Instead of "hyperventilating" about preference "deals" between opposing parties, the media should be advising voters that they, the voters, can and should decide for themselves how they arrange their preferences. Preferential voting is a trick that helps Labor and Liberal to keep their chokehold on the country.

How to vote cards put out by parties should be banned; better still, preferential voting itself should be banned.

As for Clive Palmer, he is paying for his own campaign and, at the very least, has put the frighteners on rusted on crooks.

Dear Ttbn,

«better still, preferential voting itself should be banned.»

Why? I agree that "how to vote" cards are wrong, but isn't it good to allow those who can't get their best party in to at least try to get their 2nd-best in, or at least not-the-worst?

Yuyutsu, "isn't it good to allow those who can't get their best party in to at least try to get their 2nd-best in, or at least not-the-worst?"

No definitely not Yuyutsu, what it means that in the house your vote trickles down to one of the majors, no matter what you want. We should be able to exhaust our vote after just 2 or 3 preferences, or none at all if that is our wish. I have no problem with you using preferences, but they most definitely don't suit everyone's wishes.

When it comes to Labor promises the statement that leaps into view is, "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead". To paraphrase the old drink driving add, If you trust Labor "you're a bloody idiot".

It doesn't take much looking at his history to know Shorten is even less trustworthy than Gillard. Yes I know it is difficult to think anyone could tell more lies than Gillard, but at lying, shorten is the grand champion.

I must admit I was shocked when my youngest daughter said she had voted for Palmer. However in the old parable we are told the enemy of our enemy is your friend. The bulk of Ozzies want reduced migration but can't get it off the majors. In keeping with the above, none of my senate votes will go to anyone but anti migration candidates. If that means I have to give a vote to Palmer so be it. Buffoon or not, he is a better choice than Shorten or Morrison.

Dear Hasbeen,

«We should be able to exhaust our vote after just 2 or 3 preferences, or none at all if that is our wish.»

Definitely, and this is what most of us do in the senate-ballot.

Yet the ability to do the same is missing for the lower house and it seems that Ttbn considers this a good thing, but why? Why am I forced (assuming I want my vote to be formal) to make this gruelling choice between the two evil dinosaurs in the last two places (perhaps I should just toss a coin)?

I see the comments refer mainly to aspects of the controversial preferential voting system. Interesting to see that one of the last articles from me back in 2013 also referred to preferential voting - 'Sex Party Could help Pauline Slip into the Senate'. Seems recent incidents indicate that's the party some of her male supporters should have slipped into!
Anyway, I think there have been changes to the system since then but I still don't think it should be compulsory (preferential voting, not sex). Same for compulsory voting - weed out the donkeys!