While John Barrdear ticks of the ways that the Australian electoral system is better than the British one, Gary Sauer-Thompson notes that the first past the post system has led to malapportionment and warped representation;

Tories 36% of vote, 49% of the seats.
Labour 29%of vote, 42 % of the seats.
Lib Dem; 23% of vote, 9% of the seats

Australians are - quite rightly - proud of their sophisticated electoral and voting systems. However Australians tend to be quite oblivious to the steam powered constitutional systems that are in place. For instance several states including Western Australia, Tasmania and South Australia do not have explicit constitutions, rather they are a grab bag of legislation over the centuries.

Other than the national one, no state constitutions are entrenched in the modern post-enlightenment style. Some of NSW's constitution is, but only parts of it require popular approval. Most of it is legislatively open to change without going to referendum. There are upsides and downsides to both, but entrenchment does stop the worst excesses of executive abuse and popular voting away of universal political rights.

The irony of Australia's sophisticated voting systems is that probably the most innovative electoral system in Australia - Tasmania's - has led to the same situation as Britain's clunky old first past the post system. Tasmania is currently working out the political realities of a hung parliament.

More Reading on British politics

• British Politics
• Voting
• Malapportionment in the British Electoral System
• Liberal Democrats and Social Liberalism