octave

Sure, I am all for smaller parties playing a bigger part, but they may not be to your particular taste. There are as many left-wing parties as right-wing. Look, as I said, I am not against the NZ system; in fact, I quite like it, but you did rather cherry-pick what I posted. There are downsides as well, such as stability. Either way the conservatives lost. SA is quite a progressive state. I grew up there and visit there regularly and have  many friends

I find the voting system in NZ quite appealing, but it's not some brilliant solution to the perceived failings of our system of democracy.

My son lives in NZ and is now a citizen. We regularly talk about politics and the thing that occurs to me is that although they have multi-member electorates and we have the preferential system, these two countries are pretty similar. When I am on my yearly visit to NZ, I do not notice a huge difference.  I can even sometimes forget which country I am in.   If you are unhappy now, then changing the system won't cure you. 

13 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I would pay people to finish all my half finished jobs,

I wouldn't, which is not necessarily a plus.

We built our own house in 1990, and when we sold it, we were forced to install architraves and skirting boards and even get a completion certificate from the council so that we could sell it. I have that combination of the drive to do everything myself and a wonderful ability to complete 85% of the job.

1 minute ago, willedoo said:

I don't know enough about proportional representation systems to make any judgement on them

I cant say I knew exactly how it works. My son lives in NZ and has explained it to me many times, although I often don't retain the information.  

Here is an abbreviated description of the differences between NZ and Aus.  It does seem to me that each system has its pros and cons.

🗳️ The big picture

• Australia → uses preferential voting in single-member electorates (plus proportional voting for the Senate)
• New Zealand → uses a mixed-member proportional system (MMP)

That one difference changes a lot about how governments are formed.

🇦🇺 Australia’s system

Australia has two houses:

House of Representatives (lower house)

• Uses preferential voting (also called instant runoff)
• You vote for candidates in your local electorate
• If no one gets 50%, preferences are redistributed until someone does
• Outcome: each electorate elects one MP, and the party with the majority forms government

👉 This tends to favour major parties like Australian Labor Party and Liberal Party of Australia

Senate (upper house)

• Uses proportional representation (Single Transferable Vote)
• Each state elects multiple senators
• Smaller parties have a better chance here

🇳🇿 New Zealand’s system

New Zealand uses MMP (Mixed-Member Proportional)

Each voter gets two votes:

1. Electorate vote

• Like Australia: vote for a local MP

2. Party vote (this is the key one)

• Determines the overall proportion of seats in Parliament

How seats are allocated

• Parliament has ~120 seats
• Some are electorate MPs
• The rest are “list MPs” added to make each party’s total match their share of the party vote

👉 Example:

• If a party gets 30% of the vote → they should have ~30% of seats
• If they win fewer electorates, they get extra list MPs to make up the difference

⚖️ Key differences that matter

1. Proportionality

• NZ: Highly proportional—parliament reflects the vote closely
• Australia: Less proportional—especially in the House of Representatives

2. Governments

• NZ: Coalition governments are the norm
  • e.g. New Zealand Labour Party often governs with partners like New Zealand Green Party
• Australia: Usually majority single-party governments (or stable coalitions like Liberal–National)

3. Power of smaller parties

• NZ: Smaller parties often hold real power (kingmakers)
• Australia: Smaller parties matter more in the Senate than in the House

4. Voting experience

• NZ: Two votes (local MP + party)
• Australia: Rank candidates in order of preference (House), and more complex ballot for Senate

5. Strategic effects

• NZ: Encourages voting for the party you actually like (less “wasted vote”)
• Australia: Preferences help, but major parties still dominate outcomes

🧠 Simple way to think about it

• Australia: “Who wins each seat?” → determines government
• New Zealand: “What share of votes did each party get?” → determines government

19 minutes ago, willedoo said:

Litey, I hope you're not saying he's a fool for favouring proportional representation.

I won't speak for Litey, and I probably wouldn't have used the "foolish" word, but my beef is not with the idea of proportional representation. I think it is probably a good idea. I think that the notion that only votes that put a member in parliament are useful votes, and all others are a waste of time. This seems like a naive understanding of how things work.  i seldom vote for one of the 2 major parties. I usually vote for a minor party that could never win. Is this a wasted vote? No, because my preferences go to the least worst party. My electorate is a safe Labor seat; however, parties are strongly attuned to swings against them.  If a smaller party on the left gets many first preferences and the Labor party gets by on second preferences, they are liable to want to adjust their policies the next time to turn those second preferences into primary votes, and the same applies on the right.

I do believe it would have been better if a stronger opposition had been elected; however, the voters by and large,  understand the system as it is and voted accordingly.  

1 minute ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Lower House for all candidates who win a quota so that all votes will end up having value.

All votes will have a value? You seem to only believe a vote has value if it results in a seat.  If a candidate got 1 vote does that mean they are elected or should that vote not have any value?

I imagine we would not be having this conversation if the situation were reversed and One Nation were elected and Labor only got a few seats

2 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

So, by that logic, a vote only has value when it's in a scrutineer's hand, and the value drops to zero after that and not deserving of any representation even under a mandatory voting system ... is that what you've deduced?

Nope. To put it more clearly the Libs if they are not to become totally irrelevant must shift in order to win back those who moves to One Nation. Thus will most likely result in the Libs adopting One Nation policies. In effect a centre right party is likely to move more to the right.

Likewise if Labor were to lose a high number of votes to the Greens you can bet that they will nudge a little to the left.  This is how even votes that don't result in a win still have some effect in the political discourse 

This is not some crazy idea I just pulled out of my a$$, it is a well understood phenomina.

15 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

No it's not fair because any vote that doesn't help to win a seat, loses all it's value and counts for nothing, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Not everyone's vote will or can result in a win.  About half the population will always be disappointed.  Anyway you look at this election the conservatives lost.

I do not see a vote that doesn't result in a seat in parliament as being wasted.  The Libs will be analysing the results in order to do better next time. I would not be surprised if the Libs move towards the right in order to get back their voters who have gone towards the right and voted One Nation. After an election all parties sniff the wind to decide where they lost votes and what they need to do to get them back.  There is a concept called the "Overton Window" which is useful to understand.  Even votes that don't win a seat can shift the political discourse.

15 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

Or is it different in SA?

I am actually in Vic, just used a quick example of a pollie that I would put last.

15 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

That's what we're supposed to do, isn't it?

Yes in the House of Reps. In the Senate, you can vote above the line (for grouped candidates) or number every candidate 

Just another thing that makes me feel better is in the case of this guy

The South Australian Liberal party is standing by an election candidate who said same-sex marriage is not real, homosexuality can open up “demonic realms” and gender transitioning is an “illusion”.

I don't want to merely punish (if I lived in his electorate) with 0 vote, I want to vote strategically against him.

I always vote strategically and number every square.   

For many years, I lived in Eden-Monaro, a so-called bellwether seat. This meant the winner of the seat was always (mostly) from the party that won the government. This seat was sometimes pivotal, so it did really matter.

2 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

If so, that is your choice. My choice would be to not bother.

So you don't vote? Have you ever voted? Who did you vote for? (Maybe that question is too personal)

I am not trying to tell people how to live their lives. If not voting enhances your well-being, then go for it. For me, action, even if it is ineffective, just feels better than inaction. Complaining without action to me is just whinging.

I recently found myself in a situation of spending a whole day with my mother 93 (who lives in an aged care home) in a hospital emergency waiting (9 hours plus). I can see why this happened, and I can see the problems of the system.  For a couple of days, I was seething, angry and anxious.    I then did what I always do (being a man of action). I wrote several letters to several different people/bodies. I am fully aware that none of my well-researched, intellectually rigorous arguments will make the slightest bit of difference. It did, however, help me get over and return to my happy state. 

I really hate whingers, and to me the definition of a whinger is someone who believes that constantly restating their beef but doing nothing is somehow noble.   

If 90% of the population stopped voting, would politicians change, or would they just campaign to the 10% and save money.

Our present government, of course, is far from perfect. If you are waiting for perfection, you will never vote. If I waited for the perfect woman to marry, I would still be single.

I don't give a toss whether an individual votes or not, but pretending it is some noble gesture that will be a kick in the nuts is BS.

As per my previous post, votes not cast mean very little to a political party; they are too vague. Writing on your ballot "stop logging"  or "out with migrants" or whatever does get back to parties via scrutineers (I know this for a fact) rather than "I am not voting and I am not telling you why

43 minutes ago, Siso said:

So same as the other pollys, they all promise what they can't give

I think the problem is that the electorate is infantile. Promises are for kids sitting on Santa's knee. We think of pollies as being bad because they don't do exactly what we personally want.  So I agree that pollies make promises they can't keep, but why?  Perhaps it is because we crave simple answers. I am sure most of us here would think that large corporations should pay more (or any in some cases) tax.  Why don't stupid polies realise that and do this super popular thing?  I guess they are probably aware that if they did some of these corporations would shut up shop and then move elsewhere. I think a solution for this needs to be found, but it is not as simple as many believe  

19 minutes ago, Siso said:

So same as the other pollys, they all promise what they can't give

I think the problem is that the electorate is infantile. Promises are for kids sitting on Santa's knee. We think of pollies as being bad because they don't do exactly what we personally want.  So I agree that pollies make promises they can't keep, but why?  Perhaps it is because we crave simple answers. I am sure most of us here would think that large corporations should pay more (or any in some cases) tax.  Why don't stupid pollies realise that and do this super popular thing?  I guess they are probably aware that if they did, some of these corporations would shut up shop and then move elsewhere.  Then the gov would be criticised for chasing large employers offshore. It is naive to believe that it is easy or that there is one simple answer that will please everyone.

The thing is GON, that a non-vote is not much of a signal, but parties are very sensitive to trends in the vote count, i.e., are they gaining or losing votes. They also take notice of informal votes with slogans written on the ballot paper. You could write "deport immigrants" on your paper if that is what you think, and if enough people do that, scrutineers report this back to the party leadership. Your brilliant plan of "doing nothing" is not the powerful weapon you think it is. Doing something, even if unsuccessful, is better than doing nothing and thinking you are doing something useful.

The other thing is that it is better for personal happiness to take positive action rather than do nothing.  There is a saying that certainly helps me maitain a happy life. : "Action absorbs anxiety." 

1 minute ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

If we stopped voting, then that would make the political class stop and think: "What are we doing wrong"

 

 Why?  You get to be in government because the majority votes for you, and it does not matter whether it's 20 million  or just a handful of voters. It might be worth reading this:

55 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Why endorse anyone if in your opinion they aren't up for the job?

Because in life, you are often faced with choices, and there is no perfect solution. If I book a domestic flight, every airline available has had its share of fvckups. What am I to do, not book any of them, or do I rationally evaluate the choices available and choose the best (or least worst one?

The thing is that as individuals, we all have things we want and don't want. No party can ever represent every single thing I want so what am I to do?  Should I not vote for anyone or should I vote for the government that most closely aligns with my beliefs?

If I took your statement literally, then I would never vote. Would that be a good thing if no one voted?

5 minutes ago, randomx said:

a worst choice isn't gonna win or do anything anyway sooo

In the US, Trump knows that suppressing voters is the only way he will get re-elected. 

4 minutes ago, randomx said:

To me there's been no one even worth voting for so forget it.

There surely must always be a "least worst" choice?   

7 minutes ago, willedoo said:

octave, picking up letters is long gone. It might happen somewhere but would be fairly rare these days.

Well, in that case, surely GON would have a good case to have the fines waived. 

It is hard to believe that during the weeks you can postal vote GON does not go into town to buy food, petrol or anything else.   

Where I used to live, neighbours would always ring and say they were going into town, and did we need anything? We would also do this for others. Perhaps people in the country are no longer kind and helpful to each other.

As I say, I have failed to vote twice, and on both occasions the fine was waived.

In any case, my point is that GON chooses to pay a fine, but there are alternatives. 

In Australia, voting in federal elections is compulsory. If you’re enrolled but don’t vote in an election run by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), you may receive a “Failure to Vote” notice asking you to explain why.

You won’t be fined if the AEC accepts that you had a “valid and sufficient reason.” The law doesn’t give a strict list, but these are commonly accepted examples:

1. Illness or medical emergency

• Being seriously ill on election day

• Being in hospital or caring for someone with a medical emergency

2. Being outside Australia

• If you were overseas and unable to access overseas voting or postal voting in time.

3. Religious beliefs

• If voting conflicts with genuine religious beliefs.

4. Natural disaster or major disruption

• Floods, bushfires, severe storms, or other events preventing travel to a polling place.

5. Unexpected work commitments

• If work made it genuinely impossible to attend a polling place or vote early/postally.

6. Travel or remoteness

• Being in a remote location where voting options were not reasonably available.

7. Accident or unforeseen events

• Car breakdown, transport failure, or similar unexpected problems preventing you from voting.

8. Administrative issues

• You were not properly enrolled or believed you were not required to vote.

Reasons usually not accepted

Examples that normally won’t be considered valid:

• “I forgot”

• “I was busy”

• “I don’t like the candidates”

• “I don’t believe in voting”

What happens if the reason isn’t accepted

• The AEC usually issues a small fine (about $20).

• If unpaid, it can escalate through the court system and become larger.

✅ Important: In Australia you don’t actually have to vote for a candidate — you only have to attend a polling place or submit a ballot. You can cast a blank or informal vote if you choose.

4 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

PO mailing box are 37km from my place.

How do you get mail delivered? When I lived in a rural area, the postie would pick up letters to be posted as well as deliver mail. Apart from that, on two occasions I did not vote  (accidentally), I got a notice, and I just said I was sick that day, so no fine for me. By the way, it is not illegal to fail to register to vote, but once on the electoral roll, you are required to vote. The fine from memory is ridiculously small, however, if you hate the government, then why give them your money?

20 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

I haven't voted for the last four Fed elections, just paid the fines,

 You know, there is probably a smarter way to do this. If you want to send a message and avoid a fine, you could either go to the poll and get checked off and still not vote, or, if it is inconvenient, get a mail ballot and, instead of a valid vote, write a short message across your ballot. I know for a fact that each party's scrutineers do note such things.    Why are you so keen to punish yourself with a fine? 

1 hour ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

It should be obvious. Integrate into the Aussie culture and Aussie values ... and be at least 3rd generation. 

Are you saying that someone who is not third-generation is not truly Australian? I can't quite discern your meaning.

A strength of our system is the fact that the PM can be ditched by the party.  There are many examples in recent history where PMs have been ditched (Gorton, Hawke, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull). Whilst people may find this annoying, it is much better than the US system. Republicans know that Trump is a disaster and will cost them at the midterms, but there is nothing they can do about it.

1 minute ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

If you're not Aussie, you won't get anywhere.

I am not sure what you mean by this. Care to expand on it?

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

T Abott cost this Country Billions and set us back years when He instructed  Malcolm Turnbull to "Destroy the Internet"

I well remember Abbott saying this:

"Abbott claimed that the vast majority of Australians did not need, nor want to pay for, the high-speed fibre network proposed by Labor, suggesting it was simply a tool to allow people to watch movies."

In 2020 during Covid fast internet was the saviour of the economy and many, many workers, including me.   Today, many people work either full or partially from home, freeing up roads and public transportation and improving people's working lives.