I must say I'm quite appalled at those here who are advocating various shonky schemes to try and keep the Greens out of parliament, as if the millions of Australians who voted for them aren't entitled to democratic representation. This is the kind of device usually employed by far Right totalitarian parties, and I'm astonished to see Labor true believers and others who claim to be of the Left advocating such tawdry and unethical practices.

It appears that, not only have the two traditional 'majors' merged ideology such that they are almost indistinguishable in real terms, but they are focusing more attention on trying to destroy the Greens than on trying to find common ground for the sake of democracy and the country's future. It seems to me that many in Labor have become afflicted by the Tory 'born to rule' disease - if they keep up the current approach we could again go back to a 2-party system, except it will be the merged Tories and Greens rather than against Labor.

We should all resist being manipulated by ALP and LNP shills, who after all between them are responsible for any problems that Australia faces due to poor governance. The system should be made more democratic, not less so. A major step in that direction would be the creation of Multi-Member Electorates, the introduction of Proportional Representation and of Optional Preferential voting in all States.

Of course, such an outbreak of democracy in Australia would undoubtedly be fought tooth and nail by the 'born to rule' Laberals.

Graham says the Green voters are more affluent/educated and this gives them the buffer zone and insight to deal with long term issues such as climate change.It is alleged climate change via CO2 Graham,which is far from being proven.They are also educated into a particular way of thinking,motivated by what feeds them,just like the so called climate scientists at the IPCC.

Dear Morganzola,

The results of the last election showed the dissatisfaction of Australian voters with the two party system. The Greens are here to stay - and will wield a strong influence (along with Independents) -
especially if there is no change in the Liberal leadership. If Mr Abbott struggles to articulate nothing more than his usual slogans
and his breathtakingly threadbare policy platforms voters will again
see no reason to support him and his party. The fact that he wants to be PM is simply not a good enough excuse to vote for him.

As for Labor? The PM needs to convince doubting voters that her policy will work. That over the next 30 years, more and more countries will discover how to reduce global emissions. We're already lagging behind.
Many people imagine a wasteland if carbon is taxed. The truth is -
we will become a wasteland if it is not. Yes, the Greens are here to stay indeed!

The next double dissolution election will determine the future of the Greens.

And the sooner Abbott calls one the better.

What shonky schemes? WE as a Nation need to have a vote/plebiscite on whether to continue the War on Drugs. Simple as that, there are massive numbers of serving police & judicial officials around the world that are more than happy to stand up and say the war cannot and never will be won, we are merely p*ssing good money after bad while subjecting the entire population to the consequences of our action/inaction(s). Drug addiction is real, regardless of how much drugs are banned, and is not declining. In fact Police & Governments cite these statistics to show why we need to invest more and more money in the WOD. I'm very surprised that Greens wouldn't admit that.

The totalitarian outlook with regard to mining, fishing, hunting, etc. spouted by the Greens and the smug statements that they will be the next major player, grates with a LOT of people. The Greens have YET to achieve anything in Government (except for the Carbon Tax & the ALP is the one that will pay for that and will own it), they have come in with no policy, no demonstrable mandate to implement on behalf of the majority. The ALP has real achievements to point to, whereas the Greens do not.

One factor the Greens are going to have to consider, extremely carefully, is their own negativity to the policies of others. Yes, they may get appeased at present, but if the ALP loses several elections purely as a result of kowtowing to them (a real possibility), the chances of EVER getting offered part of Government again is slim indeed. On top of that, the Greens were a nuisance, an amusing annoyance, someone to give preferences to before the Liberals. I suspect that has just changed, without ALP preferences in the Senate (and lower house), standalone election prospects will drop alarmingly. That is before the Greens start to split along factional lines and the infighting begins.

@ Custard:

I wasn't talking about your idea, which if successful you think would split support for the Greens. It's a pity wou "weren't in the mood" for policy in your last post, because you know that the Greens already favour decriminalisation of recreational drugs, which many of their supporters (including me) would extend to legalisation with regulation.

Under preferential voting they'd undoubtedly end up with each other's preferences anyway, which is a good example of how preferential voting works to produce a result that most voters can live with. I'd certainly preference your party, and I imagine most Greens voters would too - because we have common interests at some level.

I disagree with your assessment of the Greens' ability to work with other parties. If you use the ALP as an example, Rudd absolutely refused to work with the Greens on the ETS or even discuss it with them, so it failed. In the case of the Carbon Tax, Labor under Gillard has learnt something from Rudd's hubris, and included the Greens in formulating the Carbon Tax legislation, which is set to pass. I'd call that measurable progress in working together, wouldn't you?