There is, of course, another option.

We retain above the line voting, but require people to number every box above the line. Their vote is then counted as being a primary vote for candidate (1) in the group against which they have marked 1. Their second preference goes to candidate (2) in that group, and so on. At the end of that group, their next preference (say preference 7) goes to candidate (1) in the group against which they have marked 2. And so on.

Instead of marking 70-odd squares, the punter has to mark maybe ten. But THEY get to control where their preferences go, not the parties. It's the best of both worlds.

Anthony

does anyone in australia know that 'democracy' means 'the people rule'?

instead of quibbling about which group of bandits gets to screw the public, why don't you talk about referendum and direct election, the tools of real democracy. unfortunately, your hands are tangled in your forelocks, your knees in a crouch from curtseying. from this posture it's hard to read about other cultures and embarrassing to speak in public. i guess it's genetic- politics can only be done by superior beings, called 'politicians', who can stand up and lie in public with a straight and uncovered face.

and that is why oz pundits are called 'chatterati, oz people are called 'horses'.

Demos,

There's a Federal election later this year mate. If the candidates are all "bandits" then it's time for you to put up or shut up. Will you be standing? Will you be contesting seats against the "bandits"? Can I read your policies please?

Or was that just a rant?

Yeah, thought so.

Anthony

Brett,

At last, an OLP item that makes sense and offers solutions! How did you get it published here? Must have slipped by in error. Jesting of course mate.

Seriously you are dead right. Like Beattie in QLD who created the vote 1 option for the lazy so Labor could dominate forever, this method of voting sucks.

There are many changes needed.

Could I suggest another?

Currently the major parties get paid $2.10 for every vote they get (yes, it's gone up, it's CPI indexed). Taxpayers money funding their election campaigns.

If anyone gets over 4% of the vote they get paid this way. I'd suggest this be reversed so that anyone getting less than 10% get's these dollars as they need encouragement while over 10% get nothing. The big two get enough from other avenues. They already use a huge chunk of taxpayers dollars as it is. To fly around, print pamhplets, attend campaign rallies and so on. Yes we pay them for that. Mind you they are still supposed to be at work during this and they are not. They are doing party political work, in our time at our expense.

To those looking for alternatives, try these websites re TAPP, The Australian People's Party. Looking for candidates and will actually give back 75% of any taxpayer funds if they recieve such.

Sites here :

http://www.tapp.org.au/, and

http://www.ozpolitic.com/app/app.html.

Join up and have a choice. Yes it's small but so was everything right?

I always have and always will fill out my vote the way I want to.
Even if it takes a long time.
I think we should go back to everybody having to fill all the boxes in order, at least that way we have a tiny amound of IQ testing done before you get to vote

So the parties won't be directing preferences if you just put "1" above the line?
Same as NSW state elections?

Anyway, I always do the whole catastrophe just so I can put Fred Nile et al last. I have only buggered it up once and had to ask for another ticket.

I do wonder if my measly vote counts. It must be a nightmare to distribute my chaotic preferences.

Thanks to all who have posted feedback.

Dear AnthonyMarinac, unfortunately the problem with your option is it focuses on the group voting ticket system - to me the source of the problem. How many people voting using your system would have any idea of where their preferences were being allocated? Not many.

My solution permits voters to complete just those boxes they feel express their voting preference - an individual choice that may range from 1 option below the line to all options below the line. Or a tick in a box above the line if they want to defer responsibility for making these sorts of decisions to political parties.

Check Antony Green's posts on the topic from 2005 somewhere on this site.

Dear DEMOS, not sure what to say., maybe AnthonyMarinac is right.

Dear Betty, will look at your sites.

Dear miketrees, forcing people to complete every box is what I think makes the below the line such a pain for people - only 4 people in 100 can be bothered. We already have to vote or cop a fine. The least we should expect is the ability to vote in a way that actually reflects our view on the day - which for some people will mean not wanting to give some candidates ANY of their preferences.

Dear michael2, not sure how NSW system works, but whole point of ATL system is to permit parties to set preference distributions in stone rather than allowing voters to make that decision themselves. My suggestion is to let voters cast a valid vote below the line by selecting 1 (or more) candidates - based on their own preferences, not because they are forced to complete every box.

Thanks for reading.

For ballot paper all we need is Optional Preferential Voting.

As long as voters place a 1 on one name on the ballot paper it is valid.

No need for preferences.

Those who wish to allocate preferences can do so, as 2,3,4,5,...

Still not sure we should count #124 when is a gap between candidates 4 to 123, then written is number 124.

Major difficulty with optional preferential is whether after optional preferences allocated out, a highest scoring candidate may still have below 50% of votes cast as needed for simple majority ?

The problem is not really the ballot paper and preferences. Most of the voters do not care most of the time.

Our problem is when majority of voters do care enough about a single issue and still get no control over what happens with the issue.

Only way to fix this is Citizen Initiated Legislation, so voters can instruct their representatives on those few occaisions enough of them do want to instruct their representatives on a particular issue.

Parties do not like this for two reasons, firstly they might get instructions they are bound to follow, secondly, issues may actually get resolved leaving parties unable to play issues for votes

leaving your nation in the hands of politicians is about as sensible as leaving your children in the hands of pedophiles.

why don't you have direct election of ministers?
why don't you have citizen initiated referendum power?
why don't you have the power to oversee the activities of politicians?

because you don't live in a democracy.

would the people of australia be better off if they did? i believe so, as i feel to be human is better than to be a sheep. but i fear growing up as a sheep shapes the character so as to make democracy not only unwanted but quite inconceivable.

Demos
I think we need to pass another type of test other than just turning 18 before we get a vote, if that happened I would feel a lot better abot CIR

Demos,

You sound quite angry about what we have for government today.

I'm very angry and have been for a long time about the contempt with which the major parties treat Australians.

I agree on Ministers 100%. What other major position do we leave to the whim of one man, usually picking someone for party political reasons rather than any actual skills or expertise. Nelson in Defence? On what basis? We all know. Christopher Pyne in any portfolio is a huge joke except I'm not laughiing. He's a sycophant as already displayed by clearing Santoro in record time.

Like all responsible jobs people should be qualified, experienced and able to manage large groups of experts in their areas with ability and respect, not political bullying. The amount of people who do not do their jobs properly in government today is directly related to the level of political interference. We don't even have an independent security Agency any more.

Re power over politicians. Again I agree with you 100%. There is of course a simple way to achieve this but it requires politicians to change legislation and they are not going to do that for anything.

All that is needed is for them to join Mr Howard's No Work Choice world and sign an AWA with each electorate. Basic expenses could be covered by general revenue but any extras say would come from the electorate directly. That is the people who voted each MP in. Extras would be rather limited don't you think? Why do all MP's receive the same level of income etc? Performance pay for them too.

Additionally such AWA's could include reasons for dismissal, as do all AWA's. Such as voting against the electorates needs and service requirements. In such cases I would suggest forfeit of benefits (super etc) and instant recall as they do in the USA.

What do you think? We need to act mate. And now. However small, start saying you've had enough.

Ask your MP why they don't have an AWA for example. Hear the laughter already? Your rep.