RObert I have not challenged your right to think as you wish.
For that matter any one Else's.
I feeling the need to support my views are widely held posted links.
They seem to support the view I have put,that they are seemingly majority views.
Now you, and I are well schooled in the use of the system WE KNOW THE POWER OF OUR VOTES.
Have you ever Scutineered?
I have often.
Quite clearly many do not under stand what happens with preferences.
Some do just silly things making their vote not count.
Such as ticking first choice then refusing to tick the rest.
Say in written comments the rest are not worth it.
RObert I do understand, I do target the greens I do not trust/like/want them to have power, that is not an unusual thought in this country.
Back to the link, my party if we must vote in every square should put yours in front of greens.
Or as said in an answer to that story run a party to dump preferences called say preference party.
My sin? I am openly afraid of any radicalism in politics.

Nice one R0bert - you tried. So have I, but I've had enough talking to a brick wall on this topic. I'll just shake my head again in bemusement that a former union official and active ALP member so fundamentally misconstrues preferencing in elections.

If that's the understanding of a politically-engaged person, what hope for the average elector? Are they teaching Civics in school yet?

Morgan:>> I'm not surprised that you're feeling "sovereignty deflated (whatever that means), suspicious and untrusting". To that list I'd have to add "credulous".<<

Morgan I disagree, credulous implies naivety, I may be wrong in my assumptions, but I always use facts as the basis for my assumptions, such as:
The earth has warmed by 05 to 07 degrees in the past 100 Years, a fact, and the earth has cooled in the last 10 years, a fact, and on the back of that the climate magicians are predicting the garbage that suits their master’s POLITICAL agenda. They get the daily weather wrong regularly and simple souls such as yourself buy their prognostications of 50 and 100 years as being science proved, sadly for Australia you’re not too bright but you are opinionated, and that sums up most greens of today.

Re the “sovereignty deflated” if you had a grasp on the issue rather than just the want to regurgitate the spin that you have absorbed you would have understood from the post that the Lima Protocol, sponsored by the UN and those that control the stronger nations took away our national sovereign right to decide what goods come into our country, to decide whether a tariff to protect our local economy is required, to decide who we should accept as immigrants and a load of other less important personal freedoms.

But perhaps you think the legislations changed by magic, or perhaps we just on mass decided to do these destructive things, the UN can take us to the World Court if we do not comply, it is law, it is the Lima Protocol that our politicians were signatories to without the knowledge of the average bloke down the pub, or the professional in his office, the Lima agreement Morgan, have you read it? The modern structure of nations and the world economy are based on its protocols.

Credulous, that’s a laugh; did you have to look it up? Morgan please only respond with insults or personal slurs as everything else you say is someone elses opinion.

@sonofgloin:

Apologies, no offence intended. In all honesty, it was the least impolite term I could think of. I haven't "regurgitated" any spin in this thread. Rather, I've been trying very hard to make sense of what Belly's really on about, so your introduction of uber-conspiracy humbug was an annoying diversion from the ostensible thread topic. My ad hominem was undoubtedly prompted by that, so please forgive me.

What I should have said is that crackpot theories about global conspiracies to create "One World Order" have no place in a sane and civil discussion about voting systems in Australia. After your last comment, I'll add that global warming denialism has no place in it either.

Please try and stick to the topic. I've given up on my old mate Belly, but perhaps you can explain to us how the 'first past the post' voting method that you advocate is more democratic than a system which takes voters' preferences into account?

Thanks in advance :)

Belly I have not challenged your right to think as you wish either.

You did start a thread on the topic and have promoted the idea that a preferential system is less than democratic.

I disagree and am contributing to the debate on that basis. Oddly enough it seems that you are more bothered by the Greens and Wilke than I am. Still pondering that. Maybe I've not read enough of their policies but on the other hand Brown does seem more upfront than most others currently heading up political parties. I can disagree with him but still respect his honesty, not something that I can do for the other two.

"my party if we must vote in every square should put yours in front of greens." - just to clarify that. I vote mostly for the coalition because I tend to find myslef in agreement with them than the alternatives. I don't consider them "my party" or have any emotional passion for them, I wish I had a better alternative. A party with a much stronger stand on personal liberty and responsibility. None that I've seen and I have better things to do with my life than to try and start one so I go for the least bothersome option.

R0bert

Morgan:>> What I should have said is that crackpot theories about global conspiracies to create "One World Order" have no place in a sane and civil discussion about voting systems in Australia. After your last comment, I'll add that global warming denialism has no place in it either.

Fair enough, point taken Morgan