By Hunter S. Thompson’s Caffeinated Ghost
1. The Coalition’s Media Arm Tantrum: “We Lost? Must Be the System’s Fault!”
Let’s set the scene: It’s May 2025, and the Australian political landscape is littered with the smoldering wreckage of Peter Dutton’s ego. Labor just romped home with 94 seats – a number so high, Bob Hawke’s ghost is somewhere chugging a beer in approval. The Coalition? Reduced to 43 seats, a number so pathetic it’s barely enough to fill a Bunnings sausage sizzle roster.
But wait! The real tragedy here isn’t the Coalition’s catastrophic failure to read the room on climate, cost-of-living, or basic human decency. No, no – it’s preferential voting, the devil’s own arithmetic that forced voters to… gasp… rank candidates by preference! The horror!
Enter The Australian, clutching its pearls like a Victorian widow, wailing that 15 seats would’ve flipped to the Coalition under FPTP (first past the post). Because nothing says “democracy” like letting the party with 31.7% of the primary vote (read: fewer actual humans) rule over the majority. Cry harder, mates – your crocodile tears are hydrating the Outback.
2. Kevin Bonham: The Mad Prophet of Democracy
Amid the Coalition’s meltdown, one man emerges as the Gandalf of electoral sanity: Kevin Bonham, the Tasmanian statistician-slash-hero we all need. Bonham, armed with spreadsheets and a withering side-eye, dismantles the FPTP fantasy with the precision of a laser-guided kookaburra.
His thesis? Assuming voters would act the same under FPTP is like assuming Barnaby Joyce would decline a free beer. Spoiler: They wouldn’t. Under FPTP, Greens voters would strategically abandon their principles to block the Coalition, Labor would morph into a centrist blob, and the Teals? Gone. Reduced to latte-sipping footnotes in The Australian Financial Review’s op-ed graveyard.
Bonham’s knockout punch: Preferential voting has helped non-major candidates beat the majors 9 times more often than the reverse since 1990. Translation: The system works – unless you’re a sore loser.
3. Why the Sudden Hate for Preferences? Let’s Count the Ways
A. “Stop the Backroom Deals!”
Conservatives rage about “undemocratic preference whispers,” ignoring that FPTP would birth actual backroom withdrawal pacts (see: France’s 2024 election, where the left and centrists teamed up to yeet the far-right). Hypocrisy? More refreshing than a VB at 40°C.
B. “Simplify the Ballot!”
Ah yes, because Australians a people who invented Democracy Sausage – are too dim to count to 5. Never mind that 86% of voters prefer ranking candidates over FPTP’s “pick one and pray” roulette .
C. “Stop the Greens!”
The real agenda. Under FPTP, the Greens’ 12.2% primary vote would net them… checks notes… 1 seat. Labor’s progressive wing? Gutted. The Coalition’s fossil fuel donors? Popping champagne.
4. Sour Grapes: A Coalition Special
Let’s be real: This isn’t about “saving democracy.” It’s about salvaging the Coalition’s relevance after a decade of climate denial, leadership spills, and pretending Gladys Liu’s “sex appeal” was a policy platform.
Remember 1998? The Coalition won government despite losing the popular vote. Crickets. Now? They’re howling because preferential voting dared to reflect what approximately 55% of Australians actually want: Not them.
5. The Final Word: Why Preferential Voting Rules
Preferential voting isn’t perfect – but it’s the closest thing we’ve got to a system where your vote isn’t wasted. It lets you vote for the utopian socialist and the sensible centrist without handing power to the guy who thinks coal is a food group.
So to the Coalition: Maybe instead of blaming the system, try not being terrible? Just a thought.
Epilogue
This article was written with 80% recycled snark, 15% Greens preferences, and 5% Dutton’s tears. Kevin Bonham was not consulted – he’s too busy fact-checking the Coalition’s coping mechanisms.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
The USA does not have FPTP option , but has the option of not voting at all . So they have a government and a president voted for by a minority , in the absence of better information . Here we know the majority got at least their second best choice – greatest satisfaction for the greatest number . Human life is full of receiving 2nd best , and we use it effectively.
the notion that 50% plus 1 is a fair result is hard to fault ergo preferential.
Are we developed enough to dump the current system?
Yes let’s say 1 tas voter equals 14 nsw voters is not fair
let’s dump the senate, let’s dump the state governments and go optional preferential???