Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Victorian government has a ‘very clear strategy’ of distraction: Peta Credlin" video.

@LDU2U One problem is that you don't say what to replace it with that would be better. The other problem is that the system is not how you describe. The current system is NOT a two-party system, in that, unlike the more-common first-past-the-post system, you can vote for a minor party without wasting your vote, because your preferences can count. And sometimes a third party does win. 'Westminster system' refers to a system of government, not of voting.
2
@stevep3692 "If Labour got only 42%of the vote in the last election..." What he said was that they only got 42% of the primary vote. In the seats that they won, they got more than 50% of the vote, because that's what is required to win. That is, they got more than 50% after preferences were distributed. As for a landslide, that depends mainly on how many seats they won, not how many votes. They won 55 of the 88 lower house seats, but in theory they could have won those 55 seats with only 51% of the vote in each of those seats and no votes in the other 33. Of course it would not be that extreme in practice, but it could be in theory.
2
@LDU2U "Well, I guess it comes down to one vote one man/woman and do away with the Preferences. ... Under this system it's a waist of time voting for your preferred Independent." No, you have that exactly back to front. If you have (say) two conservative candidates in a seat and one 'progressive' candidate in the seat, and you don't have preferences, then you run a big risk of splitting the conservative vote. Say, for example, that 60% of the voters want a conservative, and 40% want a 'progressive'. But in this example there are two conservative candidates, A and B. Also in this example, 35% of the voters vote for conservative A and 25% for conservative B, leaving the other 40% for the 'progressive' (C). Without preferences C wins, because he got the most votes of any of the candidates, even though 60% of the voters didn't want him. With preferences, because nobody has 50% of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes (B) has those votes' preferences distributed. If those voters all wanted a conservative (it's never this black-and-white), then B's preferences go to A, and he therefore has 60% of the vote. As he has more than 50%, he's the winner. Unlike in the first case, 60% wanted a conservative, and a conservative won. That's fairer than without preferences. But take that a step further. If you're a conservative voter, and you really prefer B, would you vote for B or A if you thought that the election might be close? Without preferences, you'd be inclined to vote for A, to avoid the possibility of C winning. That encourages most to vote for only one of two parties. But with preferences, you know that you can vote for B without wasting your vote, because if B doesn't get in, your vote can be transferred to A and you'll at least get your second choice of candidate over C. People often complain that (in this example) A got in with only 35% of the vote. But that's 35% of the primary vote. In fact, 60% of people wanted A over (in preference to ) C.
1
I guess we all know that some pollies (particularly on the left) are more concerned with looking good than doing good, but it's a surprise to hear them trying to make a virtue of it! Pallas about 2:53 "I said even make it a piecemeal one so that we can pretend that you're doing something tangible when in your intent and in your efforts you're not."
1