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