What you said about the Greens views on the asylum seeker issue is very interesting and I would agree with much of it. As for preferencing against the Greens it may avert victories in some lower house seats though no in Melbourne (witness Adam Bandt) but the Greens target voter seems to be an expanding demographic and one that is sufficiently concentrated to enable their competitive egde in enough lower house seats, never mind the senate.

A few things you seem to have overlooked -

Greens policy IS far more consistent than the major parties. They are not developed by focus groups, media pressure or corporate influence. It is pretty clear you are not overly familiar with any details if you think they are 'populist' or feel the need to question their integrity or commitment to fundamental ideals then you research deeper than the tabloids.

Green policy is informed by the very best scientific, sociological and economic advice from experts at a local, national and global level.

Greens policies are about the future far, far beyond the next election cycle. If you look at the rise of such movements beyond our shores they might not seem so 'radical'. Greens are the progressive mainstream.

You suggest poor people don't vote Green. I'd like to check that out a bit more but if it were the case it would likely stem from being disenfranchised by the major parties who, let's face it, have exacerbated issues such as inequality, environmental damage, long discredited social engineering via archaic punishment and the dumbing down of politics during their regressive and debased performances, desperately clinging to power at all costs.

rant over