confusion' argument cuts both ways. Surely it's more likely that the Liberals received votes intended for the Liberal Democrats because voters were confused into thinking the Liberals stand for liberty?

Actually to avoid voter confusion, maybe the Labor and Liberal parties should be re-named the "socialist fascist corporatist party (left faction)" and the ""socialist fascist corporate party (right faction)". That would be more accurarate wouldn't it? How about the "Totally Lacking in Principles Party (left wing)" and "Totally Lacking in Principles Party (right wing). At least it would be less misleading and deceptive!

It is precisely because of the similarity between the major parties that the minor parties got such a fillip in the last election from voters disgusted with the usual creed of endless government control of everything.

More strength to your arm, David, and while you're at it could you please put an end to the nauseating propaganda issuing 24/7 from the ABC?

If Abbott's trip to Indonesia is anything to go by, I think the author's hope that all minor parties in the Senate be shown a fair degree of respect will come about. As Paul Kelly wrote in The Australia, Abbott is making the transition from scrapper to statesman.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/abbott-from-scrapper-to-statesman/story-e6frg6n6-1226731119138
On another point, I disagree with what the author says on voluntary as opposed to mandatory voting.
Being required to front the polling booths to elect our Federal and State governments is not an onerous imposition on anyone. If you don't like the choices, vote informal.
The alternative is seen in countries where 50% and less of the eligible voters bother to show up on election day.
I do, however, think that an optional preferential system could be used in the Senate elections. Instead of having to vote above the line or having to number all the boxes, perhaps it could be a requirement that a voter only number the number of boxes as there are positions vacant. Or go above the line.

Speaking of the words liberal and liberalism, both words are now used as words of abuse against anyone of a left/progressive persuasion by those on the right side of the culture wars in the USA. And in other parts of the world too - increasingly so.

Perhaps even more so as used by advocates of old fashioned "traditionalist" and/or "orthodox" back to Biblical basics religionists.
Never mind that once-upon-a-time The USA actually defined itself as the champion of liberal democracy and promoted liberal democracy as a universal ideal.

Halduell
“The alternative [to compulsory voting] is seen in countries where 50% and less of the eligible voters bother to show up on election day.”
You seem to be engaging in a bit of a tautology. You could just as well say, “We can’t have voluntary voting because many people will not vote!” Well, yes.
Why is it a given wrong that 50% of the eligible voters won’t vote? Where's the problem?
Professional market researchers estimate what the general population are thinking on a variety of products and services by polling not more than 2,000 people. This could be below 4% of the population. So what’s wrong with choosing our representatives with that 44% of the population who actually have an interest in what is going on in the political world?

Daffy
The term liberal originally denoted those in favour of liberty: low taxes, small government, freedom of trade, voluntary relations: what are today called libertarians.

The term was misappropriated by the left wing in the 20th century to describe their platform of thoroughgoing coercive control of even voluntary relations: such as criminalising freedom of association ("anti-discrimination", "industrial relations", speech codes, race-based laws etc).

There is no such thing as a human right to violate the person or property of others and in the final analysis, that's all that the left-wing stand for on everything, as David G and Lyn are getting blown out of the water for her thread today.

What the left stands for is the opposite of liberty, and so it is perfectly appropriate that, in America where liberal is used to mean left-wing, it should be used as a term of abuse.

Socialism cannot work in its pure form owing to the economic calculation problem. For this reason, since by definition socialists don’t want capitalism, they must always fall back to some form or other of production goods nominally in private hands, but with a starting presumption in favour of the state's wisdom and power to dictate any and every aspect of its use. It is, in a word, fascist.

That’s what fascism means. Google “Hitler economic policies” and see if you can find any that left-liberals *disagree* with. Thus fascism is a species of the genus socialism, and so-called left-liberalism is the same thing.

"Never mind that once-upon-a-time The USA actually defined itself as the champion of liberal democracy and promoted liberal democracy as a universal ideal."

That's referring to liberal meaning libertarian, not liberal meaning socialist fascist.

If you actually read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you will see that they are libertarian documents, setting up liberal – libertarian - state. The socialist programs of the left wing are explicitly illegal: see Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment. The only thing "progressive" about so-called progressives is their belief in the progressive expansion of government power over everything - the exact opposite of liberty.

Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

I would be quite happy for the Liberal Party to be renamed the "socialist fascist corporate party (right faction)" if we can get the title of the Governor-General to be changed to "Prime Ministerial pisser-offer in Chief".

If the Liberal Party, were in any way, a bona fide liberal organization, instead of dyed in the wool conservatives, they might have a right to complain or protest!?
The real misnomer here, is the liberal party, which is anything but!?
Rhrosty.

Ah yes JKJ, how right you are about socialism!
No wonder all those socialist republics in Scandinavia, are faring so badly in comparison to capitalist countries like the US or AUSTRALIA!?
More tea anyone; and isn't this a nice party?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty
You don't define what you mean or offer any evidence.

But if you're suggesting that the more socialist and the less free a society is, the more wealthy it is, you're simply wrong. If it was true, full communism would produce the most productive society. And if you're not going to defend that proposition, you need to identify the rational principle by which you assert that partial socialism magically makes a society richer. Expedience won't do, otherwise you're back to your original problem. You need to identify the principle. Go ahead.

Wealth doesn't come from restricting productive activity, and it doesn't matter how many socialists think - or rather emote - that it does.

BTW Denmark ranks higher than the USA in the Index of Economic Freedom - it's more capitalist than the USA, not less.

You'd have nothing to bitch about if you'd just taken a few minutes to brainstorm a non-generic name.

As a party opposed to wasteful taxing/spending, I see you're quite happy to pocket your donkey vote-enhanced public funding windfall.
Hypocrites.

Rhrosty, "Socialist" Scandanavia has managed to give the world sweet songs, safe cars and simple furniture.
The doors of Valhalla have rusted shut.

Shockadelic, the LDP just won a Senate seat. In case you haven't noticed, it's you and the major parties who are bitching, not them.

As for their receiving the funding that the major parties brought in, I think it’s the LDP that decides their policies, not you. The LDP's policy is to abolish it, but obviously according to you, no-one else has a right to equal treatment under the laws. People are just chattels to be forced to pay for the Laborals propaganda?

And how do you get your perverted view that people who don’t vote for the Laborals can be presumed not to know what they’re doing? Funny I don’t recall you ever complaining about the Laborals benefitting from the donkey vote in every other election - as if you know how much it is!

Yours is the “the Laborals are the font of all wisdom, no-one else has any rights" school of thought: pathetic really.

With double standards like yours, you should move to Scandinavia

Jardine K. Jardine, wow, that massive wave of misconceptions gave me motion sickness!

I am no fan of the "Laborals".
I would prefer nobody vote for them (especially first preference, as that's what funding is based on. Keep the "bastards" hungry.)
Number everyone else first, kids. (Everyone, even the Stupid Party I Hate Sooooo Much!)

But I am also no fan of hypocrites.

This has nothing to with "equal treatment under the laws".
Public funding is *optional*. You don't have to register for it.

How can the LDP look people in the eye and say they want to abolish public funding, then register for it and happily bank the cash?
That act alone makes them lose credibility.

If they had genuine community support, they wouldn't need it.
(and yes, that goes for the Laborals too. I myself want public funding abolished.)

The author was bitching, about the difficulty they had registering the name, a problem that would never have existed if they'd just come up with something *original*.

"And how do you get your perverted view that people who don’t vote for the Laborals can be presumed not to know what they’re doing?"

I didn't invent the idea of a "donkey vote".
It is a commonly acknowledged phenomenon (I wonder why they do it though, as you could simply leave it blank. Maybe they think it's "compulsory to vote" as they've been misleadingly told a million times).

People doing this are not voting *for* the LDP, yet the LDP still claim success (votes up X%!) and collect the cash without blushing.

"With double standards like yours, you should move to Scandinavia"
With distorted knee-jerk presumptions like yours, you should join the Laborals.