[lotsofpulp]

>After all they know they were actually elected because people were only given a couple of establishment approved choices, and in their naivety they happened to pick their side this time (after all they alternate between the two choices all the time).

Australia has ranked choice voting and mandatory voting. What else could be done to “give” people more choices?

[brainwad]

As an Aussie:

* some kind of proportional representation in lower houses or parliament (see e.g. New Zealand for a Westminster-compatible solution, or Switzerland for something more radical while still working with seats allocated by state populations).

* referendums on laws/treaties, and popular initiatives to propose constitutional changes and/or new laws (like in Switzerland or various western US states).

* reinvigoration of the federal principle that things that can be done by the states (or the local governments) should be done at that level, rather than the feds sticking their nose in everything (see, again, Switzerland).

[coldtea]

>Australia has ranked choice voting and mandatory voting. What else could be done to “give” people more choices?

None of the above are even close to giving people choices.

Australia has a seat-by-seat majority-based system that favors the bigger parties (HoR).

Choices come when there's direct proportional elections.

Choices come when you don't need campaign support, advertising budgets, rich sponsors to be elected.

When they media don't sway to their (owners) favorite parties and candidates.

When you're not elected on an huge laundry list of a program, and then left to do whatever and backtrack on any and all promises until the next election with no consequences.

When there are direct referendums for major issues, regularly, not just to change the constitution in rare cases.

And many many other things besides, those are just some big ones.