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.

Democracy doesnt exist, it's all fantasy.

"If they make the laws for us, then we must make the laws for them".
Only in this context can we ever have the possibility of having real democracy.

Secondly, I don't like preferential voting.
I don't like a situation where a politician can claim he or she has my support when I never actually voted for them.
Because then, when they say they have the support of the people, its a lie.
In order that voting truly reflects support for an individual candidate, we must remove the claim of support for a candidate when it is not explicitly given.
That's why there should be a "none of the above" option.

Thirdly, lobby groups and corporations dilute 'the will of the people' with campaign contributions.
The politician will owe more to the lobby group or corporation than he does the voters, (at least until the next election).
Meaning - the reason all we ever hear is lies from politicians is not because they are incompetent.
It's because we're getting played right from the second they opened their mouths.
Their loyalty never was to us, they buy us with their lies, but they are indebted to others.
There's no consequence if they lie and don't keep their election promises.

Finally, I think voting itself is left open to unmeasurable fraud.
You don't need ID (People can vote numerous times).
You don't use a pen (choices can be erased).

Aiden,
'First Past The Post is extremely unfair – that's why we got rid of it.'

Well it depends on the way you look at it, right?
(I think you guys would be a better judge than me, I honestly don't know much about these things).
In my opinion FPTP is a system perfect for if you are voting for individual candidates.
The preference system I would think is better suited to political parties rather than individual candidates.

'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.'

Why?
Are we voting for individuals or political parties?
If we're voting for parties shouldn't it just say that on the ballot?

'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.'

Call me stupid, but I don't understand what you mean.

'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.'

I don't want to vote for the lesser evil when political parties just play pass-the-baton with issues each electoral cycle for the sake of pleasing the same lobbyists and corporations.

(All told, it means we never really have a say no matter what we do)

If I don't have any confidence in any of them, that's how I want to vote, though I'm not sure what the end result of my system would be.

FPTP is terrible - look at the fossilised state of the parties in UK and USA, where new parties have an extremely difficult time getting started. Consequently, the battle becomes an adversarial contest where past performance and platform and comparative quality of candidates plays little or no part.

The European experience is equally terrible - witness Belgium's paralysis for two years a decade or so ago due to inability to form a coalition. Witness also Italy's seemingly annual change of government post-WW2.

The NSW Upper House example has been positive - as also some parts of the above/below the line optional voting provisions in the current federal proposition.

We do need to be wary of over-reach, though. Minor parties are not of themselves evil. Efforts by the Greens and others to squeeze them out entirely could in the future see the Greens or the Nationals lose ground and become victims of their own enthusiasm.

Regarding Senate representation of the various states, Clauses 7 and 121 of the Australian Constitution are essential reading. Maybe the time is approaching where the Senate representation of each Original State is adjusted periodically to reflect population. Perhaps this could be at a lag of a decade or so and with both minimum and maximum representation established instead of a one-size-fits-all approach as at present.

Who knows? Maybe a New State Movement will eventually get up in Qld or NSW - but the arrangements in the Senate make this inconceivable under the current Constitution.