Andrew, you wrote; “but to suggest our preferential voting system is "corrupt" or "illegal" is just silly. It is not perfect, but it is certainly better than the barely democratic first past the post systems in the UK, Canada and the USA.”

It is profoundly corrupt and if it isn’t technically illegal, it should be. It cannot possibly be better than first-past-the-post. This is what I said under ‘It time for positive politics’ (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4062);

“if you really didn’t want to vote for either Labor or Liberal, and you put them last and second last on your ballot paper, in the vast majority of cases preferences would filter down until they counted for whichever party you put second last. This is a million miles away from democracy. What it amounts to is massive vote-rigging. There should be no way in the world that your vote can end up counting for a party/candidate that you specifically did not vote for!! There is no reason why the optional preferential system that we have at state government level can’t apply in federal elections.”

This is something that the minor parties and independents should be critically concerned about. It is something that every person who believes in democracy should be critically concerned about.

“….zero net migration certainly was official policy at one stage because I spent quite a bit of energy once I got into Parliament working to get it replaced and disowning it wherever possible.”

What a crying shame!

“Ludwig - I agree that policies aimed at increasing our own fertility rate are silly (and mostly an expensive waste of money in any case).”

Thank goodness for that. So I re-ask my question; “what are the Democrats doing about this godawful blatant bribe [the baby bonus] to have more babies….?”

“I don't think it [the individual fertility rate] matters much how it differs from the 'effective fertility rate' .....”

It gives Costello, Turnbull and the rest, an excuse to pull the wool over our eyes and pretend that our population will go in decline if we don’t have significant immigration. It is highly significant.

Andrew, the way you almost boast of pushing high immigration policies against the wishes of the Australian electors and, it would appear, against the wishes of your own party membership seems a little reminiscent of boasts by Liberal politicians of having somehow shown great moral courage for having defied the wishes of their own electorate in ramming through the Telstra last year because they also said that they knew better than their electors (see http://www.citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com).

Could I suggest that if you are not able to accept what appears to be the vote taken three times in favour of zero net immigration by the members of your party, then perhaps it's time that debate was re-opened. A good start would be, as suggested by 'last word' displaying your support for a population of 30 million (i.e. a further 50% increase) prominently on the Democrats website.

Perhaps some rank and file Democrats who appear to be absent from the debate (at least those in support of your stance - I wonder why that could be?) could be encouraged to join this forum.

One point where I will agree with you against some of the others is that Australian preferential voting system, for all of its grave flaws and for all the ways it has been corrupted by the different party machines, is almost infinitely preferable to the rotten 'first past the post' system practised in the US and the UK. This system often guarantees that candidates who are opposed by the majority of electors win the election.

This is clearly what happened with the US presidential elections of 2000 where the anti-Bush vote was split between those voting for Al Gore and those voting for Ralph Nader. If their had been an Australian style preferential voting system Al Gore and not George Bush would have been US President today.

Definitely the Senate voting system needs to be reformed. The vast majority of voters who are unwilling to number every box below the line must be allowed to allocate preferences to the parties of their choice above the line.

Sometimes I cant help but feel that Politicians are too scared to suspend immigration etc because they fear that it will mean that people wanting to come might get angry and they will come anyway and will use any method necessary, including violence to achieve their goal.

They think it is best not to antagonise these people so they keep letting them in to avoid trouble as Politicians know we already have enough trouble with law and order and it wouldn't do our Governments reputation any good to have more!

Our Government doesn't really care how the majority feels because, by the sound of it, the voting process is all fixed anyway!

Andrew, our constitution states categorically that our representatives are to be “directly chosen” not preferentially chosen. That makes it illegal. Because current political practise is to force us to vote preferentially for one or more candidates against our will, makes it a corrupt practise.

What part don't you understand, politician's insult us daily, forcing upon us unpopular policies, who do you represent, its obvious that its not your members or the populance.

You state it yourself, immigration is unpopular, as is most of the policy formats placed forward by political parties. How much money in donations did the democrats get from corporations and business for the last elections. If it was more than one cent, then you are being influenced by them.

Politicians are to be elected by the people, not by business or corporations, since when did business get a vote. So corporate/business donations are bribes designed to influence political parties to push the corporate/ business agenda, nothing else. You will note, that the vast majority of the population don't donate to political parties, because they know it's a waste of time.

Popular polices are what the people want and what would make people happy. Unpopular policies make corporations/business and politicians happy, resulting in our current collapsing society. Don't you get it, you are a corrupt bunch that keeps itself in power by corrupt and illegal practices. We need change soon, before we slip further over the edge into chaos.

You had an opportunity here to show some positive direction and gauge public opinion on immigration. All you have done is show readers how right they are in their assessment of the political system.

We need a voting system that allows voluntary preferential voting, bans corporate and business donations and donations over $10. No party advertising, just candidates up to $5000 each and no public money. Then we would see who was the most popular. Add no political or party statements nor advertising in the two weeks of polls and we may get some sense.

Those who want to help Australian women to control their own fertility, and thereby help us to achieve sustainable population numbers, should sign the online pettiton in support of the availability of the RU486 abortion drug at :

http://www.ru486.org.au/support.html

Also, I concur with popandperish (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#30200). Congratulations to Democrats Senator Lyn Alison for her strong outspoken stance in favour of RU486.

Andrew, by way of clarification; I am vehemently opposed to the compulsory preferential voting system, or the illegal preferential marking system, not to preferential voting per se. Optional preferential voting is the system we should be going with.

Daggett, the Australian preferential voting system consists of two very different systems, one of which is better than first-past-the-post or simple majority voting and of which most definitely is not. These are the optional preferential system and the compulsory preferential system respectively.

Yes Nader caused Bush to win power by diluting the opposing vote. This probably wouldn’t have happened if there had been a compulsory preferential voting system in the USA at the time, although it still could have if the ratio of votes had been just a little different. That sort of thing can even happen with an optional preferential voting system. Indeed it happened to Goss, who would have won a third term in 1995 if I hadn’t run for the Qld Greens! [Sorry Wayne L]

The great objection that I have to compulsory preferential voting is that you have to mark every square on your ballot paper. This kills the democratic process outright and turns it into a most horrible two-party support system. The words ‘compulsory’ and ‘preferential’ are at complete odds.

The majority of people who vote Democrat do so specifically because they do not like either Liberal or Labor. With an optional preferential system, where you can mark one square, all squares or anything between, a significant portion would not allocate a preference to either, no matter how far down the order. But with the compulsory preferential system, in the vast majority of cases Democrat votes effectively count for either Liberal or Labor, even if the voter specifically and strongly does not wish to vote for either, and puts them last and second last. Figure out how this can be proper, democratic or even legal! Why the Democrats haven’t protested in the strongest possible manner, and kept it up for as long as it takes to get it changed, is simply beyond my comprehension.