Shadow,

The 'Tories' answer to the GFC and its resultant impact that would have brought a massive recession upon Australia, would have been? WHAT, do nothing! Fan-F'n-Tastic, your concern for your fellow Australians is touching. As long as you're all right, bugger the rest, great philosophy.

In recent history Australia has been fortunate to have had two not too bad Treasurers. Wayne Swan for one, and Peter Costello was the other

come on Paul the regressive dishonest mantra if you tell a lie often enough it becomes true can't exonerate the economic vandals of the Rudd/Gillard/Shorten days.

Paul,

Preferences. I never follow those on how to vote cards. Last election I put the Liberal candidate second to last and Labor last. There were enough candidates on the ticket to allow me to deny those two anything from me. The seat of Adelaide is very volatile, and was due to swing back to Liberal, but Labor held it and the Liberal candidate polled very badly. I don't think it will be different next election, with Turnbull and the Coalition even more on the nose than they were then.

ttbn,

I assume in your seat, at the last election, it ended up a Liberal/Labor contest with those being the final two candidates after preferences were distributed. Your vote ended up in the Liberal pile, that is how it works. With the preferential system other candidates are eliminated one by one until a winner who has 50% plus 1 vote minimum is declared. Starting with the candidate that polled the lowest number of votes first. In a close contest that would require the elimination of all other candidates one by one except the final two. In a Federal election, with preferential voting it is so unfair that every voter is forced to vote for one of the final two candidates, more often than not its Labor and Liberal, so they like the system.

I favor optional preferential voting, where you only number in order the candidates you prefer. If you only prefer one candidate you only put the number "1" if there are say six candidates and you only prefer say four of them, you only number 1,2,3 and 4 in your order of choice, stuff the other two candidates you don't want them at all, so why should you have to vote for one of the fools

cont,

Glad to see you preferenced The Greens candidate over Liberal and Labor.

Another point, I hate the way some parties, particularly the big two impose a candidate on the membership time and again, sometimes the incumbent is imposed, sometime an outsider is parachuted in without the grass roots people having a voice. I hate that practice.
The Greens constitution does not allow for that crap of imposing a candidate, all members can vote. Even where there is only one nomination, there is a choice for members, you can vote for "no support" over that nominee. Every nominee must face the membership, even if you are a sitting member, or a celeb, or of the "right type". they all have to put their case why the should be the candidate, you have to be a member of a local branch, voted in by the branch, you have to be willing to take questions from the floor, and accept the final vote of the membership. That applies from Local government to Federal parliament. If you want to run for the Senate for The Greens, be prepared to do some travailing around the state over a few weeks, to face several member forums, you have to attend at least one, even if you are a sitting senator. I hope your party does the same thing when the time comes.

I agree on the imposition of candidates. Look at the corruption in NSW. Members should choose, and candidates should have to explain themselves to the public well before there is an election. As long as people vote for parties - because they don't have clue about the candidates - we will continue to get dogs in government.