Yeah Hasbeen and your points are well made.
Clearly the green movement have done there what they've achieved everywhere else they've had any influence, the worst possible economic outcomes, and only boot-licking jobs on the improve?
But as bad as that is, it pales into insignificance in comparison to the Tea party and the inmates running the asylum outcomes over there.
If they wanted to run a balanced budget and live within their means, they should simply dump their trillion dollar or thereabouts, farm bill! That much on its own would do it! And they'd create a significant surplus by simply equalizing personal tax on the percentile? Someone earning just 70 thou per, shouldn't be paying much more of his/her total income than a Warren Buffet!
Few if any of our farmers would complain, if a dumped farm bill then leveled out the playing field for our own primary product exporters?
I believe optional preferencing would eliminate most of those who can't get 5% now, as the preferences could exhaust at number three, two or just one, at the voter's choice!
That's what real optional preferencing looks like?
Combine that with proportional representation, and please not the flawed Hare Clarke system, that has stuffed Tassie? Just as many quotas as there are seats, and the options distributed on face value, not some hare brained system, that only ever defies the voters' intentions.
Those at the margins need to learn how to cooperate, in order to achieve outcomes and representation!
Other than that, there is only one vote one value and first past the post?
While many would agree with a 5% minimum vote to gain a quota, we may need to cap at say 2% minimum, in order to transfer or distribute any or all available preferences?
Gerrymanders ought not be possible, nor the party with less of the popular vote, winning the ballot, from compulsory second or third preferences.
Or someone with just 15% of the primary votes taking the seat.
A citizens/electorate' first round vote, might eliminate that?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

" I looked up the party cards on line, and was really none the wiser, because the working of the preference system is so obscure."
Candide,
I'm not really with you here. What's the problem. If you are writing a thesis on the political arrangements of the 2013 election, then yes you have your work cut out for you, but for the average voter, what's the hassle. If you traditionally vote Labor but are not sure where your surplus vote will be going then you can easily look it up at the polling booth or before hand on the web. Most voters simply trust their traditional party and tick above the line, because however the party preferences, it is doing so to maximize its chances.
For someone, perhaps like you, who may be suspicious of many parties, then you simply spend an extra 5 minutes of your life every three years and take the trouble to vote below the line.

Edward, my problem is that knowing the card (or voting below the line) still leaves you in the dark. It tells you nothing about the likely outcome of your vote. I'm sure most people had no idea they were contributing to the election of a micro party candidate.

Who complained about these minor parties? Never Heard TA, only commentators moaning. The fact is the greens have been on this particular bandwagon for years and now it's wrong? Labour in local elections routinely run a load of candidates just to preference the chosen one and get the seat. It has served the green and labour loonies well but now it has come back to bite them on the proverbial.

Electoral system reform is long overdue in Australia but doesn't happen because the existing system favours the major parties while the party that has proportional representation in its platform, the Greens, is not actively campaigning for it.

Of course proportional representation is the answer, as is used in many Western countries, but not the variety used in Australia: Hare-Clarke. While Hare-Clarke can be an improvement if compulsory preferential voting is done away with, the Hare-Clarke system as used in the Senate has been corrupted to the full, not just in this election but in several previous ones. Hare-Clarke has its origin in early 19th century Britain, prior to the emergence of mass parties following the extension of the franchise. It is suitable for small assemblies and election of individual officials from a small group of candidates. The best form of PR is Open Party List System which requires the voter to insert one mark only to indicate a party preference AND the particular preferred candidate on that party's list, widely used in the world. It is democratic, flexible, straightforward, cannot be corrupted, inexpensive and fast in counting. Another form is the two-vote party list PR system, e.g. used in Germany and NZ, which aims to provide a measure of local area representation (in different ways though). This could be used in Australia if people felt strongly about, say, state representation: One vote nationally for the party and one vote for the party in a particular state.
Klaas Woldring