A point not really addressed is that statistically 49.9 to 50.1 or 49 to 51 is in general understanding a split decision. If it was an opinion canvassed the conclusion would be said to be 50:50. Yet our political system has a winner takes all (the power) even though half did not vote for the 'winning side'.

Instead of our combative political party system where 0.1% is the basis to erroneously claim a 100% mandate, it would be more enlightened if both sides worked co-operatively together, because only both parties combined represent the great majority of the electorate.

A good article,but a couple of quibbles.

The author says "too many minor parties" - says who? don't they represent the will of their supporters too?

More seriously, John raises the spectre of a bureaucracy redrawing electoral boundaries based on past voting patterns, a la SA, and a 'fairness test.' Could any suggestion be less democratic and more insulting?

Third quibble, John omits to mention that 'weighting' has more do do with geography than anything else.

Any public money for political advertising should be spent on prescribed outlets(electronic and print) only; as occurs on the ABC for instance; ie an equal share for all. Private Party funds should be forbidden from all broadcast media, and limited to on the ground, electorate based activities that engage, or at least appeal to voters.

One last quibble: it's 50%+1' not 50.1 %

Last Thursday 15 November I was regalled by all media outlets Kevin Rudd was on track to become PM. The polls predicted a Two Party Preferred vote 54 to 46 Labor.

Today 18 Nov the Sunday Telegraph tells me Kevin Rudd is to win 18 marginal seats by an average margin of 4.5%. All the media I've seen, watched or read today have assured me todays poll is a major blow to John Howard.

I nod my head laughing on two counts.

Firstly the article in the Telegraph tells me the situation in the 18 marginals hasn't changed since before the election was called. Stunning. So the media have known all along the race is so close it will boil down to a < 0.5% margin in a couple of marginal seats ... so long as John Howard doesn't win any seats in WA. What a joke.

Secondly a margin of 10% points reducing to 4.5% points in a few days would be greatly encouraging to John Howard. Not according to our media who have ernestly, to the point of desperation, claimed such a reduction in the margin in a couple of days is a major blow to John Howard. That has afforded me the biggest laugh.

Members of the media have consistantly lied about the true state of the parties in the polls over the last 12 months. They've selectively promoted the positive of the Labour 10 - 18 % margins and deliberately ignored the closeness in the marginals. They've been biased. Where do these fools in the media think their credibility stands or more correctly lies. Their deceiptfulness ensures it lies crumpled in the mud of their labor bias.

Howard by 7 is my prediction or 8 if he retains Bonner in Qld...as is likely.

I'd also suggest young Kevin's margin in Griffith will reduce dramatically. Kevin seems to have forgotton there are several thousand people in his electorate, belonging to a church of which he has been ultra critical. They don't normally vote but it has been claimed all have enrolled in Griffith for this election.

It seems to me that the flaws in the electoral system are more fundamental than how the votes are counted. Sure, malapportionment (both of seat size and the concentrations of supporters for each side) can create anomalus results. PR would make this less likely.

The problem is at candidature. We need a system that ensures that the candidature is broadly representative of the populace. We also need to ensure that what we are voting for are not packages of policies "the lunch & salad special" but a pick and mix.

One way of achieving this would be "sortition" -- a kind of jury duty system of selecting candidates. A couple of years before each election, a random selection of those who wanted to nominate would be made, and then these people would be given time to develop and explain their policy interests (pertinent training could be supplied). A dialog with the public would ensue, with time to subject each to public scrutiny. At the end, each could be rated in a number of areas of key policy and probity by their constituents, and these ratings could be reflected in their chances in a second lottery which would then draw out the final winners plus a couple of alternates.

At the time for the new parliament, a conference would be held where the overall direction of the country's policy could be set and approved, rejected or modified as a result of public feedback. It would then be their job of the parliamentarians to try to make these policies work.

What could be more democratic than that?

Bryn

keith, you must be loving the recent betting odds for the Coalition then - that have blown out to about 5.2:1 recently.
I trust you'll be putting your money where your mouth is.

Byrn, it may well be more democratic - but it would be a) a bureaucratic nightmare and worse, b) a farce, because in reality a very small percentage of people have the time or inclination to do the work necessary to determine the possible effects of various policies.

However one idea I've seen floated about that might have merit is the idea of the public voting on the budget - where you get to vote on how much should be allocated to various macro subdivisions(health, education, military spending etc. etc.). The voters need not have complete say in this, but there would be guidelines that meant that if, say, voters elected to double education spending, then education spending must be increased by at least half that amount. This site is U.S. based, but could be applied here:
http://www.zompist.com/restructure.html

The only way our political system can be improved is by referendum. The key point in the referendum would be to provide that all future referendums, including this referendum, would be regarded as being approved by the people if a majority voted "no".

The only problem is that I can't work out which way I would vote.