I'm not sure what being a member of Neither entails -- I am merely a list subscriber. I should also make clear that I am a member of the Australian Democrats, and add that parties mean nothing to me except as policy instruments and arenas of struggle for democratic principle. I joined the AD in 1991 when (in WA at least, and to a fair extent in the rest of the country) it was run on very democratic lines. There was a power broker-led putsch in the period 1993-1994 leading to expulsion of most of the democratic elements in this State, and a tendency for the more democratic-minded (nationally and especially in WA) to drift out. I escaped the axe by a bizarre freak of luck, as a result of having temporarily withdrawn from the leading body in WA at the time. I'll remain a member and make moderate efforts to avoid expulsion because democratic struggle goes on in all arenas and this one happens to be one which I know and in which I am known (among some, it is with extreme disfavour). Since being a member of any other political party is an expellable (and easily detectable!) offence I won't join one. I have observed with great interest and no surprise the shock-horror in the party-oriented (as distinct from policy-oriented) ranks in the Australian Democrats when Albert Langer went public in a push for voluntary allocation of preferences by electors. If this took on, it would make nonsense of all the backroom horsetrading between power brokers of the Australian Democrats and power brokers of the other parties -- especially LabLib -- over allocation by the parties of electors' preference. If Albert Langer were to get away with this outrage, dammit the party would have to *earn* all its votes, both primary votes and preferences. Civilisation as we know it would go out the window. Careers would be at risk. For that reason I warmly applaud Alister Air's proposal for a No. 1 plank to be support for optional-preferential voting. I would add that Neither would do well to press for abolition of the tick-a-box Senate voting system brought in by the Hawke-Keating government. The pretext for it was simplicity -- OK, then, allow optional-preferential party by party above the line (so that a "1" refers only to that party and not to preferences its power brokers have allocated) while retaining the option of votiong optional-preferential below the line. PR is of course another splendid idea, for the reasons generally put forward for it. I would also suggest a move towards CIR. Either the corporations control everything and all politics is mere kindergarten games (in which case why bother about voting systems at all?) or they don't, in which case it is the people, not the politicians, who should be ultimately calling the shots on the major issues which affect them -- even if this restricts the scope for power brokers or for pseudo-revolutionary grouplets who are certain they know what the mass of the people by their nature are too stupid to comprehend. Dion Giles Fremantle
