On meagre research, The Greens' reform proposals appear both fair and fully justifiable in the interest of genuinely 'representative' voting:
- offering selection of 1-6 'Above-the-Line', or;
- 1-12 (or as many more as you like) 'Below-the-Line'.

The Greens do NOT appear to be proposing disbandment of GVT (the 'Group voting ticket' preference distribution system currently available to parties/nominees) - even though this 'system' has been in large part responsible for the election of such as the Motoring Enthusiast representative, and possibly others, who only received a minute 'splatter' of Primary Votes in the last Senate election.

Now, Mr Muir (at least that's how I think his name is spelled, and no offence intended) may be a fine, intelligent, well-intentioned fellow, but that does not alter the fact that on any 'representative' system he would not have had a chance in hades of being elected. So, is that 'representative'?

I would not be in favour of any 'system' which would virtually guarantee that only the 'Majors' could get themselves elected, but I do certainly favour a system which would better ensure that only those receiving a reasonable quota of Primary Votes could get elected. (On the understanding that any worthwhile contender, with a reasonable portfolio, credentials and 'following' would have to achieve a reasonable number of Primary votes.)

In some election systems a minimum percentage of Primary Votes is used as a cut-off point - below which a nominee is eliminated from consideration, and who's Primary Votes are then distributed according to second-preferences. Adjusted 'cut-off' points are then applied progressively until all posts are filled - and results posted including the final vote tally for all 'elected'. This also would be fairer than the current Senate election system.

In response to another prior 'posting', the Upper House (or House of Review) is a fine system - without which the current Coalition would have been able to pass much possibly-contentious legislation which has been 'blocked' (correctly or otherwise) during the current term.
(You may view that outcome good or bad, according to your conscience.)

Yuyutsu,

"And very sadly, the latter is compulsory for anyone who lives at the same Australian address for over a month."
Technically true, but it's no longer enforced.

"I still would like to have the option of partial preferences rather than have a party which I happened to place as my first preference decide for me. I wouldn't mind keeping the GVT so long as I could override their decision, say by placing X's on all the remaining squares."
But is there any good reason why that should be an above the line option?

We have a constitution to protect us from parties with a grossly immoral agenda like your example.

___________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,

The UK is a lot less democratic than Australia. Admittedly that's because mainly because of their FPTP voting system, but their lack of compulsory voting also distorts the results. For instance when it's raining, people who don't have cars are less inclined to vote.

Declaring compulsory voting to be "definitely undemocratic" doesn't make it so, and I notice you gave no actual grounds for your disagreement. And although I'm generally more libertarian than authoritarian, I prefer to base my decisions on their likely effects rather than some dogmatic position.

And FWIW I lived in London from 1999 to 2003, amd always voted even though I wasn't required to.

Saltpetre,

"....for the election of such as the Motoring Enthusiast representative, and possibly others, who only received a minute 'splatter' of Primary Votes in the last Senate election.

Now, Mr Muir (at least that's how I think his name is spelled, and no offence intended) may be a fine, intelligent, well-intentioned fellow, but that does not alter the fact that on any 'representative' system he would not have had a chance in hades of being elected. So, is that 'representative'?"

Senator Ricky Muir received 479 first preference votes in the last election.

Senator Michaelia Cash received 349 first preference votes in same election.

So, is that representative?

"The first task of a ballot count is to establish which of the candidates have met that 14.3% quota – it’s easily reached by the popular major parties. What people don’t know is that when a candidate goes “over quota”, the number of votes that go over quota are redistributed at a percentage of where their “number 2” preferences are going. Michaelia Cash doesn’t need many primaries, because she picks up this “transfer value” from whoever has the most “number 1s” for the Coalition, who then pass their votes to her."

"This mechanism will remain with the Greens’ changes. What the Greens are removing is what happens to the microparty votes that do not automatically reach a quota: their primary votes are individually small, but combined are around 20% of the total. When quota isn’t met by any candidate, but there are still senators to elect, the counters start go through the smallest pile of votes; they are declared excluded, and their votes are redistributed, at full value, to whoever is second on each individual ballot paper, until a quota is reached."

"But the effect of the Greens changes means that by choosing fewer parties to preference, votes “exhaust” and preferences cease to circulate. If you only vote for one or six minor parties above the line, and all are excluded, your vote will not count, at all, towards electing a senator.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/15/everything-you-dont-understand-about-senate-voting-reform-and-are-afraid-to-admit?CMP=share_btn_tw

“You on the other hand seem to think dirty deals done in the dead of night are perfectly okay?
And those who've manipulated the system for pure self-interest,”

C’mon Rhosty, aren’t parties expected to arrange Group Voting Tickets in the interests of the party? Don’t you want your favoured party to win, and thus would you not expect it to maximise its chances in how it arranges its GVT?
And what makes a deal dirty because of its nocturnal circumstances if it is still going to be made public in the bright light of morning?

Dear Aidan,

<<But is there any good reason why that should be an above the line option?>>

Personally I could live with having this option below the line.

But it's a lot of work.

In the last elections, I gave each party a mark, then had a small computer program do the numbering below the line for me. But when I came to the ballot with the printed sheet, I found that several candidates withdrew, so it was useless and I had to do it all manually which took about 15 minutes. Most people would have given up.

<<We have a constitution to protect us from parties with a grossly immoral agenda like your example.>>

Thank goodness for that. The example I gave was very gross indeed, but different people have different levels of moral standards, often finer than those provided by the constitution.

Overall, the more options the voter has - the better.
To have the best of all worlds would be to keep the GVT, but also allow partial preferences below and above the line and also allow the option "STOP HERE" below and above the line.

Since having everything available is not on offer, I consider the new arrangement somewhat better than the former.

Compulsion should be abolished and I look forward to voluntary taxation.