'but when someone doesn’t know who he voted for because he didn’t bother to look it up'. Are you referring to the Liberal Democrats, in which case I'd have to agree, or are you suggesting that it is possible to understand the implications of voting above the line? I looked up the party cards on line, and was really none the wiser, because the working of the preference system is so obscure. Were the preference deals of the major parties responsible for the election of the micro candidates, or was it just down to the deals brokered by the so-called preference whisperer? I think we need to be able to understand how we arrived at the outcome of any election, and Senators need to represent a reasonable proportion of the electorate. Five percent primary support is too high a requirement and would unfairly benefit the major parties - but surely one or two percent is not too much to ask.

While I would prefer to change the Senate voting system, this article is a welcome reminder of how far our system departs from democratic principle. We strive all the time for incremental improvements in business, sport etc, but fail to take the same approach to our most important institutions.

It is obvious that a party which wins more lower house votes should have more lower house seats. When this does not occur, the principle of one vote one value is negated.

If we do not align our electoral systems more closely with democratic principle, people will ultimately seek the changes they want outside that system.

If we are going to have electoral reform, why don't we have REAL reform.

This could include:

1. An additional candidate at every election called "Vacant". Voters could vote for or give preferences to "Vacant" in the same way as any other candidate. If "Vacant were to win, the seat would not be filled.

2. Registered Voters. Electors rusted on to any party could, if they wished, register to vote for that party, and then they would not need to turn up at a booth. Such electors could change their status at any time up to the close of the poll. The list of registered voters would be public, and it would be an offence to bother registered voters with election material.

3. Compulsory voting, which is a joke, should be abandoned, and the only compulsory thing would be to turn up at the booth. When their name has been ticked off, they should then be asked if they wish to vote.

4. Public funding of political parties, as well as payment of more than a token amount to politicians, should be terminated. The ability of wealthy individuals to influence elections could be prevented by providing that the only money politicians could spend on getting elected would be that raised by putting their daughters on the streets.

Well, the now extremely dysfunctional system, as inherited, once worked quite well for the major parties. When there were just three parties contesting the election, and conservative parties used the system to greater advantage. When two so called conservative parties could exchange preferences and win the seat, regardless of a quite dismal primary vote!
The greens regularly out-poll the nationals, yet to date, have only won one single lower house seat! Is that a Gerrymander or what?
This unusual result, even though the nationals have for years, virtually rolled over and begged for a tummy rub as the co-ops, their dependent country towns and their own power base in the bush, was progressively dismantled. [When I was a boy, you could still earn a no frills living wage, running a dairy farm!] There are none so blind-
And yes, parties ought to win a minimum of one or two percent of the vote, to be in the running to win a senate quota!
Quite massive dissatisfaction with the performance and lurch further and further to the right, direction of the major parties, can only ever spawn more parties and more preference exchanges, with parties like the double dealing disingenuous greens preferencing on both sides of the political divide, simply to maximize power! Little wonder they're not liked in the bush!
We do need electoral reform and a vastly better system than the can of worms we've inherited. Which can only continue to effectively usurp the will of the people; and or, threaten to paralyze future parliaments; or, turn up more and more one term administrations!?
The way to ensure this country never ever becomes ungovernable, is to chuck out the current quite massively manipulated and therefore undemocratic system, in favour of proportional representation for all houses along with optional preferencing!
Meaning we will be able to rid ourselves of the above the line voting, that effectively takes our preferences away from us, due to the numbers competing and increasing complexity/complex opaque arrangements!
Rhrosty.

Ever heard of Tasmania Rhrosty?

If not have a little look at Italy or France to see what happens when you let all the ratbags out of the asylums, & into parliament.

I reckon 5% should be the minimum personal vote to go into the secondary distribution rounds. It would be interesting to see how many of the major parties second & third candidates got into the distribution. Votes should only be redistributed 4 times, then expire.

Voting above the line would become impossible, & would eliminate a heap of union, & other deadheads. Hell with a bit of luck, some states may only achieve 3 or 4 candidates eligible for election. Talk about win win.

Meanwhile senate numbers should be reduced to 6 per state, in an attempt to reduce the procession of total idiots Tasmania has managed to trail through Canberra. This elections rabble is certainly no worse than the apple isle has saddled us with in the recent past.

What if not enough candidates got over the 5% threshold? I suppose we could just leave those positions vacant for three years 'due to lack of voter support'! That would make them campaign hard. I like the idea of limiting the number of times a vote can be redistributed. I just hope that if TA is considering a double dissolution over the carbon tax, he puts through reform of the Senate electoral process beforehand.

Yeah Hasbeen and your points are well made.
Clearly the green movement have done there what they've achieved everywhere else they've had any influence, the worst possible economic outcomes, and only boot-licking jobs on the improve?
But as bad as that is, it pales into insignificance in comparison to the Tea party and the inmates running the asylum outcomes over there.
If they wanted to run a balanced budget and live within their means, they should simply dump their trillion dollar or thereabouts, farm bill! That much on its own would do it! And they'd create a significant surplus by simply equalizing personal tax on the percentile? Someone earning just 70 thou per, shouldn't be paying much more of his/her total income than a Warren Buffet!
Few if any of our farmers would complain, if a dumped farm bill then leveled out the playing field for our own primary product exporters?
I believe optional preferencing would eliminate most of those who can't get 5% now, as the preferences could exhaust at number three, two or just one, at the voter's choice!
That's what real optional preferencing looks like?
Combine that with proportional representation, and please not the flawed Hare Clarke system, that has stuffed Tassie? Just as many quotas as there are seats, and the options distributed on face value, not some hare brained system, that only ever defies the voters' intentions.
Those at the margins need to learn how to cooperate, in order to achieve outcomes and representation!
Other than that, there is only one vote one value and first past the post?
While many would agree with a 5% minimum vote to gain a quota, we may need to cap at say 2% minimum, in order to transfer or distribute any or all available preferences?
Gerrymanders ought not be possible, nor the party with less of the popular vote, winning the ballot, from compulsory second or third preferences.
Or someone with just 15% of the primary votes taking the seat.
A citizens/electorate' first round vote, might eliminate that?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

" I looked up the party cards on line, and was really none the wiser, because the working of the preference system is so obscure."
Candide,
I'm not really with you here. What's the problem. If you are writing a thesis on the political arrangements of the 2013 election, then yes you have your work cut out for you, but for the average voter, what's the hassle. If you traditionally vote Labor but are not sure where your surplus vote will be going then you can easily look it up at the polling booth or before hand on the web. Most voters simply trust their traditional party and tick above the line, because however the party preferences, it is doing so to maximize its chances.
For someone, perhaps like you, who may be suspicious of many parties, then you simply spend an extra 5 minutes of your life every three years and take the trouble to vote below the line.

Edward, my problem is that knowing the card (or voting below the line) still leaves you in the dark. It tells you nothing about the likely outcome of your vote. I'm sure most people had no idea they were contributing to the election of a micro party candidate.

Who complained about these minor parties? Never Heard TA, only commentators moaning. The fact is the greens have been on this particular bandwagon for years and now it's wrong? Labour in local elections routinely run a load of candidates just to preference the chosen one and get the seat. It has served the green and labour loonies well but now it has come back to bite them on the proverbial.

Electoral system reform is long overdue in Australia but doesn't happen because the existing system favours the major parties while the party that has proportional representation in its platform, the Greens, is not actively campaigning for it.

Of course proportional representation is the answer, as is used in many Western countries, but not the variety used in Australia: Hare-Clarke. While Hare-Clarke can be an improvement if compulsory preferential voting is done away with, the Hare-Clarke system as used in the Senate has been corrupted to the full, not just in this election but in several previous ones. Hare-Clarke has its origin in early 19th century Britain, prior to the emergence of mass parties following the extension of the franchise. It is suitable for small assemblies and election of individual officials from a small group of candidates. The best form of PR is Open Party List System which requires the voter to insert one mark only to indicate a party preference AND the particular preferred candidate on that party's list, widely used in the world. It is democratic, flexible, straightforward, cannot be corrupted, inexpensive and fast in counting. Another form is the two-vote party list PR system, e.g. used in Germany and NZ, which aims to provide a measure of local area representation (in different ways though). This could be used in Australia if people felt strongly about, say, state representation: One vote nationally for the party and one vote for the party in a particular state.
Klaas Woldring