"If you vote below the line you have to mark every square, so no matter how you mark them your vote will filter down until it counts for one of the two front-running candidates."

Wrong. In the last senate election, my vote ended up staying with the candidate who came seventh.

Even in the lower house, where it does often end up with one of the top two candidates, this is not a bad thing. To say it didn't count for your favourite is wrong. It did. Your favourite lost. Getting the opportunity to choose between the two favourites is an added bonus that detracts nothing at all from your first preference.

Freediver

“In the last senate election, my vote ended up staying with the candidate who came seventh.”

And you were happy with that? How many voters do you think would be happy with their vote effectively counting for their seventh choice? Surely if they put a candidate below third or maybe fourth position, in the compulsory preferential system where they are obligated to rank all candidates, then their intent is for their vote to NOT count for them.

If your preferences stopped filtering down at your seventh choice, then your seventh choice was one of the two front-running candidates, yes? So why did you label the statement of mine that you quoted as “wrong”?

“Getting the opportunity to choose between the two favourites is an added bonus that detracts nothing at all from your first preference.”

We have discussed this before on other threads. I don’t believe that you are still saying this. There is no bonus in being effectively forced to choose between the two “favourites” when you hate both of them and strongly wish to not vote for either of them. Isn’t that straightforward and bluntly obvious?

"And you were happy with that?

Well obviously I would have preferred if he or she had gotten in, but you can't complain that something is undemocratic just because you are on the loosing side.

"How many voters do you think would be happy with their vote effectively counting for their seventh choice?

Not my seventh choice. The candidate who came seventh.

"Surely if they put a candidate below third or maybe fourth position, in the compulsory preferential system where they are obligated to rank all candidates, then their intent is for their vote to NOT count for them.

This is where the fundamental misunderstanding of the system is. You do not vote for or against candidates. You rank them in order of preference. This allows you to convey far more information.

"If your preferences stopped filtering down at your seventh choice, then your seventh choice was one of the two front-running candidates, yes?

No. There are normally six people elected to the senate for each state.

"We have discussed this before on other threads. I don’t believe that you are still saying this.

Why not? I am correct after all.

"There is no bonus in being effectively forced to choose between the two “favourites” when you hate both of them and strongly wish to not vote for either of them.

If your candidate is already out of the race, there is a bonus. You get to continue participating in the democratic process at no cost at all to your rpeferred candidate. Remember, to say you are voting 'for' or 'against' one of them misses the point completely. you are ranking them.

"Isn’t that straightforward and bluntly obvious?

No. It is wrong. It is a misrepresentation of our democratic process.

“Not my seventh choice. The candidate who came seventh.”

EXACTLY freediver!

It was NOT your choice to have your vote count for the seventh candidate. So where’s the democracy in that?

How on earth can we have democracy under anyone’s definition if your vote counts where you don’t want it to or where it was not your choice to have it count?? ?? ??

“You do not vote for or against candidates.”

Huh? Of course you do.

“Remember, to say you are voting 'for' or 'against' one of them misses the point completely. you are ranking them.”

Sorry, but you’ve completely lost me. You shouldn’t be obligated to rank candidates. It should be the voter’s choice, as per the optional preferential system. And if you don’t like any of the candidates, you should be able to formally vote for no candidate.

"It was NOT your choice to have your vote count for the seventh candidate. So where’s the democracy in that?

That's how democracy works. Just because your candidate loses doesn't mean it isn't democratic.

"How on earth can we have democracy under anyone’s definition if your vote counts where you don’t want it to or where it was not your choice to have it count?? ?? ??

Please. Read my post again. You did not understand it. Are you in Australia? Do you know how our system works?

“That's how democracy works”

So you don’t deny that your vote counted where you really didn’t intend it to. And you reckon that is acceptable under a democratic voting system!

mmmMMMMMmmm.

Freediver, are you genuine or are you spinning some bizarre fantasy for the sake of a reaction?

If you are genuine then please explain your position, as fully as you can, in multiple posts if necessary. Because at the moment what you are saying seems completely loopy.

No offence, but it just doesn’t gel at all.