Dear Bezza,

There is nothing wrong with preferential voting - if anything, it somewhat mitigates Australia's undemocratic electoral system: it is not corrupt, only insufficient to correct and make a significant dent in the overall corrupt system.

ttbn,

Your line of argument is nonsense, the Tory thoughtless tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, starts from a position of bias against public servants and then extrapolates its argument based on contrived "facts". Your first sentence;

"It is projected that by the end of 2026 there will be 107,000 public servants enforcing government regulations. A 19% increase since 2023."

Projected by whom? The very people who want to denigrate public servants to begin with, that's who!

Then there is this little gem;

"Red tape soared by 88% from 2005-2013. Its growth has been two-thirds greater than the overall growth in the national economy in the same period."

How do you quantify "red tape"? 88% is a sham figure, simply made up, to prosecute a nonsense argument. How is it measured, AND what is so called "red tape" as opposed to "blue tape" or "sticky tape" BTW 2005-2013 is hardly relevant to 2025!

The number of people receiving aged welfare is growing by 6% annually, that is not sustainable. Action needs to be taken now, to reduce the impost of old non-productive's on society. It would be good for the nation if once reaching the age of 80, and having lived off aged welfare for 15 years, that a department of the public service review "life expectancy" for this cohort, and recommend appropriate action be taken.

Bezza

I have always seen preferential voting as wrong. First past the post works in other countries, and it doesn't waste voters’ time with ridiculous little parties that are usually one-off brain-farts rattling around in the heads of weirdos.

Yuyutsu

You shouldn't have any trouble getting a doctor's note to relieve you from the responsibility of voting.

Dear Ttbn,

«First past the post works in other countries, and it doesn't waste voters’ time with ridiculous little parties»

I.E. it doesn't waste voters' time in dreaming of being represented by those they choose, trust and believe in, who could vote in parliament for what is really important and critical for them. This way they never get deluded in the first place of having a democracy: "Of the people, by the people, for the people" is just a slogan, it was never meant for ordinary people.

First by the post:

Islamic party gets 34%
Christian party gets 33%
Secular party gets 30%
LGBT party gets 3%

Islamic party wins and the law no longer allows you to shave or listen to music... even though 66% of the population wants to allow it - tough luck, your chin is badly itching!

Fortunately, doctor's note relieves you from having to go to the mosque.
Instead, 39 devout men visit you at home 5 times a day to pray together with you in your lounge.

Yuyutsu

None of the parties you list exist: they are not registered in Australia, and it is unlikely that they ever would be. Let's be realistic.

It is amazing, though, just how many crackpot shows are registered - most of them wouldn't even get the Trumpets’ of (can't remember) 1.9% of the primary vote.

Further, most people do not vote by religion or sexuality. Without preferences, one of the two major parties would still be in government, just like they are in countries without preferential voting. But, as with those other countries, the parties would have to campaign on the differences, not just on what they think the people want to hear so they keep the overpaid jobs they can't get in the real word.

Most of the minor parties are wackjobs. Only a couple of them get into the Senate - and they wouldn't be there either if voters were allowed to simply put a number against the candidate they actually want.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the topic, but that seems to be the norm on OLO.