The UK’s system is so varied that a direct comparison is not possible. Some parts of the country have unitary authorities. Some parts have county council and district councils. London, Northern Ireland and Wales have assemblies and local councils. Scotland has its own parliament and local councils. Some places have civil parish councils and others do not.

The UK had at least 23,947 politicians (including local councillors). That was one politician per 2631 people (in a population that is now 63 million).

Australia has 824 state and federal politicians. There are about 6600 local councillors in Australia (http://alga.asn.au/?ID=42). That makes a total of 7424 politicians, or one for every 3098 people (in a population of 23 million), still more people per politician than in UK.

Shockadelic,

Section 7 says that senator must be “directly chosen by the people”. That means that people have the right to vote for individuals.

Preferences are not party-determined. People have the right to vote below the line in nay order that they wish. If they chose not to do so, they choose to follow their party’s wishes, but it is still their choice to do so.

STV is superior to list systems because it allows the voter to chose the individual candidate that best suits that voter’s wishes.

Once those who have reached a quota on the initial vote are elected, there is a series of counts. At each count, there are several candidates in the race. The one with the least support drops out and those who voted for him or her have their votes transferred to their next choice. The process continues until one person has the support of a quota. That person is obviously the most supported of those remaining in the race. The simplest comparison is with preferential voting in a single-member electorate. The aim is to reach the quota of 50 per cent plus one. At each stage, the candidate with the least support drops out and those who voted for him or her have their votes transferred to their next choice until one candidate reaches the majority. STV operate sin the same principle, but there is not one quota of 50 per cent plus one, but several quotas.

The garbage truck is out the front at this very minute collecting the rubbish. The idea that it could be controlled more efficiently from a computer in Canberra is fanciful.

What we really need in Australia is not a System Reconstruction, but a System Restore. I am called vexatious because I refuse to accept that lawyers are the only people qualified to de-construct and examine what the Australian Constitution, actually means. The “Kable Principle” supposedly made as Judge Made Law in 1996, should have done a System Restore, and given every Australian the right to expect that if put upon by any Local or State Government that his/her civil and political rights would be respected and the question of whether he or she must comply with a disputed law, be decided by “judges” not by a Lawyer Judge drawn from a cartel that dominates all Parliaments. There is nothing wrong with the Australian Constitution. It took away State Sovereignty, and created One Jurisdiction, but its provisions were made negative in 1986 by the Australia Act 1986 and at the same time, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights became Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, but because the Australia Act 1986 both repeals and continues the Australian Constitution, no Lawyer judge will accept the truth of this Statement. There is a Wild Card entry into the game, in the election of Clive Palmer and up to four allied Senators. If John Madigan will join that alliance, then some very hard questions should be asked in the Parliament about the way the 51 lawyer/lobbyists in the Parliament of the Commonwealth are obstructing the course of justice in Australia and preventing good laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth from being enforced. I am vexatious or declared so in four jurisdictions, Queensland which went bad in 1991, New South Wales which went bad in 1970, Victoria which went bad in 1986, and the Commonwealth which went bad in 1976, and in every case it was a single individual drawn from the Legal Profession who made the declaration. With a bit of gumption Palmer United Party and its allies will do so much good for Australia just by asking hard questions.

peter..<<..There is nothing wrong with the Australian Constitution. It took away State Sovereignty, and created One Jurisdiction, but>>

in my opinion..'the states'..FORMED A HIGHER legislative* EXECUTIVE*/judicial body[chap 1,11,111]..[ie all state laws are retained*..[but where state law is DIVERGENT*..it falls UNDER the federal legislations

i feel they HAVE THEIR CAKE..AND EAT IT TOO
BUT THERE IS A REASON..FOR PETER BEATY..TO REWRITE THE QLD CONSTITUTION..INTO THE CONSTITUTION ACT..of 2002..[THEN SIGNING IT INTO LAW himself..

please explain FURTHER<<..its provisions were made negative in 1986 by the Australia Act 1986 and at the same time, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights became Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, but because the Australia Act 1986 both repeals and continues the Australian Constitution,>>..

as a convenient fiction..<<..no Lawyer judge will accept the truth of this Statement...>>..I BELIEVE chapter 5/108/109..are key..BUT STATE COURTS ARE NOT GOING TO RULE..THEY GOT NO POWER

any lAWYER IS A SERVANT..OF THE COURT

[sorry about cAPS=COMPUTER VIRUS]
BECAUSE THEY are servants of the court..plus subSERVIENT TO THE LAW SOCIETY..PLUS LAWYERS MAKING LAWS JUDGING LAWS..ITS JUST ALL TOO Convenient

anyhow..we created gOVT TO REGULATE ARTIFICIAL 'PERSONS'[CORPORATIONS/BUSINESS TRUSTS BIRTHS MARRIAGES ETC]
BUT SOMEHOW THE PERVERSION HAS BECOME BAILOUT BUSINESS [dead]..AND JAIL/tax to death..THE LIVING ..[take income=EARNED NOT BY VALUE ADDING/..IT*ISNT WAGE..YET ITS WE THE LIVING PAYING THE taxes..to corporatist..DEAD STATE

DO You have a web site?

NOTE ALSO..117[FED/CON]

Chris C, why should a seventh-preferred candidate be considered "chosen" to the same value as a first preference?

"the individual candidate that best suits that voter’s wishes" is the one they put first, not seventh.

Yes, people *can* vote below the line, but very few do.
Which should tell you how much people value giving preferences.

Which means it's the parties, not the voters who are deciding where those 2nd, 3rd, 4th preferences go.
Hardly the voter's "chosen" candidate.

With last remainder, you only consider the first preference (which should be paramount to the voter).
You don't consider the last preference as *equivalent* to their first (which can happen with transferred votes).
If you give a reduced value, that just makes the whole thing even more complicated.

"The idea that it could be controlled more efficiently from a computer in Canberra is fanciful."

Not the garbage truck itself, bright spark.
The planning of collections.

Do you think the drivers themselves sit down with a pen and a map and decide where and when they'll collect?

No, it's all arranged on computer by a clerk.
It doesn't matter where that computer and clerk are located.

Thank you Chris for checking on the ratio of politicians and citizens in several countries.

I don't know how the Wikepedia figure is arrived at but I assume that they include the number of local councillors. There are around 700 local councils in Australia and although most councillors are voluntary positions that would add a significant number of politicians to the total.

Again, the number if not my concern but the electoral system, and the resulting two-party system, is. Australia needs to get away from the adversarial political and industrial relations systems. It is unproductive from many perspectives. We should concentrate on achieving flexible parliamentary majorities rather than having to deal with another three years of oppositionism. The Westminster system too has serious problems in that much talent in the nation does not end up in Parliaments. The legislatures are dominated by the Government and Opposition, both often of very mediocre quality. I think the time has come for Australia to question these systems rather than continue to boast of their presumed superiority. As an independent and sovereign people questioning a system that has been passed on from a colonial power makes perfect sense to me.

Klaas