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.