I watched it all, and unless Donald Trump takes out rocket man to divert attention away from the embarrassment of losing for the first time in his life, I'm over it.

The Electoral College is enough to do your head in anyway.

Imagine if a significant number of those 538 delegates flipped their vote next month to back Trump?

There's nothing to stop them.

Under Trump, America is always a bad week away from civil war.

Trump lost the election by a clear margin in terms of votes and electoral college votes, but he has a point about the capacity for rorts via a sloppy electoral system.

So far, he hasn't provided any proof.

We don't have these problems in Australia because the Australian Electoral Commission's talent for fair elections is near fullproof.

Unlike America where the president-elect is forced to wait almost two months before taking office, in Australia the PM-elect gets the mandate on the Saturday and gets to work on the Monday if the result is clear.

We're good at changing governments without Antifa or far right crazies in the US invoking the second amendment.

Also, our 2019 election cost $372.5 million to stage while taxpayers coughed up $69.6 million in public funding to parties, groups and independents.

So, the 2019 federal election worked out at $17.33 per head of population.

In the US, with the entire election privately funded by a handful of wealthy groups and individual donors, more than $11 billion has been spent on the November 3 election.

There's scope right there for rorted democracy in the US.

Still, I've got problems with public funding for parties and candidates.

Be damned if I am going to pay politicians to bombard me with election advertisements and pamphlets etc, once every three years.

In Australia candidates and groups qualify for public funding if they win four per cent of the vote.

They get paid at the rate of $2.75 for every vote won above the four per cent threshold.

So, last year the Liberal Party pocketed $27.6 million in public funding, Labor $24.7 million, Pauline Hanson's One Nation $2.8 million, various Greens parties more than $7 million, Jacqui Lambie $54,875 and Andrew Wilkie $93,045.

One of the reasons given for supporting public funding is that it enables candidates to concentrate on ideas and policies rather than having to waste time fundraising.

I've written this with a straight face.

It means that I can drum up a GoFundMe site and knock on a few doors, and make a profit.

Call it vote-keeper.

In Canada they have a system where if you win 10 per cent of the vote you get reimbursed 60 per cent of your expenses.

In the US, under a "Clean Election" system, candidates can qualify for public funding if they agree to forgo all fundraising or personal donations, but few candidates use it.

My version is simply to put a cap on electoral spending and that way a level playing field exists immediately. No more wealthy corporate or wealthy individual donors buying elections.

In 1984 the major parties hijacked our vote by enticing Senate voters to vote above the line rather than thinking about it and numbering every square below the line.

People voting above the line were in effect surrendering their vote to the party machine, which would then distribute preferences according to the party's how-to-vote card.

In 2016 this was modified so that you only needed to number 12 boxes below the line, which was a welcome relief given the increasing numbers of candidates, and you were given up to six choices when voting above the line.

Tasmanians embraced this and in 2016 rebelled against above-line voting more than any other state or territory.

Finally, it is ludicrous that the House of Representatives is stuck with a three-year term, which historically usually ends up a two-and-a-half-year term.

It should be four or five years, in order to give the government time to enact reforms without watching the clock.

After the first year of a three-year term a PM has to start thinking about the next election, and therefore policies are skewered to the truncated time table.

People argue that a four-year term would put the Senate out of kilter with the lower house and necessitate eight-year Senate terms.

Rubbish.

The UK, Spain, Norway and Belgium happily coexist with four-year terms for both chambers.

If a popular government makes a clean sweep of both houses, with all senators up for re-election on the same day, well and good.

Staggering Senate terms to guard against a winner-take-all election day is indeed meddling in the people's democracy.

When you stagger Senators' re-election into three- and six-year terms you are technically enabling Senators to vote for or against reforms that were mandated before they were elected.