Close observers of Australian politics understand the term two party prefered comes about after preferences are distributed.
We know too small parties rarely win seats, but their preferences become votes for whatever of the big two they put before the other.
We could ask if small party voters understand they in fact vote for one of the big two? some clearly do not.
However why have both majors lost primary votes?maybe it is time the big two asked themselves this question,just maybe it is more important than some think

Dear Belly,

«We could ask if small party voters understand they in fact vote for one of the big two?»

Of course we do, but what other choice do we have? If we don't clip our nose and mark one or the other with the second-to-last number, then our ballot paper becomes informal. The Australian electoral system is deliberately designed in such a way that real people can never be represented.

both majors are the reason in part small parties exist, both fail often, to fully inform their followers of why some policies must be,room exists in the major two for almost every voter of every small party even single people standing as independents.issues that shed voters/fuel smallpartys, in the end if adopted would shed even more for the big two, such issues include migration refugee intake , health education and welfare however few small party seats are won in the lower house, so even the most anti one of the two, can in fact vote for them due to the preference system hence 4 in ten one nation votes in longman returned to Labor

Dear Belly,

Over the past decades there has been a steady decline in
support for the major parties, neither of which is able
to win a majority of support in their own right. The Libs
without the Nationals and Labor without the heavy
flow of preferences from Greens votes.

Things are more complicated nowadays. The capacity of
strong locally based Independents to defeat the major
parties has grown. For example people like Andrew Wilkie
(Hobart) and Bob Katter (outback Queensland) and Nick
Xenophon (SA), and so on.

The declining party loyalties - politics has become more complex -
straddling both economic and social issues. Then we also
have break-aways like the Conservative movement (Cory
Bernardi, Pauline Hanson and One Nation), which may or may
not have a strong effect.

Changes are on the horizon. Who knows what the ultimate result
will be - and who will or won't, unite with whom.

Yes Foxy true, but it was my intention to ask, even tell why that is so,harsh but true both majors if they took the policies of their small parties who once lived in their tent, would reduce their vote base by 5 to ten percent, such issues?If Liberals ran with Abbott policies they would find that true Liberals would flee, should Labor [remember I am not saying it would be wrong, just true] took on the greens migration/refugee policies it would have the same result,what do both sides do about it? how about open honest telling us that, explaining why some policies bring tens to us but drive hundreds away,SOME VOTERS do not even understand how preferences work, true,see longman, Liberals suffered a ten percent primary loss, most of them went to one nation, work is needed in informing voters not preaching to them question *is there any chance support for penalty rates cuts has driven some conservatives to small parties* the same has happened to Labor

Dear Belly,

You're right. Both parties need to listen to the concerns
of voters. The need to formulate policies that will address
these concerns - and they need to explain their policies
in a way that the voters will understand. Voters are
sick of slogans, of double-speak, of assurances that make
no sense - they need to have practical and real solutions
to problems - and they need to get back their belief and
confidence in their chosen party. Each party should outline
their values and what they stand for - and explain this
in terms of addressing the issues that concern voters.