Blog comments

• Hi
  I have over 10000 hits on my web site and over 350 emails agreeing with me on removing preferential voting.
  I ever had 5 MP's agreeing with me.
  Just wait till i advertise my web page

  Ronny Of Brighton QLD Friday 17 September, 2010 - 9:16 PM

• Last week, a caller reported that if their were five candidates on the house of reps ballot and only four squares are marked then the last box would automatically be counted as fifth preference. My concern is that this type of voting must be catergorised as an informal vote as it clearly states all boxes to be mark.

  Matt Wednesday 15 September, 2010 - 11:29 AM

• I have updated my web site.
  Its about voting regulations including
  1. New Voting idea
  2. Remove Preferential voting
  Have a Gander

  Ronny Of Brighton QLD Thursday 9 September, 2010 - 8:21 AM

• @ Bella, Sorry I obtained the Countries from Google, and went to Wiki, they must be wrong; the figures from Denison are right though, or the Australian Electoral Office is wrong - which one?
  In finishing though, we have just this afternoon seen real democracy at work haven't we. A Prime Minister who has not been elected by the people, but by, as Smithie says, two men with faces. And this system is fair. Your last paragraph surely attests to lack of real democracy in our Country!!!

  Phil of Springwood Tuesday 7 September, 2010 - 4:11 PM

• Glen of Hawthorne & Michelle ~ I too have done some scrutineering in my time. Optional Preferential voting is fraught with dangers. A voter may consider either of the two parties not worthy of the vote. But when it comes right down to it, even if you consider your second last preference to be to the better-of-the-two-evils, your vote does get into the final count.

  There was a legal vote in the Optional Preferential System in Queensland which does allow for a STV to take place Michelle. Vote 1,2,2,2,2,2, or 1,2,3,3,3,3. What happens here is that in the first case your 1st preference is counted and as the remainder can not be defined then any further preference cannot be allocated so the vote is extinguished at that point. So too for the second example, the 1st and 2nd is allocated but as there is no definition between the remainder then the vote is extinguished at that point and does not continue in the count.

  You may feel good that you have voted for an Independent or a Minor Party and not given a preference to either of the better-of-the-two-evils, but you must also realise that neither do you have a say in who governs the State or the Country.

  If you wish to take that option then please do, at least you are numbering all the squares, and they cannot be filled in later when the ballot boxes are in an electoral officerâ??s garage for a week.

  Colene Monday 6 September, 2010 - 11:15 PM

• Phil of Springwood ~ Canada operates a first-past-the-post system, which has resulted in minority governments at a Federal level for decades.

  However you like to spin the numbers, the end result is the same. The pure simple unadulterated fact is that faced with a choice of the last two standing, the voters in Dennison preferred Mr Wilkie over the first runner up.

  My personal opinion is that if a candidate stands as an independent then they should behave as an independent and side with no one. The Greens and the Independents should remain as elected ~ Independent and Minor Party members.

  If an affiliation is not declared before the election, then there should not be any such arrangements post election.

  The Liberal / National Coalition have the most seats, albeit a minority of the whole. (along with the majority of the two party preferred and the majority of the first preference votes)

  There is no reason why the Australian Parliament can not function with a minority government. As long as the 150 Parliamentarians respect the will of the people and govern for the people.

  Bella Monday 6 September, 2010 - 10:55 PM