I refer, of course, to the report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters tabled on April 15 and titled "The 2013 Federal Election: Report on the conduct of the 2013 election and matters related thereto".

In his third last paragraph, Warhurst asks: "Why stop at the Senate? The argument for optional preferential voting applies just as much to the House of Representatives." He gave his answer in the previous paragraph: "Electoral reform should also apply not just to the Senate but also to the House of Representatives."

Actually there are very good reasons why the politicians did not study the electoral system for the House of Representatives while they did study that for the Senate. The present House of Representatives system was enacted in 1918 and first applied at a by-election in December that year. December 1919 saw its first use at a general election. It has been essentially the same ever since.

So, why should the politicians need to examine a system which has applied for a hundred years in a perfectly satisfactory manner?

It is difficult to argue that the system is unfair and very easy to demonstrate its fairness. Unfortunately I lack the space here to do that.

During the same period of a continuously satisfactory lower house system we have had four Senate systems. Next year, we shall have the fifth Senate system since 1919. I predict it will apply in 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025. I predict in 2028 we shall have a sixth.

My description of these systems is as follows:

My hope – and expectation – is that from 2016 to 2025 we shall have the third STV system while from 2028 onwards we shall have the fourth STV system.

I fear – but not very greatly – that from 2016 we shall have the party-list system. That is what the politicians of the JSCEM clearly want but I am confident they will not get it.

This report properly belongs in the rubbish bin. Yet it does contain one sensible recommendation: optional preferential voting below the line. That would give the elector a right he/she presently lacks, namely to have a reasonable option to vote for candidates.

In a state the elector would cast a formal vote below the line by the mere numbering of candidates 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, there being six senators elected for a state at a half-Senate election. The elector could number more, if so wanted. (We in the ACT would need to number only 1 and 2, since we are electing two senators).

At the 2013 election the elector in NSW wishing to vote below the line was told to number squares from 1 to 110, otherwise the vote would be informal. In Victoria it was 1 to 97. That is an unreasonable burden to place on the voter.

For reasons which can be explained historically in 1984 three contrivances were imported into the Senate electoral system. These still operate today. They are the ballot line, the party boxes above the ballot line and the group voting tickets. (For those who do not know psephological terminology the ballot line is the correct term for that thick black line which runs through the Senate paper.)

When the politicians on the JSCEM met they acknowledged that they were there to represent the interests of three party machines, and only three party machines, those of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and the Greens.

When they considered these three contrivances they agreed that the ballot line is convenient to them. So too are the party boxes above the ballot line. So they recommended that those two contrivances be kept.

They then considered the group voting tickets. Upon acknowledging their inconvenience these representatives not only recommended they be scrapped they even went so far as to wage propaganda war against that inconvenient contrivance.

The arguments they use are quite dishonest but they seem to think they can implement their majority in both houses to bring about the party list system I fear.

However, I do not think ordinary Australians are so gullible as to fall for the cynical fix these party politicians want.

All I ever need to do is explain why only three parties were on that committee. The Liberal Party heavied the Nationals out because the Nationals cannot agree to this cherry-picking between the contrivances which the Liberal Party seems to want.

Neither Clive Palmer nor John Madigan was on the committee. Also the committee decided to rush the inquiry so that none of the new senators could be eligible to be on a committee which was due to report in May 2014 – before the new Senate terms began.

My confidence in the outcome derives from my belief that in the long run common sense always prevails. The third STV system for the Senate will be, in principle, the present system for the Victorian Legislative Council, namely continuing with the three contrivances while giving voters a decent option to vote below the line.

As a consequence of the moderately successful operation of the third STV system at the 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025 elections all manner of people will come to understand that, once the elector is given a decent option to vote below the line, there no longer exists any argument to continue with any of the three contrivances.

Consequently, I confidently predict that in 2026 all three contrivances will be eliminated. Thereafter the Senate system will be like Hare-Clark, save only that it will not have Robson rotation and "how-to-vote" cards will continue.

The fourth STV system will be a good celebration of the centenary of Canberra as Australia's capital – and it will be permanent.

When that happens people will wonder just why it took so long for common sense to prevail. I can explain it – but I lack the space to do it here.

Malcolm Mackerras is a visiting fellow at the Australian Catholic University's Canberra campus. malcolm.mackerras@acu.edu.au