The proposal goes like this:

We abolish electorates for good and instead members represent the entire State as one electorate (much like the Senate). At election time, the voters vote for the political party of their choice in closed-lists. For e.g.

1) ALP

2) Liberal

3) National

And so forth..

All voters need to do is mark which party they vote for.

When counting the votes, all votes are tallied on a nationwide scale. Whichever party receives and at least 40% of the nationwide vote AND receives a plurality of votes will automatically gain 90 seats (of 150) in the House of Reps, which seats will be allocated in each State
respectively.

This means that the majority party will gain 'additional seats' at the expense of other parties.

What is the benefit of this?

The biggest benefit is that it ensures that the majority party will always have a comfortable majority in the House of Reps and prevents hung parliaments or minority governments.

Captain Nemo wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 11:13am:


If you're referring to the electoral college, then yes in a similar sense.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 11:28am:



ditto...

get rid of preference...


now we sit and wait for the senate members to crawl across the line..with 3rd or 4th choices.....


bahhh humbug!

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 11:46am:


Yes. This is done deliberately to reduce corruption and drift towards dictatorship. You are mistaking stability of the parliament for stable governance. Giving a minority government carte blanch for major reform makes unstable governance inevitable, like in the US.

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 12:18pm:


Can you give an example in Australia of where majority governments (when they have been achieved) have led to greater corruption and a drift toward dictatorship?

Can you also explain how a minority government in the House of Reps can have carte blanche for major reform when it has to content with an equally powerful upper House that is not controlled by that minority government?

Can you also explain how a minority government with 'carte blanche' for major reform can throw someone in jail for 'speaking their mind' when it has no power to do so?

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 12:35pm:


So, you think the system is fundamentally undemocratic and an arbitrary allocation of power but you can't give me an example of how it would be 'fundamentally democratic' and an arbitrary allocation of power?

Is this similar to the argument that you make when you say that 'all Muslims support terrorism' but can't give examples of 'all Muslims who support terrorism?'

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 1:01pm:


Having one party control the House of Reps is not unprecedented. In fact, the opposite is only a recent phenomenon.

Edit: FD, if you're implying that majority government in a parliamentary system is undemocratic, then perhaps you would support have a proportional representation in the House of Reps?? Given that no party has achieved a %50+1 in the majority of elections (at least recently) this would essentially mean that we would have a coalition government, which would, according to you, be better for democracy.

If you accept the effectiveness of the parliamentary system of government, then the way that it's most effective if one party controls the House of Reps in order to implement its agenda.

Auggie wrote on May 19^th, 2019 at 1:26pm:


Even if 60% of the voting public oppose that agenda?