I learned something today. I had thought that Australia had been using the Westminster system it inherited from the UK.

I went to two Wiki articles on Australian electoral structure. The articles called it the "Westminster mutation" where there are elements of both PR and FPTP. The articles were not specific enough on how votes were allocated and how representatives found their way in the legislature. There still seems to be a geographical component to the election.

I am wondering if there has been a recent change to the electoral structure of Australia. I know New Zealand made a big change a couple decades ago to have some combination of FPTP/PR.

Attempts have been made to reform Canada's electoral structure more towards PR. They have failed, despite many Canadians knowing PR is more democratic. There still is a lot of strategic voting, with the Liberal Party as the main beneficiary and the smaller left-wing parties as the losers.

It is a mystery to me that Canada's Westminster system can field five viable parties at a time. It should naturally evolve to a two-party hegemony like the USA.

The USA is a mess. 'Nuff said.

Many of the advocate for "Let's Improve Democracy" cite Australia's high voter turnout rate, even though that turnout rate is somewhat coerced. I like to ask them: "Is there any evidence that Australia has a superior system of governance?" They cannot answer.

Anyways, I'm advocate for a much different democracy. No political parties in my system. Follow the byline if interested.