Dear Indyvidual,

«It's not about "want" it's about harmony & want is the biggest hurdle for harmony !»

When you start a new sentence with "It's", what is the "It" you are referring to? I really have no clue.

«We all want what's best for us & by that we have to consider our impact on others.»

What is best for us has so many layers, depending on our understanding of "us".
Is it what is best for our body (like diet, exercise, etc)?
Is it what is most titillating for our sense-pleasures?
Is it what gives us most comfortable emotions?
Is it what sharpens our intellect?
etc, etc.

I can tell you that, looking somewhat deeper, our impact on others greatly affects our happiness, so it is the very best for us to treat others well.

«A well functioning society can only function well when guidelines are followed instead of crossed.»

Yet there are things more fundamental and more important than having a well functioning society: why should I want society to function well if its existence is based on evil?

First allow me to select a society that is compatible with my values, which is voluntary and which I believe to be a good thing, only then I may begin to be concerned about its guidelines being crossed.

«Willy nilly immigration simply to buy votes...[till the end of your post]»

Well now you change the topic again: By the series of questions you asked me, I believed that we recently started discussing the merits or otherwise of societies and their methods of governance, now you change the subject again to immigration policies.
Could we please keep to one topic at a time?

Perhaps Australians are uninterested in politics and elections because of our “uniquely bad voting system” (law professor, James Allan) which doesn't really allow us to properly discipline our awful politicians, who just want to win, but do bugger- all afterwards.

Take the Dutton Coalition, making itself a small target just to win. While a Coalition government would be somewhat better than the hard-left economy-wrecking, security-wrecking, and China-suckup Albanese sh.itshow, it intends to cling to the worst policy ever: Net Zero, which will keep us as poor and unproductive as we are now. The US has shown the way by uncoupling from Net Zero and other United Nations stupidity, but Dutton the Dill thinks clinging to Labor policies and talking nuclear will get him across the line.

Dutton's attitude to free speech is no different from Albanese's. His side employed that dreadful American women to interfere with our democratic rights.

Dutton says things about mass immigration and a few other dire problems we have; but the Leftists in the Coalition will either prevent him from acting, or do what they did to Tony Abbott. It is a fact that Liberal politicians take more notice of bureaucrats and “advisers” these days than they do of their leaders and the voters.

Australians do not have a clear choice of right or left. There is little difference between the two major parties; and the stupid, stupid preference voting ensures that it will stay that way.

Hence, the lack of interest. My guess is that less than half of Australians would bother voting if they weren't dictatorially made to do so - or at least line up to have their names crossed off.

Dear Ttbn,

Granted, the Australian electoral system is undemocratic and assures that ordinary people cannot be represented.

But why are you against the preference system?

Preferences are there so that if one fails to have their best representative elected, then at least they can try to be represented by their second-best or third-best, rather than have no representation in parliament at all.

It is only a tiny mitigating tool for a horrible electoral system, yet preferences are a small thing in the right direction.

What is absolutely evil, is COMPULSORY preferences, that is when you have to number ALL boxes rather than just as many as you want - or else have your ballot paper deemed informal.

Suppose there are 8 candidates, then while most of the voters who even understand and care, number the smaller parties 1-6, they are still forced to place 7 and 8 next to the twin-big-brothers, thus to elect one of them with their own hand - that is what so wrong around preferences, not preferences themselves.

The political machine - there is no separation between the major parties - is dodging clear and pertinent discussion on the China threat: in general, but in particular the CCPs's aggressive attempt at intimidation by circling Australia and firing weapons.

Nature has provided them with something to help them hide the significance of the China's threatening behaviour - cyclone Alfred: described as an “attempt to increase public anxiety”, by the PM.

Another opportunity to delay an election announcement, and promise more wads of borrowed money in bribes.

These weather “events” are par for that part of Australia; and more preparation for the inevitable would make the population safer. But, no: like building more dams to proof against inevitable droughts, the political class uses the money for totally crap, self-serving political aims. Bugger the voters.

There is no weather or climate change problem in Australia that couldn't have been dealt with much more easily than the problem that China is now, and will be more so, in the not too distant future.

As the late Jim Molan said, Australia needs to be ready to face a scenario where China launches a devastating opening salvo on US communications and intelligence capabilities rendering it blind and unable to assist Australia.

But hey, let's talk about the weather! Keep the plebs ignorant of just how weak Australia's defence is. Leave them to find out when next China patrols our coast, with the aim of cutting off supplies of all the stuff we have only a few weeks supply of. Like the 90% of our fuel which comes from Singapore. We also buy oil from China's ally, Russia. Russia, the country that the idiot (or worse) Albanese wants to send troops against to protect a European country which is of no interest to Australia.

Yuyutsu,

Preferential voting IS compulsory. If that's not a reason to be against it, I don't know what is.

Preferential voting will REMAIN compulsory in Australia because it favours and protects the two, very similar, and getting more similar, major parties.

Compulsory voting itself is bad enough; not numbering every nincompoop standing means your vote is invalid, which is of no concern to the main parties. An informal vote doesn't go against them.

Australians cannot punish the major parties, as can voters in countries with first past the post voting can.

Given the sameness of the only two parties capable of forming a government (virtually a one party system), I'm now starting to give some credence to Diver Dan’s “don't vote” rhetoric. No matter how you vote, you will get pretty much the same sort of arseholes ruling the roost.

Dear Ttbn,

I do like to vote, I just don't want to be the agent through which one of the twin-beasts is elected.

Well of course compulsory voting is evil, but I would continue to vote even if it was no longer compulsory. What I would do then, however, is to not number these twin-beasts, so even if one of them gets elected, that would not be with the help of my own vote thus it would not weigh on my conscience.

As for "first past the post", this would throw the baby with the dirty bath-water, because that would mean that typically over half the voters would not be represented at all and have no say whatsoever about the laws by which they are supposed to abide by.

"First past the post" could work, though, if it was only used to elect the government/PM, separate from electing the parliament. Parliament is the legislative body, making the laws which could send us to jail if we break them, including conscientiously, and so, parliament must represent the actual people who would be subject/victim to its laws and [short of direct voting over the issues, which is best] the only proper and fair way to achieve that is by proportional representation.