Part 1

People are confusing issues here.

The system(s) that favour the major parties are those which are based on single member electorates. This includes both first past the post and preferential. Such systems allow only one winner per electorate - a winner takes all approach. FPP is worst of all (UK & US) because votes for similar parties can be split, allowing an "unprefered" party to win (think National and Liberal votes - these could be split allowing the ALP to win the seat). Additionally, candidates can win with less than 50% of the vote in a three corner contest. At least preferential prevents these outcomes.

Only proportional systems (STV, party list etc) allow minors to actually win seats. They do this by having multi-member electorates. If a party wins 20& of the vote, it gets 20% of the seats in that electorate. Sound great. Problem is it leads to endless unstable minority governments held to ransom by small parties.

Part 2

Australia has a "balanced system".

We use single member majoritarian preferential in the lower house. This is the best of the single member systems and it delivers a stable majority in the house of government (in Westminster systems where the government must hold the confidence of the house to govern). Here we get a "preferred" major party as the government. Even if they they won't win a seat, the minors get a look in in the preference deals too, they get to influence major party policy by preferencing or otherwise one or other of the major parties.

Australia then balances this strongly majoritarian system by using the STV proportional system in the Senate. Here majorities are unimportant to the formation of stable government. The fact that more viewpoints get represented in the Senate suits its purpose as a house of review. It promotes balance of power Senates, which can act to check the government, which the captive lower house is unable to do effectively.

The essence of the Australian electoral systems is "two houses, two systems". Use one to offset the flaws of the other. Match each system the purpose of each house.

There is not such thing as a perfect electoral system. There is no better alternative to democracy. As Churchill said "its the least worst" of all the systems of government. It is imperfect, messy and inefficient. But that is the best we've got and Australia does it better than almost anyone else.

Travelingnorth,
Found your post interesting. However there are two things you did not mention. One is, as I mentioned in past post, the advantages the major parties get with compulsory preferential voting. I think optional preferential is fairer, and two, Would not the implementation of Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR) be democratic as it would make Governments more considerate of the feelings of the electorate. Sometimes Governments believe they have a mandate to do whatever they wish and disregard the electorate until the next election.

Would you comment on these two issues?

In trying to sort out the different arguments, travellingnorth, you have managed to obscure some, and to introduce a new topic.

>>[with] a winner takes all approach... candidates can win with less than 50% of the vote in a three corner contest. At least preferential prevents these outcomes<<

Not so.

A significant number of candidates win a seat with fewer than 50% of the primary vote. It is only after the allocation of preferences that this number passes the 50% mark.

In our "blind" system, if candidate A receives 35% of the vote, candidate B 33% and candidate C 32%, the entire election hangs upon which of A and B receives C's preferences. If those preferences remained the prerogative of the voter, the voter would still have a modicum of control, but none at all if he objected to both A and B.

Where's the fairness in that?

>>Even if they they won't win a seat, the minors get a look in in the preference deals too<<

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the allocation of preferences performed constituency by constituency? Also, how does the individual voter discover, ahead of time, where his preferences are headed? It would appear that the beneficiary of this process is the major party, not the voter.

>>in the Senate... majorities are unimportant to the formation of stable government. The fact that more viewpoints get represented in the Senate suits its purpose as a house of review<<

Ho ho ho.

For as long as I can remember the Senate has been held hostage to the most rabid fringe parties on the entire Australian political landscape, as they hold the real (balance of) power.

Stable government via the Senate?

GST. Telstra. Just to mention two of the more expensive of their faction-ridden, behind-closed-door deals that royally screwed the Australian people.

The arguements are going all over the place and people believe what they want. If people don't vote and don't want their voices to be heard when it counts, that is, in an election, then they are wasting their time here.

Why would anyone give a toss them if they don't vote? They are no threat to anyone as they shriek around like angry drag queens that have just castrated thmneselves. The liberals tell them to cut their balls off, so they do. Fantastic.

I'm glad that some are refusing to vote. Now the views of responsible people will gain power. The winjers no longer have any relevance, and frankly, I don't see why they bother voicing their opinion at all. If they don't vote, they are irrelevant to opinion polling. They have removed themselves from democracy.

Australia has our own way of doing things as we are a unique country.

The truth is, it is all sour grapes because Howard cannot win the next election. If the Liberals can't win, their lobbyests push to change the rules. A pathetic attempt.

Keiran: In a sense, I don't believe in anything because I know idealism (in this case, libertarianism/classical liberalism) is pointless. By that I mean that regardless of how I would like things to be, they won't turn out that way.

However, I don't believe government is a force for good (all the serial killers, mass murderers and terrorists haven't got a patch on the wanton destruction of most governments). I also don't believe I should have to pay taxes for services I won't use. Those that I will use I can pay for privately. However, I do still pay these taxes because, amongst other things, the government threatens me with kidnapping if I don't. If anyone else did this, we'd call them organised crime. I don't care if they're trying to "help" me. What if I don't want to be "helped"?

Also, you try to make it out like the only way we can have anything we like in society (be it services or civil liberties) is if we unquestioningly hand over all of our power (and a good chunk of money) and then, if government deems itself gracious enough, to wait for these things to be given back to us. I believe people are born free, they're not granted these things by others (be they politicians or other citizens). It seems you and I are coming from completely opposite directions on this, but just because I don't toe the official nanny state line doesn't make me confused. I'm very definite about these things.

saintfletcher: Of course, some who don't vote also find ways to avoid paying taxes too. They just find ways of doing their own thing.

Having said that, practically, it's a waste of time not voting. However, there's something to be said about a society that makes decisions without consent for people who are otherwise minding their own business.