The current crop of politicians in the House of Representatives is not representative of those Australians voted for. This is due to this countries disproportionate two party preferred system. A proportional system would have delivered Labour 57, Coalition 65, Greens 18, Others 10, seats in the House.

Yesterdays Queensland election is even more concerning. A system similar to the federal one is going to deliver 88% of the seats to a party with approximately 50% of the vote. A proportional system would have Labour 24, LNP 44, Greens 7, KAP 10, Others 4 seats.

There are many examples of proportional systems on this planet, the closest being New Zealand’s MMP system. Proportional systems give voice to minorities, retards the power of wealth, encourage haggling, but most importantly for better or worse distribute power proportionate to our wishes!

I think there are many lessons to be learnt from Monty Pythons “Life of Brian”.

Yes Producer."Werwease Woger" Sorry we don't have a Woger. Werwease Woderick." There's no Woderick either.Werwease Brwian." "No his off with Kwevnin Kwudd sorting out the UN."

Producer welcome.
Do not worry about our arjay, that was one of his better posts.
You seem to want one vote one value, is that it?
I am ALP/UNION till death.
But take my medicine for last night not unexpectedly.
As I did in the NSW election, but 12 months before it was held.
I see defeats mostly well earned,and give most voters credit for thinking for them selves.
But as Britain looks to go to our current system, we should leave it in my view.
We have Andrew Wilie , elected from third spot,by Liberal and Labor preferences.
A green in the lower house, elected by Liberal preferences
I shake at the table cloth senate upper house paper,as I want only my thoughts to count in preference.
In my state I can vote once, as it should be.
Far too many think the one box is it, in fact anti Labor and Liberal, greens or any party can actually vote for them.
Under our current system, how strange is that?
Talk to you again.

Arjay you wascal, I’m sure you are familiar with these scene’s also? They amongst others are more to the point I was making.

Haggling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n3LL338aGA
Individualism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqq3e03EBQ
The people’s front
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE&feature=fvsr
I want to be a woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Thankyou Belly

One vote should only ever have one value. The point I am making is that the current system devalues some votes and inflates others! A proportional system is not a seat by seat competition, instead looks at the electorate as a whole. This, as well as the points I made initially reduces pork barrelling and manipulation. The preferential system is fairer in my opinion than first past the post, therefore would improve the Pom’s system. The preference system to elect a seat representative is desirable in conjunction with a party lists to achieve proportionality over the total electorate. I threfore have no issue with Willkie winning from third spot.

The senate is a whole different animal, but does serve a purpose in the current situation. An adoption of a proportional system would enable us to get rid of the senate and dare I say the state components of government. Just think of how many parasites that would get rid of. This is “pie in the sky” and “when pigs fly” stuff.

What we need Producer is to go back to a sensible system.

First past the post eliminates all the ratbag elements from government, & gives us a fighting chance of good government.

It only takes a very quick look at New Zealand & Tasmania to see stupidity getting far too much say.

Hasbeen I agree with you !
Get rid of upper houses too and no more rabbits inflicting views disliked by most on us all.
Understand our authors view but no like the local member stuff.

One vote should only ever have one value.
Belly,
Yes, why don't we do what we do when we want something badly ? let's have a referendum.
And ,let's go for a flat tax at the same time.

a welcome from me too producer
seems your got an interesting mix of comment
im against party voting [in a two party system..its obvious we vote for a pig trying to become pork..via the govt trough[a loyal communist party worker

who...self amuses[with a self medicant][usually vodka]
works when told..and votes when told[then dies quickly once ya work life is over[ya bunch of serfs[peons]

party loyalty
is treaason to state
treason to state hurts voters
thats where the state..has failed its reason for creation

states arnt there[to comeup with
ever more reason to tax us/get compulsory levies from us
and serve those like clive palmer..to become bloated jokers

asisted by govt malfeasance..building
temp/*in-fast/ructure
into the desert's

pipelines/rail/power
dams...pools of polution [in plastic liners]
poluted airs waters and soils..[plus by then..
big empty..harbours...great tracts of the reef..made into shipping clearways

oh and mining deep sea vents
pumping the mining waste polutions..back under the water line

that some other mug..will contract to remove one day
making the final cash_crop..thanks to govt largess

its easy money..
when they listen..to big money

wanting govt bailout..
or a seat..at the trough
or a policy advantage..over others

corpe=rate voices heard
indivi-dual voices ignored

Hasbeen – Clearly these “ratbags” are not tax payers, are not real bright and do not have the ability to think for themselves. Yes it might be difficult to conceive, they could have a different opinion to you. Stupid or not each individual has a right to an opinion and the right express that stupidity if they desire, as a vote. This system accommodates your opinion (stupid or not) as well. Clearly our system, as well as the Pom’s FPP system contains no stupidity or ratbags. You make a good case for a proportional system.

Individual – A proportional system is a form of an ongoing referendum. It is when everyone in a country can vote with equal say to make a decision about a particular subject. Flat tax could be one of those subjects.

Thankyou One Under God – The points you make are I believe symptoms of the existing system combined with a dash of greed and apathy. However the question that needs to be asked is, would the majority of voters (ratbags, stupid or not) support these activities? If they don’t support them they are less likely to exist with a proportional system. Although it’s not impossible it is difficult to achieve a majority in a proportional system. This means that every issue is open to haggling, modification or defeat. The situation that exists in Queensland where a party that has 50% of the vote controls 88% of the seats could not exist.

A bit more Python - A caucus meeting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA&feature=related

Top marks Producer, you are learning.

No, those ratbags are mostly not tax payers, they are tax spenders. You can not say that giving back a little of the tax payer funds you are paid with is paying tax, it is a "going through the motions exercise" to enable this fool claim you make.

Yes you may have noticed, I do suggest many, & perhaps a majority of the ratbags are employed by government. I suppose no one else would have them. There is definitely something about spending your time wasting tax payer money, that generates ratbaggery.

Perhaps it is not having to do much for your pay. Nothing like easy come, to encourage easy go. When it is all that easy to come by, it can't be very valuable. They always have some damn fool idea for wasting even more of our money.

Please answer the point of NZ & Tasmania. The 2 most dysfunctional governments within many thousands of miles use variations of your suggested systems. The proof is in the pudding. Even the obvious beauty of both places, could not compensate for living with such dysfunction.

Hasbeen – regarding your first three sentences, can I suggest you read some of the responses I have made in the past to other articles? It will show I am no fan of the parasite.

Both Tasmania and the ACT both use Single Transferable Vote (STV) method of proportional representation. There representation is close to being proportional. They have the ratbags (your terminology) they voted for. My point is the rest of Australia doesn’t have the ratbags they have voted for. Other ratbags have been forced upon them by a system that does not deliver proportionality. Don’t you think right and fair people, for better or worse have the ratbags they voted for?

Re: New Zealand’s, Mix Member Proportional MMP system. I happened to be living in NZ (I’m not a Kiwi) at the time MMP was introduced. The system they have now is in my opinion, superior to the one it replaced. NZ has one big issue I believe and it’s called the Treaty of Waitangi. I consider it is this document and its misuse in dividing and manipulating the country, rather than MMP that is at the heart of NZ’s woes.

The country is drying out and the river is dropping. I should be back on the property tomorrow. I won’t have as much time for banter until the next big rain.

While I agree with what you say, Producer, I see one fundamental problem. To allow the proportions for which you ask, we would have to do away with electoral divisions. While it's true that only a little over 50% of Queenslanders voted for the LNP, the majority - or, at least, the biggest minority - of voters in over 80% of the localities in Queensland wanted the LNP to represent them.

Our current electoral divisions - flawed though they are (at least in my opinion) - allow voters from different parts of the state (or nation) to elect locals to represent them, and to represent local interests. The 3 seats here in Townsville pale in comparison to the 40 (?) in Brisbane, but at least they offer a local voice.

To do away with electorates would allow some areas to be completely ignored while others had their say dramatically increased. It would also lead to rather cumbersome ballot papers.

Out of interest, where would you plonk your other 8 Katter candidates? In the seats in which his party came second or third in the poll? Please don't. I'm currently typing from a seat that's dangerously close to becoming Katter country ...

yes the post above mine is well thought out and is also my view.
I have always been aware of your idea Producer, never thought it was the answer.
No matter what idea we come up with it would not please every one.
Unfortunately my view greens, controlling so much power from so little a voting base are a danger.
Brings Friends to dislike me, some here such as OUG want only independents in Parliament.
An unworkable tower of Babble.
Remember, consider, some just mark first preference,then fill in the page uncaring and?
Quite often that lack of understanding sees fixed conservatives actually vote Labor.
Minority's, and some who just want to be fair minded,say one vote one value.
Is unfair, it excludes them.
Is the current greens obstructionism, Democratic?
Is it ok that 12% of votes gets its way over the rest?
Stable government first.
People given one vote one value will sort out who they want.

Otokonoko - Proportional representation does not mean the doing away with electoral divisions. The Kiwi’s MMP system (This is from memory from over a decade ago) has divisions and the balance of the numbers is made up from the parties list. This give an each individual two votes, one for the division and one for the party. This enables the individual to say vote (for example) an independent to look after local interests in the division and say the labour party for a party vote. A party has to gain at least 5% of the national vote or win a division to enable nomination from their party list. Ballot papers are no worse than what we have now. I am not suggesting MMP is the way to go but it does address your concerns. Party lists also enable people that make excellent politicians who don’t have charisma or a high public profile to enter parliament.

Belly – A proportional system is fairer and no it won’t please every one. The current system is unfair and doesn’t please everyone. It is irrelevant who an individual chooses to support. Don’t you think they have as much right as you to choose who they want to represent them. So what if it’s the Greens, OUG, KAP, LNP or Labour. Belly, your last sentence sums up proportional representation “People given one vote one value will sort out who they want”
The situation that exists in Queensland where a party that has 50% of the vote controls 88% of the seats does not meet this ideal! It is unrepresentative, stifles debate and in my opinion down right dangerous.

We still have the same dog, only the leg action has changed.

Aah. That makes sense then. I didn't know that! If such a system were implemented (and, as you've said, it isn't necessarily THE solution - but it is a solution), would it mean cutting the number of divisions or swelling the size of parliament? Or am I still misunderstanding?

Sorry for those who will be offended, yes producer your system hasbeen talked of before and would work.
But is unlikely to get a run.
Change is extremely hard if not imposable.
Senate and upper house,are we tell ourselves houses of review.
ALP got rid of the upper house in QLD.
If that had not happen the only party,Labor can not be called that by law, may not be able to rule due to senate obstructionism.
Remember your thread is about fairness equity and value of votes.
In NSW after a landslide victory, two shooters party and greens can stop government .
You have expressed no concern with Wilkie winning on Lab/Lib preferences from third spot.
Surely against the wishes of most?
Minority party's should have minority power, not veto power.
Two party preferred in time could, one vote one value, stop minority's demanding majority's scalps.
Democracy is not about some votes, greens, haveing ten times the value of others.
Let majority governments govern.

Belly - At last some concession. Yes it would be hard and unlikely but not impossible. If you and others where to stand back and look at the positives instead of focusing on the (in most cases) perceived negatives it would become easier and more likely. A proportional system would have delivered Labour 57, Coalition 65, Greens 18, Others 10, seats in the House of Representatives today. Which minority of this scenario has veto power? They are all minorities! Combined with the coalition’s inability (or refusal) to haggle, it is the current system that has given minorities veto power. But of greater concern the current system delivers minority party total control of the House of Representatives! The current system will never deliver one vote, one value.

Yes let the majority rule, but ensure the majority is formed from as many sources as possible not a single party, religion, group or philosophy.

Producer,

New Zealand has a single house of parliament. So in a way, the double system, where everybody has two votes, one for the electorate and one for the party of their choice, is a de facto bicameral system, except that all of the members of parliament are together in the one house. No separate Senate, but electorate and party representatives all in the one chamber.

I wonder if the Labor Party in Qld - what is left of it - is ruing the day back in the twenties when they abolished the upper house. So now, Newman, with a ninety per cent majority in the one-and-only House, has near-total power to bring in whatever legislation he likes.

And so it may go for the foreseeable future, and for the federal Labor Party as well. I don't expect to see Labor in power nationally ever again in my life-time - too many class changes on top of so much nepotism, both stripping Labor to its Left and Right, with the ex-working class moving to the Right and the nouveau-professionals moving first to the Left, then to the Right :(

Joe

Joe I don't think in Queensland, it makes any difference if a government has a majority of 5 or 50, it gives exactly the same result in the house.

What does make a difference is the leaders ability, & labor either don't have one available, or wont put them in, if they have. This new one is even worse than Bleigh.

Producer it is possible, although very doubtful, that even Julia might be almost acceptable if actually governing. While she has to go buy the ratbag vote, greens & others, we get absolutely stupidity.

Surely you have heard the definition of a camel as a horse designed by a committee. That is our government, but with the absolute idiocy of a Brown involved, Julia is not permitted to fit a fourth leg.

I'll take one bad government implementing it's policy fully, in preference to a rabble implementing a bit of each individual or groups policy.

Labor, or Libs from time to time, have had some bad policies, but none as bad as fringe parties. That is why they are fringe parties. If they are not rejected by the majority because of bias for or against one area or group, they are rejected because of lack of rationality. Something like real people rejecting the nutty professor.