Under the current senate voting system you can either vote for one party above the line or take the effort to allocate preferences to all the candidates below the line and risk your vote being declared informal. Voting above the line means that the party machine allocates your preferences on the basis of wheeling, dealing and questionable trade-offs. Steve Fielding became a Senator because Family first convinced Labor to put them ahead of the Greens.
There would be less scope for questionable practices if voters had the option to allocate preferences by party above the line. (Preferably optional preference voting so we don't have to choose between micro parties that we know nothing about.)

Welcome, lets hope you continue to contribute.
On this occasion we agree, my thread are upper houses democratic is evidence.
I think every voter should be free to preference without others interference.
Including his/her party.
And said this is one answer but still consider we do not need upper houses.
Show me what QLD has lost by not haveing one from 1956.

John D, I agree totally that the voter should be able to declare preferences, as they see fit. That is; as per the optional preferential system.

There shouldn’t be any above and below the line options for the senate, there should just be the one setup, with the voter free to mark as many squares as they wish.

There should definitely be no wheeling and dealing and placing of your preferences where you don’t want them to go or don’t know where they might end up when you vote! That sort of thing is just plain antidemocratic! It is tantamount to stealing your vote. Not quite as blatantly as with the disgusting compulsory preferential voting system, but not far off it!

The voter should have full control over their preferences!

Yeah, not sure if (or how) that would work.
As Ludwig pointed out on another thread, with the OPV system if no preferences are allocated then votes to weaker candidates are simply discounted.
Unlike local elections where there are usually only a handful or less candidates, the Senate offers 76 seats, 12 in each state, with an almost unlimited number of possible candidates.
Given the number of parties/candidates usually offered, OPV would I think be more likely to approximate the current Above the Line situation; ie eliminate the smaller parties, yes, but even the larger players could still get in with a minority of votes.
While I'm not in favour of compulsory voting -actually forcing people who are too disinterested in politics to study the policies to make decisions affecting us all; crazy!- once you're in the voting booth compulsory preferential voting makes sense to me, to ensure your vote will be counted.
Or at least say, 3 preferences.
This is simply the rules of the game. If you want to play...
If you want to play tennis, you have to abide by the rules. Otherwise you're not playing tennis, you're just mucking around with a ball and a racket.
As I have indicated before, I very much like the 50%+1 rule.
The issue here is, I think, not so much about individual voter preferences, but party/candidate preferences, and whether or not those preferences should be disclosed and locked in before the election.

I don't think that the preferencial system can be "fixed", better to abolish it and adopt pure PR.

Yes, Grim, compulsory voting is another hare-brained idea.

This LP post discusses the factors that influenced the "unintended informal vote" in the last federal election.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/archives/2010/09/01/reducing-the-informal-vote-guest-post-by-john-davidson/ One of the messages was that the number of informal votes went up as the number of candidates increased. Forcing voters back to the old style system is a clumsy way of avoiding the allocation of preferences by party machines.
There is no practical reason why the system couldn't be changed to allow preferences to be allocated by voters (not parties) above the line. It would be desirable to allow voters to make excursions below the line if they really want to change the order in which parties have ranked their candidates or they want to vote for a particular candidate.

Grim,
You speak of the rules of the game, but the rules are set by the two major parties, because it favours them.

We should not discriminate against the minor parties because no new party can expect to be born full grown and they must have opportunuty to establish themselves and put their policies forward.

It seems optional preferential voting is the best way and all parties and candidates should show exactly where the want their preferences to go.

If you vote below the line, with OP, you can stop when you wish.

No argument, Banjo. John D. convinced me I was wrong.
I still think every voter should list at least 3 preferences, so their vote isn't discounted if their first preference doesn't get up, but I accept that if were made mandatory it could only increase the no. of votes declared informal.
Of course, if voting wasn't compulsory, the people who did bother would probably also take the trouble to list preferences.

Grim: If someone doesn't want to allocate preferences that is their option. Votes should only become informal at a point where it is not clear who they are voting for (or allocating preferences) to. If someone makes a mistake an allocates two second preferences a vote should be put aside at the point where this is causing confusion and may be brought back into the vote when this confusion is no longer causing problems.

Yes, that is what I agreed to.
My final comment was about compulsory voting, not compulsory preferences.
I think it would be reasonable to assume voluntary voters would show a little more care than people forced into voting booths.

< Votes should only become informal at a point where it is not clear who they are voting for (or allocating preferences) to >

Agreed John D.

The requirement to mark every square below the line, if you chose to vote below the line, is just ludicrous. You should be able to mark one square or as many squares as you wish.

If under this system, you mark two squares with the same number, your allocation of preferences vote would stop at the previous number, but your vote would still count.

As for compulsory voting, I am in favour of it. I think it is the least that every person over the voting age and of reasonably sound mind, and not in legal incarceration, should be required to do in order to play a part in the governance of our democracy.

I think it is the least that every person over the voting age and of reasonably sound mind, and not in legal incarceration, should be ALLOWED to do in order to play a part in the governance of our democracy.
It seems to me, compulsory voting is very much like asking someone you don't know and who knows absolutely nothing about cars and cares less, to help you make an informed opinion on which car you should buy.
Sounds like a great formula for buying really shoddy...

Cars.

Yes but Grim, how much more of an informed opinion would you get with optional voting?

With optional voting, people would be inclined to vote if they felt strongly about something and to not bother if they felt that the opposition wasn’t any better, or if they felt that it wasn’t worth their while going to the polling booth.

Most people would still vote based on one or two policies, or an overall general feeling of discontent with the incumbent party, without really understanding what the opposition is offering, let along having any faith in what they are offering. That’s not a very well-informed basis for casting judgement on which party should be our next government.

I can’t see that optional voting would give us a significantly better quality of governance. So it is better that we all be required to vote rather than for us to have the option of not even turning up to the polling booth.

However, having said that, there should be an option on our ballot paper to vote for no candidate. And failing that, we should lodge a blank ballot paper if we feel that no candidate deserves our vote…especially with the disgusting compulsory preferential vote-stealing rort of a system in place at the federal level!!

A null vote is an entirely legitimate vote, if it is a well-informed or well-considered choice, IMHO.

But there is something inherently wrong with not voting, or not being required to vote at all in the first instance!

The US is a good add for compulsory voting. The optional voting in the US means that the extremists always vote while the saner parts of the population don't take the effort or use the "all politicians are bad" excuse not to vote. Optional voting makes it easier for bullies to pressure people not to vote. It also makes it easier for people to get talked out of voting because others in the family want to go to a picnic etc. instead of voting.

I think the US is a great ad., for monarchy. Not only is their electoral system bizarre to say the least, but these days gaining the Presidency is not so much about policy as it is about charisma and ability to raise campaign funds.
And Australia as usual is following obediently behind. It saddens me that our current PM is being discriminated against even by people on her own side of the political divide for reasons of:
her sex
her appearance
her voice
and general lack of charisma. Yes, I know little Johnny had about as much charisma as a month old turnip, but it's a fact of life in our male dominated society that we hold women's appearances up to a higher standard that men's. And particularly so, it seems, for the first female PM.
Agreed, for such a PM to raise an additional tax was 'courageous' to say the least (to use Sir Humphrey's sense of the word).
It seems to me, if we wish to claim to be a truly non discriminatory society, then we should apply the same standards to native born Australians as we do to immigrant Australians.
At age 18 (or any time after) any Australian who wishes to vote should sit for a citizenship test.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that before being able to vote, people should demonstrate some basic interest in and understanding of what it is they are voting about, and why.
Of course, a state of citizenship should confer no other rights or obligations than simply the right to vote...

Grim: The US has used dictation tests and similar ploys to block Afro Americans from voting. Now you want to use a "citizen test" to block Australian citizens from voting. Don't like it because the people most in need of the power that comes from the vote are those at the bottom of the pile that cant pass some citizen test.
People should be automatically added to the electoral role as soon as they turn 18 and kept on the roll even if they move and forget to tell the commission.
Howard introduced some cunning tricks to keep peole that were more likely to vote against him from voting.

So you think immigrants shouldn't do a citizen test, John D? I tried our test before I wrote my last post. I'd say it took about a minute maybe a minute and a half to answer 20 questions, of which I was only required to get 15 right. This test could be administered in verbal or written form at any local courthouse. Think of it as a simple right of passage into adulthood.
Anyone who would be 'blocked' by such a simple test, probably should be.
I would say the vast majority of natural born Australians would find it considerably less challenging than most bureaucratic forms we are required to fill out as part of being Australian citizens.
I have a few mates who came to Aus. From the UK and NZ, who have never bothered to become naturalised for just this reason.
As far as they were concerned, voting and being eligible for jury duty were just hassles they didn't need.
I'm quite sure these blokes would hand in blank papers, or donkey vote if compelled to do so.
Compelling people to vote always reminds me of a mother I once heard talking to her young child at a rural show:
“I paid good money for this, now you're bloody well going to enjoy it, or I'll bloody well kill yer!”

Grim: I am sure that you could pass the citizen test Grimm. But, if I had to choose I would think it more important that someone near the bottom of the pile gets a vote than some elitist who wants to block the people near the bottom of the pile getting a vote.
Have a look at the citizenship test. Is there anything in it that someone really needs to know to vote on something that is important to them.
I see voting as a duty that protects us from crazy extremists. Compulsory makes it hard to pressure people not to vote.

I'm not at all sure who those “near the bottom of the pile” actually are, John D., but it sounds remarkably prejudiced to me.
One of the mates I was referring to earlier, from the UK, rose to the position of Deputy Town Clark in a regional shire. Another from NZ was the manager of a tyre service. Both considered the right to vote to be over rated, to say the least.
Every election, 3 members of my own family ask me what the issues are and who they should vote for.
By comparison, all my Koori mates are not only very politically aware, but very politically active.
Political engagement -or lack thereof, not to mention disaffection- crosses all boundaries, it seems to me.
Forcing people to makes decisions affecting all of us, without any knowledge or interest in the issues, is just crazy.
And the evidence to date certainly doesn't suggest the practice produces a better class of politician, or better political outcomes.

Grim: I think it is a reasonable bet that most of the people who can't pass your "citizenship test" will well and truly be part of the bottom of the pile. It is also a reasonable bet that once governments are allowed to use tests to stop some people voting they will be emboldened to find other ways of filtering out people who have the right to vote now. They only have to look at the US if they want some appalling ideas.

The proportional voting system for the Senate is ludicrous. The voter, without reliable sources of information, is supposed to be able to rank the seventy-odd candidates in order of merit for a job that the voter hardly understands.
A vote above the line is a surrender to machine politics; Steve Fielding was elected after the 280th iteration of the counting process.
I would rather see the Senate merged with the"other place" to produce 40 electorates of ten members, five women and five men; the voter would vote for one man and one women, if he or she wished to; and votes would be rendered by post.