Greens might lose out on a structural reform of voting so maybe they're doing it because it's the right thing to do rather than the self-interested thing to do

Sebastian Andrei Tudor I've come across this post which sums it up nicely... "Firstly, the proposed optional preferential voting (OPV) isn't first past the post (FTTP) because it allows people to pick their favorite top 3, top 5, top 20 parties and then stop whenever. Secondly, the current system is being rorted with micro parties preferencing ideologically diametrically opposed parties on the proviso that the other micro party does likewise. This sees votes for socialist parties go to theocratic parties and vice-versa. And no- people rarely if ever search ahead to see who is preferencing what. Antony Green has some great analysis showing this. http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2016/02/would-electoral-reform-deliver-the-coalition-a-senate-majority-at-a-double-dissolution.html   Thirdly, the rorting is producing ridiculous outcomes. As much as I've come to appreciate Ricky Muir's presence in parliament, having someone get elected off 0.51% of the vote is a sign something is wrong with the system. Fourthly, the guarantee that there will be some above-the- line votes that can be directed wherever has incentivised parties to create misleadingly named parties similar to opposing party names in order to redirect them to another party via automatic preferences. (eg Green Future party directing preferences to the Liberals) Fifthly, should the public turn out to treat this like a FTTP vote the proportionally representative system of the Senate should mitigate the worst aspects of FTTP. Advertising and election strategy can also be adjusted to promote a 1,2 vote. or a 1,2,3 vote. (eg Greens, Labor or Socialists, Greens, Labor) Sixthly, the writer is a micro party member and clearly partisan. He uses every opportunity to attack the Greens and the Democrats, for example he blames them for the failed republic referendum instead of Howard and uses bizarre segues to irrelevant matters like Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme and Julia Gillard’s Malaysia solution. Seventhly- if analysis shows that the Greens might lose out on a structural reform of voting *and they still support the reform* then maybe, just maybe, they're doing it because it's the right thing to do rather than the self-interested thing to do." http://greens.org.au/sa/policies/electoralreform http://greens.org.au/news/nsw/senate-voting-reform-%E2%80%93-greens-plan-protect-small-parties-voters%E2%80%99-decide-preferences http://greens.org.au/policies/constitutional-reform-and-democracy