In this article (Spectator 24/5/25) Dimitri Burshtein and Peter Swan suggest that Australians “have an unusual habit of celebrating public policies that the rest of the world politely declines to imitate”.

First up is compulsory superannuation, which we are told is the envy of the world, but “ no other country seems eager to replicate this innovation”. (In other countries, super is voluntary, and withdrawals are easier).

Next, we have compulsory, preferential voting. There is nothing democratic about being forced to vote - or lining up just to have your name marked off so as not to be fined.

As the authors say, compulsory voting does not encourage “democratic enthusiasm”, just bureaucratic obedience confusing activity with engagement. And, if voters don't number ALL of the people they don't want and have never heard of, their votes are informal.

The defenders of this undemocratic nonsense have never produced evidence that it is desirable or worth the trouble. It's just a Ponzi scheme for the uniparty, both members lucky to get a third of the primary vote these days.

The authors clearly state that the system is part of a “growing anti-democratic framework constructed and maintained by Labor and the Coalition (soon to team up again) for their mutual benefit”. And, they opine that duopolies in politics breed the same stagnation (now obvious in Australia) as they do in private business.

We, the electorate, are just sheep, forced to vote and pretend that “increasingly indistinguishable options” amounts to democratic freedom.

Burshtein and Swan also believe that recent hints by Albanese for four year terms is another attempt to reduce political competition. The requirement for a referendum is the only thing stopping it. In 1998, two thirds of Australians said no.

Without compulsory voting as per most other democratic countries, the parties would have to sharpen up their policy differences to attract thinking, aware Australians, who don't have to be forced to vote. Preferential voting should be scrapped or made voluntary.

Dear Ttbn,

I agree with your post, but that is only tinkering around the edges:

The undemocratic elephant in the room is the division of Australia into "electorates", practically ensuring that the voters can only choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee to represent them. This also gives significant more power (and bribes) to residents of marginal electorates whereas their neighbours across that invisible line, sometimes even on the other side of the same street, have practically no voting power.

Now your moving ahead, congratulations.

As Ttbn highlighted above; Democracy as dished up slop it is in Australia, is a Ponzi Scheme geared against the Democratic rights of its citizens, and steered entirely towards cementing in the two party system, which from the view at the bottom of the stinking heap, is a total rip-off of Democracy proper. Democracy as a word should be eliminated; the most ill-used word in history. A word that fits between Dictatorship and Autocracy is sorely needed. ( What would it be)?

And a very valid point you make Yuyutsu. I’m not interested enough to think of an alternative; maybe you can come up with one, which leads to the question; how do we invent a truly Democratic alternative?

#… A word that fits between Dictatorship and Autocracy is sorely needed. ( What would it be)?…#

The epiphany! There is a beautifully fitting phrase that fits; “Deep State”. Which is of course the burial ground of Democracy!

And much to his credit, Trump is in the process of blowing up: Or is he just repainting the old room for summer. Time will tell!

It wasnt compulsory or preferential voting that beat the lieberals.
It was their complete incompetence and idiocy.
Their denial of climate change and a nuclear fantasy.
Their admiration for trump and their parroting of right wing culture wars from the US.
Their friendliness with the likes of fat clive, giant gina and the red headed racist put people off as well.

Stop your whiney snowflake whingeing about how the voters got it wrong and how wonderful potato head was and how faulty our democracy is and just get on with your sad little life watching the sky night time murduppets for the next three years.

Oh and compulsory voting was introduced by conservatives because union organisers where better at getting people out to vote.
Are you sure you want to get rid of it?

The Department of Home Affairs has listed 51,000 failed asylum seekers still in Australia even after they have exhausted all legal tricks to remain here. 43,000 more are jamming up the silly tribunal system, with 28,000 more waiting to hear what's happening.

Why hasn't the Albanese socialist regime deported at least the 51,000 who have received a definite NO?

Well, the Socialists can do pretty much as they want now, after forced-to-vote morons put them back in power, and the Liberals were too busy fighting among themselves to run a decent campaign.

Perhaps Albanese will bend the system so that he can force failed asylum seekers to vote Labor.

There is also a very nasty group - the Asylum Resource Centre - pushing for rejected asylum seekers - and asylum seekers who get rejected in Australia must really, really be on the nose - to be given permanent protection. Makes sense. They are not entitled to asylum, but let them stay anyway! And, naturally, they want full access to work, Medicare, study, and welfare.

Labor for Refugees is another nasty mob, directly connected to the ALP.

Labor also has an inner advisor, law professor Mary Kenny, who is pushing for scrapping offshore processing, giving permanent visas to people already denied protection, letting children sponsor their parents, creating new ‘emergency visas’, make detention optional(!), and establishing ‘trauma informed’ counselling for people rejected!

This is what happens when morons who know nothing, and don't care, are forced to vote.

This country’s name should change from Australia to Moronalia.

The informal vote increased in the 2025 election to 5.6%. That's over a million people who obviously shouldn't be forced to vote for starters. But, as those million people can't be identified, voting for everyone should be voluntary, then we would have a much better idea of how many Australians are really interested in their country and their own wellbeing. We have to do something to get a better class of politician, elected by a better class of voter who actually wants to vote and have some influence.

Dear Mikk,

I cannot speak for Ttbn of course,
some of his views I share, others not (like on immigration),
but definitely so, compulsory voting has to go,
no matter who introduced it,
because it is just wrong to compel people. Period.
It is just absolutely outrageous to make it an offence for someone to stay in bed, see their family and friends, go to the beach or whatever, they have done you no harm, they are just not interested in your silly state - that must never be a crime!

Compulsory preferences too must go - it places me in a moral dilemma every time, because when I am forced to choose between two great evils, say between Hitler and Stalin and I place Hitler in the last spot and Stalin in the penultimate spot, and suppose Stalin gets elected then I become morally responsible for voting him in - YUCK!

- And this may also be the reason for the increase in informal votes, people who did want to vote and influence, but could not stomach the above situation.

I do like preferences though, but only as many as you want.

Great result in the Senate vote in Tassie, Jacqui Lambie has been returned for another 6 years. AND, the bigot racists candidate from One Nation, the daughter of the Lovely Pauline, failed, well done Jacqui! We must thank compulsory voting for this result. We can't afford to see a small voter turnout elect these far right ratbags with a minimal number of votes.

The idea that its undemocratic to force people to vote is just toooo precious. There are lots of things we are forced to do - drive on the left side; stop on red; attend the DMV for an eye-test (if you're of a certain age); etc; etc; etc.

Struth during the great WuFlu hysteria, the vast bulk of the population meekly adhered to all sorts of anti-democratic diktats.

So being required to attend a polling booth every coupla years seems rather tame in regards to infringement of theoretic rights.

The beauty of compulsory voting isn't that it forces people to vote. Its that is obviates the needs of the candidates to get them to vote. We see in the US the hoopla that parties go through to generate enthusiasm in order to get people to turn up and vote. As much as I'd love to attend a Trump style rally, I think Australia is better for not having to generate the vaudeville style electioneering that occurs in jurisdictions where compulsory voting doesn't happen.

Dear Mhaze,

«drive on the left side; stop on red; attend the DMV for an eye-test (if you're of a certain age)»

These are only if you want to drive on a public road.
Assuming the road indeed belongs to the state (which is in doubt, but anyway), if you go on the road despite it belonging to others, then you either obey the owner's conditions for being there or you are trespassing.

These conditions are intended to avoid harming other road users.
You can do nobody harm if you stay in bed at your own home.

«Its that is obviates the needs of the candidates to get them to vote»

That's not a "need" - that's their perverse personal desire.
To avoid a US style hoopla, all you need is to expect political parties to abide by the same privacy and keeping-the-peace laws as expected of anyone else.
Compulsory voting for the reason you mentioned is akin to legislating "it is an offence to walk alone in the street because some thugs there may want to knife you".

Democracy as practised by the Democrats & the Woke in general is the worst form of Dictatorship !

Minority groups couldn't exist without Democracy's funding !

.

In “The Republic” (about 375 BC), Plato wrote that Socrates raised a number of criticisms of democracy. He claimed that democracy is a danger due to excessive freedom.

He also argued that, in a system in which everyone has a right to rule, all sorts of selfish people who care nothing for the people but are only motivated by their own personal desires are able to attain power.

He concluded that democracy risks bringing dictators, tyrants, and demagogues to power. He also claimed that democracies have leaders without proper skills or morals and that it is quite unlikely that the best equipped to rule will come to power.

In 1919, Robert Briffault, a French surgeon and social anthropologist, wrote in his book “The Making Of Humanity” :

« Democracy is the worst form of government. It is the most inefficient, the clumsiest, and the most impractical. No machinery has yet been contrived to carry out in any but the most farcical manner its principles. It reduces wisdom to impotence and secures the triumph of folly, ignorance, claptrap, and demagogy. . . . But there is something even more important than efficiency and expediency — justice. And democracy is the only social order that is admissible, because it is the only one consistent with justice. »

In May 1946 Guy Henson, Director of Adult Education in Nova Scotia, Canada published the phrase that was pronounced almost verbatim by Churchill the following year during his speech in the UK parliament :

« . . . democracy . . . it has even been called the worst form of government, except for all others which have been tried. »

On 11 November 1947, the 29th anniversary of Armistice Day, Churchill declared in Parliament :

« Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time ».

.

Dear Banjo,

"The worst form of government" must indeed be the just of them all, because this whole concept of government is unjust.

Like squaring the circle, no true philosopher can morally justify this violent idea of uninvited people dictating the choices of others - not even in the name of efficiency, efficiency in achieving objective(s) which the ruled-over victim may never have sought and does not find desirable.

Though majority-rule seems nicer than minority-rule, "majority" means nothing when it is the majority of an imposed arbitrary cohort one never freely chose to associate themselves with.

Government, if left uncontaminated by academic intellectuals would actually be a good system as it would cut out the dictatorial component that is causing the blatant incompetence we experience every day !

Yuyutsu,

I agree. Compulsory laws to protect other people are not remotely like being forced to vote. The same laws apply in countries where nobody is forced to vote.

.

Democracy is “government by the people” (OED).

It’s a method of collective informed decision-making based on one person, one vote.

The objective of democracy is justice. For it to be just, eligible electors must not only have the opportunity and power to influence the outcome of elections, they must also effectively exercise that influence in practice after being correctly informed of the relevant and pertinent facts.

Irrespective of whether voting is compulsory or not, what seems important to me is that for any motion to be adopted, there should be a double majority :

• More than 50% of all votes expressed should be in favour of the motion

• At least 66.6% of voter turnout, i.e., at least 66.6% of the total population eligible to vote, must have voted, irrespective of what or who they voted for.

Voting was voluntary in Australia at the first 9 federal elections. Compulsory enrollment for federal elections was introduced in 1911.

Compulsory voting was introduced in Queensland in 1915 by the Liberal Government of Digby Denham – who lost his seat at that election.

The impetus for compulsory voting at federal elections was a decline in turnout from more than 71% at the 1919 election to less than 60% at the 1922 election.

Compulsory voting in national elections was introduced in 1924. As a result, turnout at the 1925 election rose to over 91%.

Victoria introduced compulsory voting in 1926, NSW and Tasmania in 1928, WA in 1936 and SA in 1942.

Voluntary voting at federal elections was introduced for Indigenous Australians in 1949 until 1984, when it became compulsory.

There are currently 32 countries worldwide with compulsory voting, of which 19 (including Australia) pursue it through enforcement.

10 of the 30 members of the OECD have compulsory voting.

The average voter turnout in our federal elections has been more than 90% for the past century. For the rest of the world, it has been about 69%.

.

.

I should add that I am in favour of voting blank (the so-called “blank vote”) being considered a valid vote in Australia and officially counted as such.

The interest in doing so would be to allow the importance of the possible discontentment of electors with the political offer to be measured and taken into consideration.

.

Dear Banjo,

«what seems important to me is that for any motion to be adopted, there should be a double majority»

But this is the whole joke, whether having a single, double or triple majority - majority of what?!?

You see, they bundle you up with an arbitrary selection of other people, people you never had anything or wished to have anything to do with, who may even be living 1000's of kilometres away and which you are unlikely to ever meet in your life, as well as people whose philosophy, values and goals in life are 1000's of kilometres away, then they say "the majority of you decided".

They could just as well have added the frogs into the mix and give frogs equal voting rights too, then in the true sense of democracy, "humans were found in a minority - the overwhelming majority has decided to turn the land into a swamp".

“Irrespective of whether voting is compulsory or not, what seems important to me is that for any motion to be adopted, there should be a double majority”. Banjo P

“Irrespective”? Compulsory voting is the topic. BJ. You are either for it or against it. ‘Irrespective’ of what other countries do. Can you list these “other” countries? My investigation prior to posting didn't come up with the number you claim.

Personally, I have no interest in what other countries do or don't do. And your “double majority” made me giddy.

On the side, I know of people in Australia who don't vote who have never been contacted by Big Brother, let alone fined. And, while our own non-voter Diver Dan talks about a $55 fine, legislation provides for about 4 times that. But, if the people mentioned above are telling the truth, there is actually no fine at all. It would probably cost more than it’s worth to chase up a few harmless idiots who don't vote.

The system works without them, and it would work without those who were not forced to vote, as it works in countries where voting is not compulsory.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« … double or triple majority - majority of what?!? »
.

As I indicated :

1. More than 50% of all votes expressed …

2. At least 66.6% of voter turnout …

That is what I call a double majority. 1 is a majority of votes expressed, and 2 is a majority of voter turnout.

And you explain :

« You see, they bundle you up with an arbitrary selection of other people, people you never had anything or wished to have anything to do with, who may even be living 1000's of kilometres away and which you are unlikely to ever meet in your life, as well as people whose philosophy, values and goals in life are 1000's of kilometres away, then they say "the majority of you decided". »

Your phrase "the majority of you decided" obviously refers to the mathematical majority of identical votes. There is nothing to prevent individuals of different cultures, philosophies, religions, languages, ethnicities, goals in life, and geographical regions in Australia, from casting identical votes, i.e., making the same choice on a particular topic.

It is not because they are all different from everybody else that they are obliged to vote differently. By the same token, they can all be thirsty and enjoy drinking the same water, Coca-Cola, or orange juice despite their differences. Different people can make the same choices for the same reasons or even for different reasons.

Except, perhaps, in the extremely rare case of identical twins, each individual is unique, no matter who they are, where they come from and whatever their origin – even each member of the same family is different from all the other members of the family. And while many children vote under the influence of their parents, some do not and vote differently.

They don’t have to be members of a different family “1000's of kilometres away” to do that. They can be children of the same family living in the same home together with their parents.

.

Dear Banjo,

Sorry, but I am afraid that you missed my whole point and responded about something else altogether.

Please allow me to rephrase:

You and others discussed here what kind of a majority is proper in a democracy, in terms of both the votes expressed and voter turnout. That is OK, but nobody here previously asked a much more crucial question:

- Majority of WHAT?

Not "what majority", but who and why is to be included in the sample from which a majority is sought.

Please reread my previous post.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

1. « Compulsory voting is the topic. BJ. You are either for it or against it »
.

Philosophically, I place a very high value on personal freedom. Therefore, philosophically, for myself, I favour voluntary voting.

However, as I noted in my previous post, voluntary voting was practiced in Australia at the first 9 federal elections but proved to be ineffective because of the poor voter turnout. Hence the imposition of compulsory voting.

I would have preferred that voluntary voting be maintained with the adoption of the double majority system I indicated in my previous post :

• More than 50% of all votes expressed should be in favour of the motion

• At least 66.6% of voter turnout, i.e., at least 66.6% of the total population eligible to vote, must have voted, irrespective of what or who they voted for.

As it seems we can’t count on the civic sense of our compatriots to go to the polls and vote in local, state and federal elections, I have no problem accepting compulsory voting in the common interest.

It's no skin off my nose. I always vote anyway and will continue to do so.
.

2. « Compulsory voting is the topic. BJ. You are either for it or against it. ‘Irrespective’ of what other countries do. Can you list these “other” countries? »
.

There's no mention of “other countries” in my previous post, ttbn. You wrote that, not me.

I think you are referring to what I wrote as follows :

« There are currently 32 countries worldwide with compulsory voting, of which 19 (including Australia) pursue it through enforcement.

10 of the 30 members of the OECD have compulsory voting. »

The source of that information is an article by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on “Compulsory voting in Australia” (Updated: 20 November 2023) :

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/voting/index.htm
.

3. « The system works … where voting is not compulsory. »
.

Not, as I see it, in the 27 countries where the voter turnout is less than 66.6% :

http://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/01/turnout-in-u-s-has-soared-in-recent-elections-but-by-some-measures-still-trails-that-of-many-other-countries/

.

P.R. Sarkar, the founder of Prout opines,

“The prerequisites for the success of democracy are morality, education, and socio-economico-political consciousness. Leaders especially must be people of high moral character, otherwise the welfare of society will be jeopardized. But today in most democracies, people of dubious character and those with vested interests are elected to power. Even bandits and murderers stand for election and form the government. Prout demands economic democracy, not political democracy. To make democracy successful, economic power must be vested in the hands of the common people and the minimum requirements of life must be guaranteed to all.”

http://prout.info/the-charade-of-democracy/

.

Dear Yuutsu,

.

You ask :

« Not "what majority", but who and why is to be included in the sample from which a majority is sought. »
.

It is compulsory by law for all Australian citizens aged 18 or over to enroll and vote in local, state, and federal democratic political elections. If you have Australian citizenship, and, as I suppose is the case, over the age of 18, Yuyutsu, you have a legal obligation to vote in your local, state, and federal democratic political elections.

If you do not have Australian citizenship, you are not allowed to vote.

To answer your question, “who is to be included in the sample from which a majority is sought”, the reply is :

- everybody who is an Australian citizen aged 18 or over and registered on the electoral roll as being eligible to vote

Next question : “why are they to be included in the sample from which a majority is sought”. The reply is :

- because they have a legal obligation to vote for whoever or whatever they choose among the different candidates and options indicated on the voting papers.

So, if you do not have Australian citizenship, Yuyutsu, and you wish to investigate the question, here is a link to assist you :

http://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/become-a-citizen

But if you already have Australian citizenship but are not yet enrolled to vote in democratic political elections (which you should be), here is a link to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) where you can enroll online:

http://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/

.

BP,

It is possible to find all sorts of statistics if you rely on Google: some wrong, some right. And you can wear down most people if you keep piling it on, particularly if your writing is not very good, and bores your targets. Most people give up.

You overlook the fact that opinion is the name of the game here on Online Opinion; and after the human brain matures, opinions rarely, if ever change. Attitudes can change, but not opinions.

So, all the arguments here are really a waste of time. I've been on OLO from its inception. I and other posters of the same era have never changed our opinions.

So, it is still my opinion that compulsory voting is undemocratic, no matter where it is enforced, no matter what "gems" of information you find,or invent - I will always be of that opinion. I'm sure that you are of the same mind in what you think, and good luck to you.

BP

As a keen follower and critic of Donald Trump, you might be interested to know that a federal judge has denied California's wacky plan to sue Trump for dealing with rioters in LA against the totally legitimate and expected deportation of illegal entrants.

That's the riots where people who don't want to be sent back to Mexico are actually waving Mexican flags. These people are very confused in more ways than one.

Dear Banjo,

I am already enrolled to vote in Australia.
I regret having done that, but I was young, ignorant and new in Australia at the time: no use crying over spilt milk.

These were the times when I was once asked by a friend, "Please vote Labor because the candidate in our electorate is my uncle and my family really needs this job to pay our bills": who doesn't like to help their friends, so I did. I cannot recall whether these were state or federal elections, nor did I probably knew the difference at the time. That uncle, BTW, lost that elections despite my vote.

Now telling me that information particular to Australia, is trivia, not philosophy.
We were asking here, what possibly can improve democratic elections and make them more just and fair.

We already discussed the compulsion to vote or otherwise and the percentages required to consider the votes as proper - yet we have missed the elephant in the room, which is the arbitrariness in the determination AMONG WHOM is majority to be decided.

Without this crucial initial step, elections can be perfectly democratic, yet still grossly unjust and unfair.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

1. « … opinion is the name of the game here on Online Opinion; and after the human brain matures, opinions rarely, if ever, change. Attitudes can change, but not opinions … So, all the arguments here are really a waste of time »
.

I guess we all have our reasons for coming here, ttbn. If I understand you correctly, you come here to waste your time – maybe to ward off boredom … (?)

Whatever the reason, that is not why I come here. As I already indicated elsewhere on this forum, my formal education ceased at age 13, at the end of primary school. Since then, I have never stopped learning – not what any teachers or preachers might have dispensed but what I personally chose to learn, guided by my own curiosity, interest and necessity.

That should ring a bell with you, ttbn – voluntary education, not compulsory education. Independence, not subordination. Freedom, not coercion. Democracy, not autocracy.

It has been and continues to be a lifelong journey of self-education. OLO plays a useful role in this process. It helps me to formulate my ideas and bounce them off the minds of others for refinement and validation or rejection.
.

2. « … it is still my opinion that compulsory voting is undemocratic, no matter where it is enforced, no matter what "gems" of information you find, or invent … »
.

To vote is to express the electors’ choice of candidates and options. But it is inept to oblige them to choose among candidates and options they consider all to be totally unacceptable.

That is why I preconise the creation of a blank vote (vote for nobody) to be introduced and recognised as an officially valid vote to be counted and published in the final results.

In this schema, by casting blank votes, electors would be deemed to have respected their legal obligations – thus avoiding the massive abstentions associated with voluntary voting.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … we have missed the elephant in the room, which is the arbitrariness in the determination AMONG WHOM is majority to be decided. »
.
Well, Yuyutsu, if we had Albanese and Dutton as candidates for the position of Prime Minister of Australia and 75% of Australians voted for Albanese and 25% voted for Dutton, Albanese would be declared to have won the election with a comfortable majority.

Would you please explain what you consider to be arbitrary about that ?

.

BP,

I am certainly not wasting my time. Nothing recorded is a waste of time.

I am bored by the puerile arguing of some posters. I am also bored by certain posters making personal attacks on the messenger rather than expressing an opinion on the subject.

I keep posting despite personal attacks and the inability of some posters to accept that everyone doesn't agree with them, because there are many people out there who read, but do not post themselves. The message gets out. Billions of words are written, and absorbed without comment, in books, essays, the press and media, mainstream and social.

We should never be put off by some idiot jockstrap who gets his kicks out of badmouthing us.

You should be proud of your continuing education. Most people stop learning after so-called education in schools and universities. Formal education doesn't prepare anyone for life: particularly in today's battery hen indoctrination centres.

Dear Banjo,

«Would you please explain what you consider to be arbitrary about that ?»

Sure - it is the sample, the selection of those who get to vote, among whom some majority is to prevail.

In an indirect democracy, people supposedly get to vote who will represent them in setting the rules and regulations by which they will subsequently have to abide. A majority of voters somehow elects these representatives, but who elects the list of voters? Not the voters themselves, who never in a lifetime received an opportunity to accept or decline that list.

In Australia for example, a list of around 18 million people was compiled (excluding those under 18 and prisoners, and why is that) which happen to live in a certain arbitrary area, most of them not only do I not know, but am also unlikely to ever meet in my lifetime, let alone know them well enough to trust and wish to associate with in any way. Then you say, "The majority of <<you>> decide and is authorised to make laws as to how <<you>> must live your lives".

That <<you>> is the arbitrary factor.
Why particularly the people within this whole continent (which does not occur in any other continent)?
Why the people living in the island of Tasmania - Yes, Auckland - No, Norfolk Yes, Vanuatu No...
Why only those over 18, why not 10? 16? 21? 30? 40? 50?
Who is to tell who is mature enough to vote?
Completely arbitrary!

You could have just as well arbitrarily included all the frogs in Australia, then the majority would vote to turn this land into a swamp... why the frogs but not the mice, humans but not penguins? Your sample is just arbitrary and therefore means nothing and devoid of moral justification.

The bottom line is, some people dictate to others what they must and mustn't do in life, without the victims ever getting a real opportunity to influence the forces which govern their lives. This may technically be a democracy, but in fact it is a sham: cruel, unjust and unfair.

Hi BP,

The idea of a "blank vote" was adopted by the Greens in candidate selection many years ago. Members always had a choice of two with "no candidate" as an alternate choice. I only recall one instance where "no candidate" was successful. It was only a minor position, I think branch delegate to the State Conference or some such thing, but there were legitimate reasons why the person who had nominated was over looked. The membership in general felt she didn't reflect the views of the majority, and therefore was unsuitable for the position.

What I think is a real problem in our system is the general lack of beforehand knowledge the electorate has about local candidates. I am fortunate in that through volunteer work I've got to know all 3 local members. I'm still getting to know the new Federal Labor Member, she's only been in the job a month, will take time. There has been 2 events in recent weeks, and she's been at both, so a good start. Our Councillor LNP, and State MP Labor, both working hard for the local community, and I would vote for them next time. p/s Got an all woman band now in politics locally.