Suse,

Yes....you'd think so.

However, if we're upholding the integrity of our system of democracy, then surely "principle" should be central to the theme.

....should it be clouded by individual opinions and definitions on what constitutes a "mad party"?

Mr Opinion>> But it doesn't take into account the fact that Australia is not a nation any more. People seem to be slow in realising that Australia is now a multicultural country with increasing segregation along lines of race and ethnicity.<<

Mr O, a month ago I listened to a talk back station and the subject was Halal food certification. I was taken aback by the number of Muslims calling in claiming that the scheme was a money making venture for a very few Muslims and did not support the wider Muslim community. It was a venture by corporations to take advantage of a wider market and the certification boards acted in their own personal interests.

Why I mention this is as an example of the Muslim community not supporting a supposed Muslim positive policy or the organization running it. On that basis would not be sure if a Muslim party, which will be Muslim centric, gaining the support of the wider Muslim community. The vast majority of Muslims living in western nations support a Westminster system and Sharia is as unpalatable to them as it is to us.

Responding to Suseonline's nonsensical 'drive-by'. It is plain that she never informs herself first.

Taking one example,

"About [S&FP]
The Shooters and Fishers Party (S&F) is a political party, represented in all Australian States.

S&F is the voice of hunters, shooters, fishers, rural and regional Australia and independent thinking Australians everywhere. Advocating for the politically incorrect, a voice of reason, science and conservation.

S&F is about sustainable utilisation of Australia’s resources, Conservative in family values, we honour and value the family unit as the basic building block of our society. We believe in a fair go for all, but not at the expense of others.

S&F respects and honours our democratic traditions and those in our history who fought and died for us so that we may enjoy the freedoms that we now have.

S&F believes in a multicultural society, committed to Australian values above all others."

Policies outline,

http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/files/1/804003973/sfp_federal_policies.pdf

As a disclaimer (not that one should be required), I didn't vote for the S&FP last federal election. From their statement I definitely would not dismiss them if they offered a choice in the Senate. They seem more practical, no-nonsense and they do hold by their promises which is laudable.

As usual I am keeping my options open for the next election and will be looking first at the quality and record of the local candidates.

It must be so easy and comfy being like Suseonline. However like many others I prefer to be informed by facts and to make a rational choice.

OTB, there is rarely anything 'rational' about any of your posts, and just because I sometimes choose to write just one sentence, and not rant and rave on for a long boring diatribe like you do, does not make me a 'drive-by' as you say.

I choose not to like what the 'Shooters and Fishers Party' mainly stand for, and that is my opinion on this Online Opinion Forum, so I don't see what you are on about.
I dislike the cruelty of fishing, and no, I don't eat fish.
I dislike guns greatly...as you well know, so I really don't care what their other policies are at all!

The Liberals and Greens are assuming that the people whose votes ended up electing, say, Ricky Muir, would have preferred to see their preferences going to a major party and were not inspired by hatred of the major parties to vote for a minor party in the first place. The Liberals and Greens have actually just made it easier for the people who hate them to vote against them by numbering all of the boxes above the line and putting them last. They no longer have to number more than 100 boxes and take the risk that their vote will be declared invalid because a number was duplicated or left out. It will be interesting to see what happens. We owe Malcolm Turnbull our thanks.

Since 2013 it has become obvious that the requirement to fill in all 100+ ranks on one's preference ballot has led to 97% of voters simply voting above the line and having little to no choice as to how their preferences are distributed.

The greens have had senate reform on their agenda since 2004, and so has labor since at least 2010 which was included in their agreement with the greens.

What is amusing is the tantrum that labor threw over the greens' support for this policy. Even Sam Dastyari on Australian Agenda had to agree that the new rules were more democratic, his only reason for opposing them was that their calculations might give the coalition more senate seats.

Talk about putting one's interest above that of the country.