Morgan re the voting, there is a mathematical validity to the preference system, but that is all there is to it. As I said the only other two nations that preference are Ireland and Malta, the rest of the world give one citizen one vote. Adding the preference system degrades the validity of that vote. Here is the difficult part for you, it comes to reasoning, the preferential system allows the majorities first choice to be usurped by the majorities last choice, if you consider that valid so be it, nothing left to say really.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/labor-and-liberals-both-to-blame-for-the-meteoric-rise-of-the-greens/story-e6frgd0x-1226090126080
Yes with no doubt this link is from a one nation supporter.
And I am no follower of that group.
It however is informative and Representative of voters from every party.
In this forum, any forum in this country, my party is subject to open discussion.
Both for and against.
Indeed I also launch in to it,and to Conservatives too.
This link, as are the others I have and will continue to post, is not evidence of my bias, I give that freely here now again I distrust Browns greens.
I leave this question for my detractors.
Are the greens any less subject to scrutiny/ criticism/accountability than any other party.

RObert this much has always been clear to me, you are a conservative,Morgan a green,our other currently active combatant, in my view is from the right of American tea party.
If my thread was badly named.
If I did not make it clear, if Morganzola is right, I seemingly do not understand the subject and am a bit lost here.
Then let me start again, the most recent link, seemingly if you both read it and the three related links on the page it takes you to.
Will show moves by both sides, to isolate the greens, do preference deals or set up party's to isolate them.
FORGIVE ME! this thread is about my understanding, my truly held belief and view, the current system, in my view,is wrong.
I see no reason a green sits in our lower house on conservative preferences.
None for the senate constantly, seeing such as this DLP, family first, and very minor unrepresentative party finding a seat and sometimes power of veto.
Do you, can any one, not see, many voters quite unaware they voted in both houses for other than the tick or number in box of choice.
Is that fair.
I KNOW! Morganzola is displeased with me, understand driven by the understating my wanted out comes while ensuring majority's get the seats,kills his party's control.
I happen to think that term * unrepresentative swill* best describes our upper house.
Get you boots on Morgan, but for my views not the bleating that I am uniformed
WHEN mate WHEN will you confront my question, is it TRUE more Australians at least dislike the greens than will ever VOTE FOR THEM!

Oh come on, Belly. So John Pasquarelli, former key adviser to the Pauline Hanson, Is now "representative of voters from every party"? You've got to be joking.

Yes, Adam Bandt flirted with far left politics as a uni student. So did many, many others, but most of them went on to become ALP members and voters. You do realise that exactly the same is true of Julia Gillard? Does that mean that the ALP is riddled with Trotskyist socialists plotting to create a New World Order? Of course not. It means they were politically engaged young people who were exploring competing political ideologies in order to form their own political position. That's what many, many people do while they're at uni, including every ALP leader since Caldwell.

All that nonsense aside, your citation of Pasquarelli's predictable supports my earlier contention. The problem isn't that our voting system takes into account the preferences voters have if their preferred candidate doesn't get an absolute majority. It's the grubby back room preferencing deals so beloved of Labor's 'faceless men' and Liberal plotters.

The Greens have stated publicly and repeatedly that they would rather not engage in preference deals at all, while your cronies and the Libs plot secretly to make deals with their supposed enemies. Indeed, your unethical proposal for a 'Preferencing Party' is entirely consistent with the corrupt practices employed by your party's 'faceless men' in order to hang on to power. It sounds like you've lifted it straight from Richo's black book - whatever it takes, eh?

Preferences of voters aren't the problem with democracy in Australia. Rather, it's grubby tactics employed by the 'major' parties like your cronies and Pasquarelli for their own perceived advantage that ultimately produce the occasional odd outcome.

@ Belly:

Our posts crossed. If If I'd read your stupid insult earlier I wouldn't have done you the courtesy of a response. You've lost the plot, mate.

I'll leave you to babble on to the conspiracy nutters.

Belly I'm not enjoying the level of angst that seems to have arrived in this discussion. Can I make it clear that while I disagree with you I'm not trying to be personal about it.

I do agree with the point's that morganzola makes in his second last post. One of the things I admired about Brown was some commentary he made about the process around preference deal prior to the last election.

The political reality for the Greens is that they have to go along with the process but Brown was very upfront in encouraging voters to vote as they wanted rather than according to backroom preference deals.

I don't much like the term conservative, that imples a mindset that I don't think I've got. If it wasn't the name of a party that for too long has been run by the religious right I'd say liberal. A moderate libertarian maybe.

The far left and far right both show little respect for peoples right to choose for themselves on most matters, both seem to have categories of people they think should be able to choose and those they don't.

R0bert