While the article appears persuasive it seems incomplete? I used to like and vote democrat, but never in my wildest dreams would I vote autocratic pedantic green. Over the Weekend Dr doctor digitalis was out there front and centre rubbishing the libs and labor for doing the very thing they the greens are past masters at!

Splitting their preferences, even where it means preferencing everything they claim they're against; to simply maximize the seats they control. For the simple objective of holding the balance of power and then using that to force feed their entirely unpalatable and unaffordable wish list on the folks who wouldn't intentionally ever vote for them or their dream castle clap, unless a loaded gun were held to the head, their idea of democracy in action?

There's no moral certitude with these folk, all they want is, with the exception of a few former democrats, power! And with every fibre of their straining being? Moreover, to coin a phrase, they'll run with the hare and hunt with the hound to get it!
Alan B.

If you don't mind Alan B. Can I ask why you found the A Democrats appealing and why and when did you stop voting for them?

I don't mind at all third man, ask anything you like! You'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

I was hoping you'd expand in that.

"William Hill is a graduate from the Australian National University with a Bachelor of International Security Studies. He has a strong interest in political science and issues of foriegn policy. "

The Green non-revolution, written by a person with no qualifications to write about the environment, except perhaps as a 'political environmentalist', commenting on 'political environments'.

Fortunately, Will, not even your reading it aloud will contribute enough hot air to increase the rate of global warming. Perhaps if the populations of China and India all read it aloud at the same time?

Meg Lees killed it for me, Third Man, who instead of keeping the bar stewards honest, got into bed with them.

As for the greens, they seem to play musical beds, whenever politically expedient, to garner the preferences they need to get seats?

Imagine if everybody just put the greens last as directed preferences, they'd have little if any influence and far fewer seats given a rock solid primary vote languishing somewhere between 7-10%?

I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for folks, who aren't able or even willing to respect the will of the people and are incapable of winning them over with just the power and logic of a passionately put reasoned argument; but instead resort to political buggery and dirty little deals to garner preferences, that demonstrably usurp the will of the people!

They claim they don't like our mandatory offshore processing and alleged asylum seekers being denied the prize they've paid organised criminal syndicates for!?

And seek change via patent political blackmail rather than the power of impassioned reasoned logic.

Now I know of a virtually foolproof way to covertly sort the economic migrant from the genuine asylum seeker; and might be persuaded to change a hard line view if it were ever proposed as policy. [Ask me to expand.]

And therefore, meant we could resettle genuine asylum seeker escaping persecution, but only as long as that remained in play from whence they escaped.

And from where they could if they so chose, when and if repatriated, apply through legitimate channels for acceptance as migrants? And given they'd spent their time and opportunities to fit in, learn English and up-skill; they' get a place at the head of a legitimate queue!

I'm sorry, but sometimes you really do need to be cruel to be kind, and win earned respect for sticking to your guns, all while bending over backwards to be evenhanded and demonstrably fair!

And that just ain't the greens or should I say the, we know best, urban elite?

How's that? Fancy a turn with the gloves at keeper?
Alan B.