I don't find it a great thing when races are against someone. I think when I did best in regional senate races was because I was the lone alternative to a candidate/ a party. When it was a three person race I would get only a couple of votes and the main challenger was someone from a party.
So when it is said I did good in a regional race to show it doesn't harm small parties or independents, it was probably because nobody else ran (popular incumbent or others felt they didn't have much chance of winning). When a party ran someone I suddenly had very little support. I think small parties will be at the mercy of big parties in districts. They will have to make a deal with other parties so they don't run a candidate and support the small party or something because if the big parties ran candidates in a district the small registration party is probably doomed to survive the first round. It could lead to deals between parties about candidates and support but that goes against the theory that many candidates would run in districts. It could lead to a two person for and against candidate/party race.
They are exciting because often there is a seat at stake until the last votes, unlike regional seats that have not even been contested or not very close. There is rarely suspense until the end. I have enjoyed at-large elections, finds them exciting and remembers them, like one in which some tried to stop the Liberal party from gaining two seats or the one some worked to stop Labor from gaining two.
I've agonized far more on filling a ballot for at-large races than voting for regional, so eliminating at-large would remove me stress and feeling terrible.
