cam . # .

I am not so glued on to preferential voting: In certain instances, such as single member districts, I think first past the post is better in stopping a duopoly. Preference voting in the Federal House as effectively made it a non-pluralistic body.

I am also aware that every electoral change has been to try and game the system so that the current incumbent maintains/keeps their majority (Chifley and the Senate for instance) but they have pretty much backfired (Labor has never had a majority in the Senate since). IIRC only Steele Hall has made an electoral change for altruistic reasons knowing that it would cost him his government.

I know the current mob in government have used their ideology of \'civic obligation\' to disenfranchise citizens. But that has been covered in the excelusions which make it unconsitutional to disenfranchise an elector. There comes a point where I dont want to load the constitution with so much information/regulation such that it loses its character. Since I have made it only changeable by amendments, it will be slow and hard to change, much more so than if it was a statutory document as most of the current NSW Constitution is, so I dont want to limit innovation outside of the constitution as long as the body retains its constitutional character.

That will mean some not cool stuff will happen - politicians do tend to be party-machine selfish - but it will allow for any future electoral technology changes to be tried/used/adapted.

cam