Belly,
>First past the post CAN NOT BE ANY DIFFERENT than one vote one value
It can and it is. Under FPTP, a vote for the candidate who comes third has ZERO value.

The Australian system is a lot fairer: all votes have the same value, and retain that value until the voter decides to exhaust it.

>The one with the most votes, without preference wins!
Yes, which is grossly unfair! Votes are votes, whether they're preferences or not.

Under FPTP if you run for parliament as an independent, you're likely to harm the causes you're trying to advance, as anyone who votes for you effectively destroys their ability to determine who wins (unless you finish in the to two which is very unlikely as a lot of people won't vote for you for fear of destroying their ability to determine who wins...)

As for Lucy, when her party abandoned her, she did what she thought was right. And if voters aren't happy with it, they won't reelect her. It won't be the first or the last time voters are dissatisfied with what their MPs do.

Belly,

"If the one with the most votes wins under first past the post and one vote one value, what is your concern"

My concern is that FPTP is not democratic as it does not reflect the will of the majority of voters unless one candidate gets over 5o%.

Margaret Thatcher famously became PM of the UK with 46% of the vote.

Preferential voting was introduced in Australia precisely to stop the unfairness of FPTP.

"In October 1918, a by-election was held in the then rural Western Australian seat of Swan. Labor's 21 year-old candidate polled 34.4% of the vote and won, ahead of the Nationalist candidate on 29.6% and the Country Party candidate on 30.4%. Something needed to be done to prevent the two conservative parties splitting the vote and delivering seats to Labor. The solution was preferential voting.

The Corangamite by-election two months later on 14 December 1918 was the first Federal poll conducted under the new system. In a field of five, Labor again led on the primary votes, future Labor Prime Minister James Scullin polling 42.5% of the vote. But a tight exchange of preferences between four competing conservative candidates saw Scullin's vote rise to only 43.7% after preferences. The Victorian Farmers Union candidate coming from 26.4% on primaries to win with 56.3% after preferences."
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/guide/prefhistory.htm

Scullin lost because a majority of the voters didn't vote for him, they preferred someone else; democracy in action.

Aiden is mise look at the senate
Tell me you think that is fair
The will of over 80 percent of voters can be over turned because one of the two, with the support of minors, can stop bills just for the sake of it
Note is mise seems now to understand there is no difference first past the post v no preference
It is undemocratic to demand voters vote for people right down the list'
NSW Next month votes
No need to preference exists unless you want to

Hi Belly,

Its an exaggeration to say the will of 80% can be overturned by 20%. The biggest voting block in the Senate is the Coalition with 35%, then Labor with 30%. Neither party has been given any clear majority. Government legislation coming from the lower house, is from a Coalition with only minority support of 42%. Reaching the Senate government legislation has immediate 35% support or 30 votes from 76 (40%). We are looking for a majority here, I can't see it. The legislation can only be defeated in the Senate at the behest of the Labor Party with the support of the majority of minors. Labor has 26 votes (34%) need another 12 votes, 9 from the Greens (12%) total 35 votes 46% still 3 votes short. can obtain those 3 votes from about 4% of the representation. The reality is it requires the support from about 42% of the electorate for the Senate to defeat government legislation that was put up by the Coalition which had only 42% of the house of reps voter support to start with.

Belly,

Of course, the Senate is fair, it is elected by Proportional Representation which is even more democratic than Preferential.

The Senate is a House of Review and by making the Government accountable does a good job; Heaven help us when the ruling party has a majority in the Senate.

The question you should ask yourself is, do you want democracy or not?

Paul sorry mate, while your numbers are right I have wounds inflicted by your party
Not about to forget or forgive them
They stopped the Malaysian solution
And a working carbon control plan
So your numbers are right but tell me how many voters did not vote green
ismise unable to continue to debate on fairness we are too far apart
Aiden she is now a Liberal, will be reelected because of that
How do family first voters think of that