Well argued article but 'no compulsory voting' - no chance of the ALP forming a Govt. Simple.

The point about Family First is well made. God (no pun) knows if ALP voters in Victoria realised (and the Democrats behind them) that their preferences would be allocated to FF.

I also have a strange suspicion that some voters in the recent Victorian election may have thought they were voting Democrat but instead voted DLP! Go the Groupers - you weirdos.

Nine out of 10 Australians don't have any clear conception of how Senate preferences are allocated. I also suggest that a good many senior political party strategists don't know either.

Go for a more transparent system. One that people can understand.

Cheryl,

I've heard that compulsory voting favours Labor, what's the evidence? I suspect that compulsory voting is the reason for so many "no" votes in referendums.

Somwhere I read that the only way to keep a politician upright, is for him to have pressure applied to him from both left and right.This is the kind of SENATOR I like to be elected.The present system ,I agree, does not assist this type of supposed STATE'S SENATOR. cOULD THEY BE ELECTED IN A state election?

When a candidate has enough votes for a quota (determined by whether it is a full or half senate election) the balance of votes is redistributed to the next preference. But which voters were used up in achieving the quota and which voters should have their preferences reallocated? I was puzzled and so looked it up. The way it is done is that a fraction is established of the total votes minus the quota, divided by the quota. So only a fraction of each preference is reallocated. So, if a candidate gets exactly double the quota, 0.5 of each preference is reallocated to the next in line. It is a bit unfair if I get my preferred candidate, because I then also get 0.5 of my second preference. The system certainly has flaws. Forgive me if I have not explained this too well and get the official pamphlet on election day.
Fencepost.

mac,

The system of compulsory voting favours both major parties (as their public funding is calculated on the vote they get), but particularly favours the one in government. This is because no government can avoid occasionally hurting their supporters, and although a committed voter could not bring himself to vote against his party, he could easily stay at home, which is half as effective. That is why compulsory voting has survived many changes of government.

I just cannot see how any of the alternatives offered can possible be implemented, as the obstacles are too great. You will never abolish the senate, as EVERY state has to agree, and the smaller ones would never do so. Similarly with state governments.

One thing I have discovered is how to vote for someone, whilst denying them public funding. (I would like to see an amendment providing that the only money politicians can spend on elections is that raised by putting their daughters on the streets).

To do this, you give your first preference vote to one of the ungrouped candidates on the right side of the paper. You then give your second preference to the one you want, and so on with preferences. As a candidate must poll 4% of the formal vote to qualify for funding, and this is hardly likely to happen, the system will work.

All this hoo-ha about blame shifting will never go away, as the aspirations of voters are totally unrealistic. As a result, politicians have to humbug the voters, as they have been doing since elections began.

The generally accepted explanation for why a non-compulsory voting law might mean no more labour govts, is that the average working class voter is far less likely to turn out to vote than his/her more educated and wealthier middle class counterpart. The working class are much more likely to vote labour than liberal.(pls don't write in and tell me you are working class and vote liberal, I know you exist, unfortunately)

I can't be bothered finding any data to back that explanation up, although I am sure it exists.

Seems to me like it might do the two party system some good if people ended up with a gov't they didn't want because they didn't vote. It might encourage them to get a little more involved in the way the country is run and not waste their precious vote next time.

Kowing people though, they might still fall victim to the 'what can I do with one vote' mentality.

Question. Does someone who doesn't vote deserve to have their views represented?