The checks and balances in our system are there to protect us from dictatorial government and are particularly needed now that the executive no longer answers to the elected Lower House MPs but tells them what to do. The Senate is more representative of the way people vote than is the House of Representatives. That is because the Senate is elected by PR. In fact, no governing party has had a majority of votes in its own right in the last 50 years. The same applies to state Upper Houses. No one senator can pass or defeat any bill. A majority of senators is required to pass one.

The fact that some senators got very small initial votes is irrelevant as no senator can be elected until he or she reaches a quota of 14.3 per cent of the vote. It does not matter if that senator is Steve Fielding with initial 2519 votes, Stephen Conroy with 780, Julian McGauran with 1190 or Judith Troeth with 829.

Chris C,
The problem of the senate remains while voters are encouraged to just place "1" above the line; as those that vote below the line allow unrepresented persons to get in. Recently in NSW I worked for an excellent Candidate for the upper house who received 30,000 plus votes yet because his supporters just placed "1" above the line, those with far fewer votes from people voting for other parties voted below the line therefore less capable persons were elected on second etc preferences.

What we need is fewer parties and compulsory completion of all boxes. The senate represents the political state of the nation, the house of Reps represents a local area. The House of reps better represents a large geographal area like country areas. The Senate is more influenced by large populated areas.

Philo you've got that exactly back to front.

I should be able to vote as I want to. I should be able to exhaust my below the line vote after 3 or 30 crosses, as I choose. I should not have to vote for 10, if I can not find 10 worth voting for. There should be no compulsion to vote for someone I definitely don't want in parliament, any where on the ballot.

King I can see your idea, but I doubt it could work. To start with even as an interested voter, I find it very hard to gain enough information to chose the best candidate in a local council election. I very much doubt I could find it to chose a treasurer.

Secondly, the 50% or more who aren't interested would be unlikely to chose wisely, they can't even do that with a whole government.

I always smile when Keating's "unrepresentative swill" comment is quoted. What I have never been able to find out, is what his term for the House of Representatives would be. Would they be the "representative swill"?

Folks, you all can relax, as a momentary reading of the Federal Constitution will show, you would not just need the referendum abolishing the Senate to be approved by four States, you would need them all! This just won't happen.

How could I want to abolish the Senate, when I remember the wonderful day when they deferred Whitlam's budget, and the Governor-General became displeased? I am a great enthusiast for States Rights, with different laws in each State, and people racing for the Queensland border, followed by the NSW police, who would have no jurisdiction over the border. When laws differ between states, there can be no extradition.

The author should note how many times people vote for one party in the House, and another in the Senate. This is because many feel that basically, the Government (of whichever party it may be composed) is the enemy of the people, and any way of making their life more difficult is to be encouraged.

It might be more beneficial if the author could devote himself to more pressing issues, such as how we can cut politicians salary and allowances.

Hasbeen,
Until you have exhausted your vote others do who support the swill, that is how unrepresantive swill get in above your preferences.

Hasbeen- good point;
But there are many potential answers that actually connected to the voting above/below the line- such as;
-voting on a party basis for the candidates above the line (eg, I could simply assume candidates of a party will follow party policy, and lean towards putting Labor in an industrial ministry, greens in environment etc- it has the distinct benefit that parties only get into the specific jobs that they are popular in, without getting a say in others (except when their ministry has authority).
-That and of course we could simply make it optional to vote for each minister.

What you have also highlighted is that we have absolutely no system of browsing policies of candidates except a google search assuming the candidate has a website with their policies spelled out. With or without any other changes to the system, I think there should still be installed a 'candidate and party database'- every applicant that manages to get accepted as a candidate for election must create a page on the government voting website (which includes searches for keywords, and charts to compare policies to).