No doubt the present system disadvantages small parties which stand on narrow special interest platforms, but this is a good thing. The minor or ‘would be’ parties are usually special interest groups or groups driven by a particular ideology.

Special interest groups lack the comprehensive policy platforms required to govern a nation, and
Ideological parties, including religious parties, rarely have the stomach for compromise which democracy demands. Whatever the ideology, unless a party respects the diverse ideologies it hopes to represent, and compromises its own accordingly, it has no business in our democratic system. It would be better for good government if such groups pressed their objectives through lobbying instead of parliamentary representation leaving them making decisions on issues for which they were not elected.

Many who think otherwise are assuming the absence of a party which closely reflects their own outlook, indicates there isn’t sufficient choice, but democracy is fundamentally about compromise - no individual voter ever gets what he wants because politicians make decisions which are a compromise of many conflicting voter wants. The two party system produces parties which already reflect a compromise on the diverse outlooks of the voters. The proposed PR system might well allow each outlook to be better represented, but this is just deferring the necessary compromises to the parliamentary floor making it even less efficient that in is at present. Contrary to the author’s observation that a PR system causes no problems in many European countries, it actually causes great instability and regular deadlocks.

The dominance of the two parties and their similarity, far from being a sign of the failure of our system, is evidence our system consistently produces moderate governments which reflect a compromise between all the conflicting views of the voters. Nobody is ever completely happy, but at least the politicians in the major parties are aiming to keep 51% satisfied – more than can be said for special interest groups or ideologues

And again

Kalin so by your measure it’s ok for the state to persecute & rob people so long as 51% are kept happy .

Mate when you’ve had much of the value of your hard earned assets stripped by a government seeking to sure up a few seats in an upcoming election you’ll understand what being part of the 49% is .

Jamo,

I hear you, but the problem you raise has virtually nothing to do with the electoral system – PR or any other electoral system - it’s a fundamental flaw with Democracy – the 51% (or those elected by them) CAN bully the remaining 49%. This is the tyranny of Democracy, a good early example being the persecution of Socrates for displeasing the majority under the democracy of ancient Greece.

Modern democracies do better than the ancient Greeks by embracing the ideals of Liberalism which is the idea that the state, even with the blessing of the majority, ought not interfere with individuals in certain spheres and ways. The tricky bit is in agreeing in what ways and spheres governments should and shouldn’t be able to interfere with individuals. The US Bill of rights is one example of how liberalism has been implemented in the US. Our constitution offers no absolute protections and instead relies on the traditions of the Westminster system and the common law, which recognise most of the rights enshrined in the US system, but follow them more ‘flexibly.’

Unfortunately, however you try to limit the role of government so that the 51% cannot unfairly or unreasonably impose themselves on the 49%, the protections are never complete and some unfairness will prevail.

To get back on point, a PR system might give you a candidate that can moan and cry about those policies/taxes/laws which are unreasonably targeting you, but if the other elected candidates are unaffected he’ll likely be ignored by the other elected candidate in the same way those who voted him in were ignored by their fellow voters.

The short of it is, democracy is a compromise and therefore, by definition, not ideal. Even so, democracy is still better than other systems, where invariably, the powers that be only have to please a much smaller interest group, usually those with guns.

As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst kind of government, except for all the others.”

I wonder what the likes of Woldring would say to those One Nation voters who had their one million votes (or 10%) ripped from them in rubbish preference deals.

Not only is it ironic that much of what Hanson said is unfolding before our eyes, with race riots, people wanting to blow us up & remove our democratic values by replacing them with the barbaric Sharia code, but I doubt if those peddling this idea agree that they, who the leftist elites considered rednecks for legitimate concerns about areas such as Cabramatta, the heroin capital of Australia, should be proportionally represented.

What of the European nations, with their rapidly increasing Muslim, pro-Sharia, populations?

68% of Muslims in Britain want Sharia, with about 30% believing the London attacks were justified, and more still that don't believe in democratic values.

Should they be represented? Should NAZI's be represented?

This might work with European cultures, which are enlightened, but for those that vote in accordance with their ethnicity, it could never work.

Iraq a good example. Shiites vote for Shiite party's, and Sunni's blow them up. No, this idea is preposterous in the real world because 90% of the world's cultures are barbaric, racist, tribal.

Even in Australia it couldn't work. We'd have Muslims want their barbaric Sharia, where women are worth half of men in Islamic courts, to be instigated here.

This goes against everything we believe in.

Again, it could only work with enlightened cultures.

Benjamin, do you not sense the exquisite irony in being apparently conservative and yet accusing the "left" (whatever that means nowadays — apparently anyone who doesn't agree with the current regime) of being Nazis.

Right ...

The issue is more complicated than PR good versus single member electorates bad.

PR is not representative with list system elected MPs. Lists reward party hacks who represent noone except themselves or faction. NZ electors are cynical about list MPs because of their unrepresentativeness.

The NZ system is doubly cynical as politicians get another go - run in a single member seat and lose, still be on the list i.e. NZ First leader Winston Peters.

The 1999 ''tablecloth'' election was no democratic victory . Preference harvesting by microparties and 0.13% for election is anarchy or the Keating line - unrepresentative swill.

Electorate based PR is more effective as an MP can be representative. Tasmania works becasue of small electorates, rotation of candidate names, no preferences on HTV cards. MPs have to work hard and theoretically no safe seats. Until the Greens, there were few independents or minor party MPs in Tasmania.

Electorate based PR can be subverted - the Victorian ALP dumping city MPs into country electorates under the reformed Upper House.

The attraction of single member electorates is MPs are directly answerable to their electors. If they don't please, they are unemployed. Party leaders can lose (and have done). Better to concentrate on marginal seats than on the shifting 0.5% in a PR list system.

Single electorate systems are stable - the elected dictatorship - rather than shifting sands of unstable coalitions (look at NZ for strange bedfellows!).

The Australian preferential system makes votes work. In UK and NZ with multi party single member parliaments elected on first past the post where disenchantment has set in - UK in 1983,1980/90S NZ i. In both there was no check - Tory controlled Lords and no NZ upper house.

Single member MPs can represent voters if conscience voting, occasionally seen in the Liberals but not the Pledge bound ALP. If the ALP abandoned the pledge ... !!

PR is not the panacea to democracy and representation, possibly the opposite because of removed responsibilities cynicism engendered.