The Preferential Voting System which is supposed to be a fairer method of obtaining a public consensus on who should be running local, state and federal Government's is simply not working.

'How To Vote Cards' have given the major parties unheard of control over the minor parties which must now toe the line or be relegated last on these hand outs. This flaw has developed because many voters are not familiar with all the political parties and their candidates or they simply can't be bothered numbering all of them. Remember that many people only vote to avoid a fine.

We should return to the one vote only system and do away with this unfair system which has twisted the electoral process. An example of how the major parties can use this system to their advantage and destroy the political hopes of any major threat to their dominance can be seen with the demise of Pauline Hanson. She actually won more primary votes than anyone else but lost because of preferences.

It's easy for critics of Pauline to say that this turn of events was wonderful but the bottom line is that the majority of voters in Queensland had their preferred nomination defeated by back room dealing. Clearly the system is extremely biased in favour of the Coalition and Labour. It's no surprise they love it so much.

How will anyone ever beat the two major parties while this undemocratic system remains in place? In short they won't.

I’m a bit confused Wayne. I presume you are talking about the compulsory preferential voting system, which is indeed one of the worst things in our democratic system.

It is simply antidemocratic, because your vote can very easily end up counting where you have no intention of it counting.

The optional preferential system on the other hand is democratic.

You write; “We should return to the one vote only system….”

Well, with the optional preferential system you have the choice of only marking one box or declaring preferences (consecutively numbering as many boxes/candidates as you wish). So I think this is better than just the one-vote system.

the word politics comes from POLY meaning many and TICKS meaning bloody sucking parasites and as the famous Bgrade Actor turned President Ronald Reagan stated:
Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realise that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.

Voting is unfair because voters want the best wo/man in the job but dont want to do homework to find out who that should be. The lazy way to vote is tick one box. This is not the best way to vote and the donkey vote is just as unfair. I am becoming complacent with the way Australia is being led and I am just as guilty for allowing it to happen. I remember fighting for causes that were to do with work place safety, wages and standards when younger. Now my 19y/o daughter works 6 days a week while studying because she knows that she doesnt have a choice. This is regular for over 10 of her friends who all work 6 days a week without choice. We are the first to stand up and say so they should. What were most of us doing on the weekend when we were 19? I was down at Byron not studying but chilling out and bitching the system, saying everything that was wrong with it,the kids today are silent clones with the hope of fighting bred out of them.. Why dont we want a little of our fight in them. Doesnt that make part of who we are as Australians?

Perhaps the ancient greeks had the right idea when they only allowed informed scholars to vote. Forcing people with no interest to vote is a counter-productive exercise. Many of them simply scrawl 'Mickey Mouse' draw a box next to it and tick that. Such is the resentment towards Politicians in general. Ofcourse it's a futile gesture. Mickey Mouse is never going to win any Australian election. The votes are simply discounted.

Another option would be to only allow military personelle to vote. Anyone who has volunteered to fight for their country and risk death has earned the right to have a say in who their leader is. Ofcourse that will never fly either but I like the idea of it. Has a noble quality to it.

I think simplicity is always best. One man one vote.

KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid!)

It is not possible to have a democracy if you have political parties, and a government that is separate from parliament. Parliament must be the government.
The only true democracy is where each vote counts once, and in a parliament of say, 100 seats, if Party A gets 5% of the votes; they get five seats and so on.
A party with more than half the seats destroys debate and ultimately democracy, because party whips prohibit independence, honesty, truth, facts and useful discourse.
In a parliament without a block-voting majority, parliamentary sittings would enjoy real debate using facts, figures and truth, and thus assist in ensuring the best outcome for the country, not the interests of the party.
The best option is to ban political parties entirely. Only independents may stand for office, and they may campaign only in their own electorate.
In Queensland, only three people are campaigning… the premier and the two coalition leaders. Every other parliamentarian is kept away from the TV cameras. I have no idea who the local hopefuls are in my electorate. We have a presidential style dictatorship, not a democracy, and the only way to change it is to deface electoral papers with a demand for proportional representation.

Now I’m even more confused.

Wayne, is it your intention to only discuss compulsory vs voluntary voting on this thread, or are you concerned about compulsory pereferential vs optional preferential voting, or both, or what exactly.

Could you please clarify.

Thanks

I dislike compulsory preferential voting. I simply do not wish to recognise any candidate but the one I want to represent me. Another thing which is wrong is the arrogance of parties telling us how they THEY will distribute and receive their preferences, encouraging some people think that voters themselves can't vote they way they want.

Sadly, there are people out there who think that they must vote according to the party ticket to get their preferred candidate in; and their are others who just mark their ballot papers in the quickest way to get get them out of the booth and on to more interesting things.

Thanks to the Senate paper being the size of half a roll of toilet paper, there is a tendency to vote above the line. When we do that, we do not have a clue where our preferred candidates preferences are going.

Like the compulsion to present at elections to at least have your named marked off the roll, compulsory preferential voting is undemocratic and is used by the two major parties to keep a hold on power. Unless voters can think of some drastic action e.g. refusing to vote or turn up at all, things will remain the same. I wrote to my federal politician about preferential voting once, to receive the response that it was the 'best way'. Yes, for him and his firmly entrenched cronies taking advangate of the system!

"Could you please clarify."

Not really. I don't understand the voting system myself. That there are two kinds of preferential voting systems seems a little ludicrous to me. I simply think that each voter should cast a vote for one party and leave it at that. Simple and sweet. The more complex a system is the more open it is to corruption

Thanks Wayne

Now I understand what you are expressing.

I think that the first past the post system http://www.australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/firstpastpost.shtml is a lot better than the compulsory preferential system http://www.mumble.com.au/twopartpref.htm but not as good as the optional preferential system http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/12942001126163592578.pdf#search=%22optional%20preferential%22.

The optional preferential system gives voters the choice of voting just for their preferred candidate or declaring preferences to one or as many other candidates as they wish.

This has got to be better than only being able to mark one box on your ballot form, and a million times better than being compelled to mark every box, as with compulsory preferential voting.

"This has got to be better than only being able to mark one box on your ballot form,"

I think we'll have to agree to disagree there. Any kind of preferential voting system is both confusing and corruptible. Whether optional or not. Your preferences can actually work against your preferred candidate and that's just ridiculous. If we all supposed to be equal then we should all register the same number of votes. One for each person. Simple and safe.

Wayne, preferences possibly could work against your preferred candidate in some instances. But that’s not the end of the story.

You might have two preferred candidates, and not be too worried if your second choice gets up. But if you can only tick one box, you lose the opportunity to fully express your wishes.

Both systems have their downsides, but I’d strongly prefer to have the right to allocate preferences.

You speak as if one person's vote actually makes much difference. It is one persons preference among millions. To multiply each persons choice only diminishes the value of a single vote further. Those choosing to vote only once are even less empowered. It is unequal, unfair and open to manipulation by clever politicians making back room deals.

I'll never forget the way the two major Parties used preferences to bury Pauline Hanson. Disgusting! I was ashamed to be an Australian. I may not have agreed with all of her policies but the public clearly wanted her to win. On first preferences she was miles ahead. It was criminal and plain to see as criminal.