SOG sorry but see you tell me you are a Democratic Socialist, and I often after reading your thoughts ask does he mean as in Nazi?
I actually like the Irish, you are Irish?
They are a massive part of my party and my union.
And bloke fun! working with them, or being their union official never bored.
I do love them some of the best unionist are Irish.
I think my party needs a kick in the kibber,no preferential votes would help.
For a Bleeding long time the union movement lost its way, noncopulsory unionism woke them.
We have some slugs in every party mine will never please you, but rather it win election than be in opposition forever.
Except mate I want not to harm you,spoke as you have to me and about my party often but, it seems you and I are unafraid to be our selfs.

@ Belly:

I'm not arguing that preferential voting doesn't result in some odd outcomes, such as the ones you cite. However, the problem would be solved quite simply by prohibiting parties from dealing in preferences, as chris_ho pointed out earlier. The Greens would rather not engage in the practice at all, but the system as it stands virtually demands it. Many Greens branches refuse to direct preferences or hand out HTV cards at polling booths, while others still hand them out in different versions for Labor and Coalition first preference voters. Greens voters are notoriously undisciplined when it comes to following HTVs anyway - I certainly don't :)

However, the fact remains that preferential voting is much more democratic than first past the post systems, as R0bert very succinctly demonstrated. I would compromise at optional preferential voting, although that system still strongly favors the 'majors', but pre- election preference swapping deals ought to be prohibited. But voters must not lose their current right to indicate their preferences if their first fails to attain a majority.

One vote, one value is already practised in Federal elections in Australia - that's precisely why the AEC keeps changing electoral boundaries to reflect changes in demographics, after all. I could even come at abolishing the Senate, but with the proviso that we move to multi-member electorates with proportional representation in the House of Reps or whatever it's to be called.

I agree that our electoral and political systems are in need of reform, but you're coming at it like a bull at a gate. As a former union delegate, I would have thought you'd have acquired better negotiation skills in your time. The Greens aren't going to go away, and those like you who simply refuse to negotiate with them have no future.

Look at what happened to Rudd :)

Belly, from Wiki.

>>Democratic socialism is a description used to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. Democratic socialism is contrasted with political movements that resort to authoritarian means to achieve a transition to socialism.<<

Belly I saw the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state working under the veil of socialism which was used as a central controlling ideology for the masses. The Ruskie plebs ability to choose “change” ended a week after the revolution, all evolving social and economic strategies were then centralised in the hands of the few, and opposition to that is the crux to my socialist political beliefs

Today the evolved Fabian movement is as totalitarian as Stalin’s Soviet Union. The difference is that they have to control a more sophisticated class of masses, so they contrived A 40 year plan of Political Correct notions with thousands of little legislations that white ant away at our ability to choose for ourselves, and this was coupled with UN charters to socially engineer away the masses right to self sovereignty. They stifled free speech by making many subjects socially taboo and therefore decided, giving an almost religious credence to their ideas, and the media follow, so the information chain is biased.
The astounding thing to me is that the Fabian movement is a puppet to the “money” but they are so full of ideology this is lost on them. Both the conservatives and Liberals of all first world nations are directed by the “money”. This bi partisan approach to social engineering in First World nations and the UN charters signed by the left and the right of all First World nations abundantly displays this. Cannot agree with anything domestically but unanimously agree with all that the UN and domestic lobby groups present to them.

The Australian Labor Party hierarchy is so far removed from all but the city branches that they have lost reality, not my type of socialism. Gillard and Rudd are Fabians, what more can I say.

Belly I forgot the Greens; the “money” hi jacked that movement twenty years ago, Rachel Carson would weep.

Belly I ran out of room, yes Irish extraction, and my comment was not about the people but the system of preferences. If it had any credence to democracy as understood by the free world surely more nations than Ireland and Malta would have adopted it. But without it Rudd would not have gotten up in 07, but at least he could form a government by mandate of the people, not by the lately effervescent Bob Brown, never seen Bob happier, not a good look.

sonofgloin, if the majority of voters in that electorate had prefered either of the two who got more primary votes than Wilke then that person would have been elected. That does not appear to have been the case. Surely that's a better outcome than the majority being represented by someone who was their least prefered candidate.

I do agree that preference deals result in some ugly choices. The party who get my primary vote don't ever have a hold over where my preferences go so their preference deal don't mean much to me.

R0bert

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/the-gradual-poisoning-of-our-democratic-system-20110705-1h0mg.html
Spin?
If it is over 80% of Australians spin with it.
Democracy? is it rule, or over representation of the number who vote greens in our every day life.
A question has Merritt here.
The 2010 election was historic, any one think not?
In such an election,with the very bottom falling out of Labors vote.
And Tony Abbott so distrusted.
The greens claim their votes represented a big win?
Right now, yes it is early, Brown is being interviewed in a replay.
This delusional person now in that show, claims to be the party of Liberalism.
He meant he thinks he can both replace Labor and the Liberals.
In this 50 years we hear of, this version of the greens will wither and die.
A party, any party,wanting to represent, only one section of this country has no future.
Both party's, right now, are poorly lead and fail the focus test.
Acting and reacting to the circus our information industry has become, failing to take head on those comic book producers.
But both party's, yes conservatives too are being pushed to be better by todays failures.
Better is around the corner.
Gillard thinks success in policy delivery will lift her Abbott thinks shouting longer lying more often will do the same.
Gardens need weeding and turning over before renewal but leap ahead after such, both will.