Has Been refers to the PR system of the Senate which is the Hare-Clark system also named Single Transferable Vote. This system was first advocated by Thomas Hare for school boards in the UK (mid 19th century). Later it was adapted by Andrew Ingliss Clark for Tasmania in 1907. VERY few countries in the world use the STV system, strongly favoured in Australia by the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (PRSA). It was introduced for the Senate in 1949 together with extensive compulsory preferencing with soon proved a problem. In 1984 the "above the line" and "under the line" options were introduced. Voters strongly favoured the simple "above the line" option by something like 90%. However, this meant that the real preferencing was done by the parties, in a sense behind closed doors, who could submit up to three group preference tickets, opening the way for horse trading and gaming. The "reform" of 2016 has somewhat reduced this perversion of the system. This PR system is QUITE different from the PR Party List systems, used 86 countries in the world. With the two-vote exception of NZ, Germany voters have only one vote and do not engage in preferencing. In the Open Party List system the voter can use his/her ONE vote for the party of preference and the preferred candidate on that list, clearly a very simple task. It is beyond me why the PRSA has not been prepared to even consider advocating this system for Australia as the Senate experience has been quite unsatisfactory for years - even though the Senate has generally been a more presentative and democratic legislative chamber than most Australian House of Representatives. This strange, often utterly dysfunctional combination in itself has been a frustrating feature that cries out for MAJOR reform. We need an Inquiry, not one by the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on electoral Matters (as in 2016), but comprising a totally independent national committee to reform Australia's electoral system mess. This is what happened in NZ in 1986, a Royal Commission into Electoral Reform Their recommendations were fully implemented in 1996.

Hasbeen,
Where did you get the absurd idea that a party that can do anything it likes leads to good decisions and a party that has to convince others of the rightness of its decisions before implementing them leads to dreadful decisions? IMO Australian experience constantly shows that the reverse is the case!

As for FPTP it's a truly evil system designed to keep power in the hands of the elites. Under FPTP if you stand for parliament you're less likely to get in than to prevent your supporters having a say in determining who does win.

And while there's some merit in letting people actively expire their vote, I really don't see the advantage. When there are multiple candidates you definitely do not want to win, isn't there one you want to lose more than the other?

__________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
GW is an observed phenomenon, not a religion. Why do you stay in thrall to the atheist neocons?

Far from pooping on their electorates, Oakshott and Windsor did what they believed was best for their electorates. After seeing what Tony Abbott was like in government, most of the people who voted for them understood the decision, and a lot of them agreed.

And it was the Abbott government, not the Gillard government, that has set in place generational pain with idiotic spending and gw policies.

The New Zealanders have got what they deserved. We have no right to complain or meddle with their affairs. It is up to them to decide how to conduct their elections, not us.

David

First past the post works when there are just two candidates! Otherwise, one could win with just a 35% margin or less, or have someone rejected by 65% or more of the electorate, take the seat!

And only democratic if the two leading candidates go to a play off?

Still better than a compulsory preference system where your preferred candidate virtually owns your alternative choices? And can and does, horse trade with them?
Alan B.

Come on Aidan, no one could ever convince the ratbag greens to vote for anything that was good for the majority of Australians. They want us all back in bark humpies, throwing rocks & sticks at things we want to catch to eat.

Add another half a dozen special interest, & ratbag members, & we are assured of bad decisions, used to buy the vote of some.

I would much rather have either of the majors completely implement their policies, than this ridiculous buying of ratbags with their pet hobby horses.

Back about 50 years ago, Arthur Hewson, a Country Party candidate, ( some might remember when it was a real country party), won a seat in Victoria with about 15 percent of the primary vote. The Labor candidate got 49 percent of the primary vote and thought he was a shoe in, but all the preference votes from 4 other candidates, put Labor last and Arthur won. Justice was served and the will of the majority who voted against Labor was upheld and democracy reigned.

David