Someone here has already argued in favour of abolishing states, but I can't seem to find the thread.

Well i'm interested.

For starters...  if a state has 4 year fixed terms then we need to have the ability to dismiss the government if as in NSW they have stuffed the joint up completely.  Therefore we need a constitutional reform with an option like they have in the states which is called RECALL.

I'm happy to retain mandatory voting even though tribal voting distorts the outcome and uninformed people also distort the vote, and in a true democracy you should have the right to with-hold your vote.  mind you even now, voting is not truly compulsory.

Happy to have uniform 4 year fixed terms.

But all voting should be optional preferential voting, not mandatory pref.

That's it as far as electoral reform goes.

Making voting compulsory, but rankings optional, is irrational. It is effectively saying you are compelled to vote in the less important elections, but the most important elections are optional. Furthermore those promoting it do so based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how preferential voting works. They insist that compulsory preferential voting gives an unfair advantage to the major parties, when in fact the opposite is true. Those promoting optional preferential voting think they are helping the minor parties, but they are in fact helping the major parties. That is why the major parties passed laws allowing it in certain states with very little public debate or consultation. They slipped it through before those promoting it came to their senses and realised it did the opposite of what they wanted.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/optional-preferential-voting.html

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187572706

Quote:


It's called a donkey vote. You can't expect politicians to go after donkey voters, thus it would be just as wasted if there was a special box for it. If you can't be bothered picking the 'lesser of two evils', then you can't expect a candidate to waste their time on you. All it would achieve is create the false impression among voters that ticking that box actually meant something and that someone is going to care what they think, even if they waste their only chance to communicate what they think.

Of course it is not explicit. But if you have a box for 'none of the above' the donkey voters will just tick it, assuming they know how to read. It will still not mean anything. No-one will care what you think, because you cannot be relied on to vote properly. If you cannot bring yourself to differentiate yourself from someone who has put zero thought into voting, then you do not deserve to be represented. There is no point adding a meaningless option to the ballot paper. It will merely mislead people into thinking it has some meaning.

There is no risk of a significant number of voters rejecting the entire crop of candidates. Our system allows a large number of candidates, right down to those who will only muster a few hundred votes. If someone cannot get that many votes, there is no point having them on the ballot paper. A ballot paper is for electing a leader who appeals to the majority, not for allowing everyone to indicate their exact views on each issue. It is not a weakness in the system if no candidate represents you perfectly, because they are not supposed to. They are supposed to represent the entire community. If a voter cannot bring themselves to choose a candidate that manages to appeal to more than a dozen people, then they have no concept of compromise. It is their own fault that they are not represented. The only way to satisfy a person who insists on having everything their way, or rejecting the entire system, is to have a dictatorship with them in charge. If you want to have an impact, you have to bring yourself to reach a common position with a large number of other people. Anything else is merely a convoluted way of saying 'my way or the highway'.

There is no fear. It is just a waste of time. Ballot papers are not a toy. If you want to waste your vote, scribble all over it with a crayon. Don't expect them to add an official 'I want to waste this vote' option for you.

Quote:


Voters who refuse to vote for candidates debase themselves.  Donkey voting, either via an official box or informally, would in fact support the major parties, because it would show that those who oppose the major parties cannot get their act together in any way, and certainly shouldn't be given any influence over governance. It is not a protest vote. It is a wasted vote. Having a box to tick would still mean it is wasted.

If you can't make the effort to choose a preferred option from the available candidates, it's probably a good idea that your vote is wasted.

Quote:


But they would still be wasting their vote. It would just be an illusion of expressing their will - an illusion that may increase the number of wasted votes.