Albanese Govt plans to make cabinet docs harder to access, in defiance of Robodebt Royal Commission – which recommended making cabinet docs available for public scrutiny.

More in @australiainstitute.org.au report with @skyelark.bsky.social australiainstitute.org.au/report/the-p...

That's true, though electorate officers aren't accountable to voters in the same way as an MP - and that way you don't get the other benefits of a bigger parliament.

Adding 50% more MPs would bring out electorates back to the size they were 40 years ago - and make our parliament one-vote-one-value for the first time ever.

australiainstitute.org.au/post/austral...

The polling I've seen shows the latter reason is stronger than the former- which actually enhances my point.

If a significant portion of Labor votes were cast because they seemed more likely to win and not because it was a voter's top choice, their 2/3rds share of seats is even less reflective.

Sure, but that's as true for any system as it is for ours. First past the post isn't designed to reflect any votes that aren't for 1st place candidates, but anyone who likes preferential voting would call that a flaw.

This post is about proportionality, and Aus does poorly on that measure.

It's true that going off first preferences is an imperfect measure- people would likely vote a little differently under a different system.

But the vast majority of voters put the party they want to win at 1, and our lower house electoral system isn't effective at reflecting those wishes.

That's why I lay the blame on winner-takes-all in this post!

I wouldn't agree that the system was designed to produce outcomes this disproportionate though, and that's what the point of the article is.