[Margaret Pilkington]

[QUOTE=dotti34;1138651]I know this has nothing to do with your Parliament but thought it might be of interest. It’s on the subject of protest votes and how you have to be careful what you are aiming to prove. It can turn out worse than before.

This is what has happened here. At the last election for our Senate – which in Australia is the place where policies formed by the government are given the final yea or nay – people were feeling so let down by previous parties that some made their vote a protest one and voted for members of a newly-formed alternative party, probably thinking they would be the only ones voting for them. Made them feel good themselves but wouldn’t do any harm generally. The ones they voted for couldn’t possibly get in, but it would maybe send a message to the major parties. Right? WRONG!

We have a voting system which is based on preferential votes – and don’t ask me to explain the way it works as I wouldn’t have a clue. I’ve lived here 57 years and I still don’t fully understand it.

I think you have something like proportional representation.
It is a fairer system than the 'first past the post' system.
Over here we can have a government voted in by a minority......what I mean by that is that the party that gets in may only have been voted for by 33% of the electorate.
This is because the more parties there are to vote for, the less of a share of the votes are given to the conventional parties.
So you are right, protest voting doesn't work.....it dilutes the ability of governments to do what they say in their manifesto's because it makes it unlikely that a single party will hold the power.
This means that we may continue to have coalition governments for many years to come.
The really scary prospect is that some party will jump into bed with the SNP party and then the tail will be wagging the dog.