Our Constitution is not “archaic” but one of the world’s best.

The single transferable vote method of proportional representation is far superior to list systems because every vote stays in the count until it elects someone or all positions are filled and people can vote in any order they like for candidates within and across parties.

I think I agree with most of this and have frequently critiqued our massively manipulated preferential system. Nor do I believe the Hare Clark system has anything going for it.

That said, limiting choices to Parties alone as exampled in the essay?

Is a great way of sidelining independants, who must be included as an independent broad church coalition for the purpose of inclusion inside a genuine proportional representation system, rather than the marginalization that excluding them would produce for minorities?
Rhrosty.

Bravo for advancing this argument. It is an unfortunate trait of australians that they think whatever system they have is the best in the world when manifestly the present systems are profoundly undemocratic. One has only to compare the first preference vote of the Nationals and the Greens, and then count their seats in Parliament to see the point.

I would just add two brief comments. The first comment is that for elections to the European parliament, all member states have a PR system, including the UK. Despite the British vaunting their first past the post system as the best (just as we do ours) the sky did not fall in when PR was used to get a fair representation of all parties in the European parliament.

The second point is that New Zealand held a second referendum at the last general election to see if the people wanted to retain the PR system they had (based on the German model). The vote for retention was significantly higher than voted for PR the first time around.

As a newish resident of Tasmania , I am now stuck with the Hare-Clark system in State Elections.

It's a dog.

Why ?

Well, it almost ensures a hung Parliament, when each "Electorate" are electing only 5 members.

Secondly, NONE of those members look after their Electorate They look after themselves and blame the other 2/3 or 4 but never themselves.

As a result , Tasmania is the worst governed State in Australia.

If the PR system elects the European parliament, that is one we must avoid at all costs.

Klaas states, "I believe an entirely Independent Inquiry should be held about Australia's electoral systems". Well sorry mate, we all know where that would lead.

A bunch of academics, & retired judges, definitely the worst possible group of people in which to find independence, would pontificate for months or years, before making some damn fool suggestion.

First past the post is the only fair practical system, which does not force anyone's vote to apply to someone they definitely do not want.

The old keep it simple stupid solution is always the best.

Chris C, I agree with you.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,

First Past The Post is extremely unfair – that's why we got rid of it. We don't want a repeat of the situation where Labor got in with barely a third of the vote because no single candidate scored higher. And we certainly don't want the situation where standing as an independent hurts your cause because you're more likely to prevent your supporters deciding who wins than you are to win yourself.

And it's TOTALLY FALSE that FPTP "does not force anyone's vote to apply to someone they definitely do not want"! It forces many people to vote for candidates they don't want, as it's seen as the only way to keep worse candidates out.

As for the European Parliament, there are a lot of things wrong with it but its electoral system is not one of them.