In doing so, federal politicians should know that five states elect some of their state politicians by systems of proportional representation. The ACT elects every one of its territory politicians in such a way. To give the Australian people a decent Senate system, all the federal politicians would need to do is examine those state systems and copy some of their features.

As an academic of long standing, I am accustomed to marking things. Here are my marks for the seven proportional representation systems: 85 per cent for Tasmania, 81 for the ACT, 65 for Victoria, 61 for Western Australia, 58 for NSW, 51 for South Australia and a miserable 30 per cent for the federal Senate electoral system. It's that bad.

Since the Tasmanian and ACT Hare-Clark systems are thought to be identical, readers may wonder why I give the ACT version "only" 81 per cent. I lack the space to explain why, but my view is that a minor defect in the ACT version means it should get four marks lower than Tasmania's Hare-Clark, which is the original and the best proportional representation system in the world.

No state or territory would so demean itself as to copy the Senate voting system - and none has. The politicians of Victoria and Western Australia, while considering needed reform, have explicitly rejected the idea of copying federal legislation in this matter.

Explaining the dishonesty of the Senate system to ordinary voters is easy. Just look at the ballot paper, which is voter-unfriendly but party-machine friendly on steroids.

The ballot paper is divided by a thick black line, with party boxes above that line and candidate boxes below. Above that ballot dividing line it says: "You may vote in one of two ways: Either, Above the line, By numbering at least 6 of these boxes in the order of your choice (with number 1 as your first choice)."

Then: "Or Below the line, By numbering at least 12 of these boxes in the order of your choice (with number 1 as your first choice)."

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) is required by law to count as a formal vote the expression of a single first preference for a party above the line, or the expression of six consecutive preferences below the line: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Once those facts are revealed to ordinary voters, they agree with me that both instructions should be described as "deceitful" and "manipulative", the words I use.

Ever since this system was legislated in 2016, I have been pestering politicians that they must scrap it, and the AEC that it must administer the system honestly. Everyone has listened to me politely, but I have had virtually no success with the politicians. Prior to October last year I had no success with the AEC.

Then, in October 2021, I was sent a one-minute-long AEC educational video by one of the AEC's media advisers. I have played the video to many people. It should be played to every voter.

That video suggested to me the AEC might be prepared to go some way to meet me. So, I half-commend it, but my commendation is greatest for the fact that for the first time, the AEC officially states that it will count as a formal vote the expression of a single first preference above the line.

My email to that media adviser welcomed this move, commended the video for its educational value but criticised it as "spin" - to which they strongly objected.

At the 2016 and 2019 elections I asked friends, neighbours and relatives to quiz polling officials about this matter. Let me give two examples from May 2019.

Both Angela of Campbell and Andrew of Isaacs voted Liberal. Both were given a short lecture by the polling official about voting under the new Senate system: "For the Senate you need to number at least six boxes above the line or at least 12 below the line. You can go further if you want." That was the gist of the spiel.

Angela: "Look, I have been told on good authority that the AEC will count as a formal vote the expression of a single first preference above the line. Have I been informed correctly?" Official: "You're not supposed to do that." Angela: "I don't care what I'm supposed to do. I want to vote for Zed Seselja and the Liberal Party and I don't want even to think about all the other rubbish on this ballot paper if I don't have to. Have I been informed correctly?" Official: "You have been informed correctly."

Angela placed a single number 1 in Group A for the Liberal Party, as did her husband. Those two votes were counted as full first-preference votes for Senator Zed Seselja. They knew that, contrary to AEC propaganda, there was no need to do more.

Andrew was given the same spiel. He asked the same question, but was given a different answer. Official: "Whoever told you that was having a lend of you. See that sign in the booth: 'Please read the instructions on your ballot paper. If you make a mistake, just ask a polling official for another ballot paper.' When you read those instructions you will understand that your vote would be informal if you mark only a single first preference."

So, Andrew copied out six numbers from the party's "How to vote Liberal" leaflet, but his vote for Seselja was of no more value than those of Angela and her husband. They knew the law. He believed the official and was fooled into thinking that the system is honest.

READ MORE:

I was eagerly awaiting receipt in my letter box of "Your official guide to the 2022 federal election: Saturday 21 May 2022". When it arrived, I was bitterly disappointed.

Page three of the 2019 guide was shocking enough. It was pure AEC misinformation, in which the Electoral Commissioner told two straight-out untruths about Senate voting.

I thought I had persuaded the AEC to tell the truth this time. No such luck. The current guide, on page four, gives the same misinformation but changes the format in a sneaky way. It is worse. The AEC should be ashamed.

Furthermore, the AEC gives the voter a "practice voting Senate" exercise to do. If the voter places a single "1" above the line, it states: "Your vote would not be counted." Another lie. It is required by law to be counted, and the AEC cannot change the law.

Yet I remain hopeful the incoming Parliament will listen to me, and in 2025 give voters an honest ballot paper designed to help voters. The AEC would then tell the truth! Clearly it is not enough for me to beg the AEC to tell the truth.

The present ballot paper was concocted by the machines of big political parties for the purpose of giving a benefit to their machines.

In the name of "party unity", they have rigged the system to ensure their senators are elected in the "correct" order, determined by the machines. They think (and the AEC thinks) that dishonesty is the best policy.