I base it on the principle of democracy.
Ludwig,
with all due respect, Gillard got in with Windsor & Oakshott's votes i.e. 2 votes against those of half the nation. That is dictatorship not democracy.
I agree that OPV should be the most desirable way but it isn't is it ? Preferences are running around like chooks with their heads cut off & mayhem ensues left right & centre.
Why not have parties put up their hand & the one with the most votes wins. How on Earth can we ever get good, effective Government when we have to constantly wast time, effort & money to pander to those 150 member parties ? First past the posts wins, second becomes opposition, third will have the option to support/oppose whatever the other two dream up. And, just like in sport 4th, 5th etc. don't count. We can't keep going if we let every Tom, Dick or Harry dictate to us from the outer fringe. You can't exercise democracy when you never have a majority.

Individual, with all due respect...
Gillard's 'getting in' had nothing to do with preferential voting.
Under our system, we can only vote for our own representative; ie whomever represents our local area. If there is no clear winner, preferences are counted to see who the voters liked least.
The candidate who gains at least 50% + 1 vote (with preferences) is declared the majority winner.
Once (or before) the representatives are elected, they decide who the leader of their party will be.
The party with the most reps gets to form government. The leader becomes PM.
In a hung parliament, where both major parties are neck and neck, minor parties can form a temporary or permanent coalition with the party which most closely agrees with their position (or is most likely to make concessions and compromises).
Gillard has formed a (very loose) coalition govt with the Greens and the independents.
From the Greens and independents point of view, they made a wise choice. Gillard has demonstrated she is prepared to bend over backwards to appease them. Would Abbott have been as accommodating?
Who knows, but probably, if it was the only way to hang on to power. He ain't no Gorton.
Please note: there have been very very few occasions when the Liberal party was capable of forming a govt federally on their own, without support from the National Party.

If you want to vote for "none of the above" as was illustrated in the movie 'Brewsters Millions' you can. Its called a Donkey Vote.

I find preferential voting as disgraceful as compulsory voting. Are we living in the 16th century? An interview with Tony Abbott might leave many wondering about that. Much as I hate Gillard the prospect of a bible basher running the country scares me even more. Religious fanatics always strike me as having a very low intelligence. Anyone still brainwashed by supernatural mumbo jumbo at his age clearly hasn't got a clue.

That by-election result in victoria clearly illustrates what a frightful scam preferential voting has become. The econuts won on the primary vote but lost thanks to labor "tactics". As was reported in the newspaper. Isn't there anything we as a people can do? Stage a revolution? Get a petition going? Refuse to vote en-masse? I suppose not. Politicians have all the power and the two major parties will never give up such a useful scam as this.

I'm completely over the whole process. From now on I'm voting "DONKEY."

Parallel universe sorry to see you voting for Abbott but it is your choice.

there have been very very few occasions when the Liberal party was capable of forming a govt federally on their own, without support from the National Party.
Grim,
Those two have always worked in tandem hence the Coalition.

As for Gillard's 'getting in' had nothing to do with preferential voting. I don't give a hoot what you want to call it or how artificially complex you want to make something so simple as voting should be. The sad fact is that people who didn't have the numbers got in because they bought others who happen to have no moral right to override so many.
Now those of us who cared have to cop the consequences of their incompetence.

Libs and Nationals haven't always been in tandem, and certainly not in QLD.
It's also interesting to note that the National Party has spawned more independents than any other party, simply because some members don't agree with the many compromises the Nats have had to make to keep the Libs in power; like Windsor and Oakshott, for instance.
In fact, considering Labor's abysmal polling in recent times, federally and state, it isn't hard to imagine Labor and the Greens forming a more permanent coalition, if Labor ever wants to govern again.
Sadly, modern Labor shows more inclination to aline with the conservatives than the progressives, which shows their true colours.
Back to preferential voting, and I really don't see why anyone thinks it's complex.
Imagine 5 candidates running a close race, so the spread is between 24% and 16%.
The most popular candidate was still not wanted by 76% of the voters.
In a FPTP system, those 76% would have their votes discounted.
Hardly majority rule.
In our system, the candidate who only polled 16% is clearly the most unpopular, so he is knocked out. But the 16% who voted for him aren't tossed out with him. Their second preferences are now considered.
Let's say all their prefs. go to the second candidate, giving him say 38%. Still not a majority, so the last candidate is again knocked out and his preferences redistributed, until one candidate has 50% + 1 vote.
That's majority rule.
BTW, donkey voting isn't the same as “no candidate deserves my vote”. A donkey vote will give 1st preferences to the one at the top of the ballot.
NCDMV is a clear statement that all candidates are unacceptable.
A blank sheet could be just laziness.