Richard, hopefully some of the Canberra Press gallery bother to read this sort of thing, it might save them having to ask a bunch of silly & predictable questions and get down to tin tacks when they interview Bob & co.

They might be interested to know for example if the Greens are going to attempt to do anything about the ticket voting system in Senate elections.

I am attempting to generate some momentum to effect change in this area and have recently asked Bob Brown if the Greens would include my suggested solution as part of their platform.

Go to www.myspace.com/savethesenate for details.

I would be interested in your views.

Ah, politics. dont yah just love it. There must be an election in the air.

Richard, both the Greens and the Democrats need to do more than just educate voters on the importance of gaining the balance of power in the Senate.

As progressive parties they need to provide and educate the voters with progressive policies that the voters can understand and will vote for.

Unfortunatly, with our compulsory voting system, the majority of voters are just a bunch of apathectic sheep. They have to vote so will vote for whoever their parents voted for. The old context of being a 'labor voter' or a 'liberal voter 'and voting for 'the brand' has become so intrenched, that both major parties just need to 'parachute in' a name and the sheep will vote for them.

When I see and hear someone who I beleive will represent me at any level of government, then I will vote for that person, not the brand. Unfortunatly there are not many people out there who I would want to represent me.

I do think that should either Bob Brown or Lyn Alison live in my electorate I would vote for them.

Because I believe they are really working for the people, and the future of our community and not just for economic rationalism

There is nothing 'progressive' about degeneracy.

Bob Brown supported the ACT being the centre of xxx rated pornography, when the issue came up some years ago now.. he opposed censorship of this ONE major source of mail order sleeze.

NOW WE SEE what this has led to.... abundant CHILD ABUSE in indigenous communities, and God knows how much child abuse in our non indigenous communities is being fuelled by Bob Browns opposition to clamping down on this.

To be fair.. Brown did not need to promote XXX pornography availabilty from the ACT for it to be available.. PHILIP RUDDOCK also feels that Adult Australians should be free to choose what they like to view..... and presumably that reflects the view of the Coalition ? or at least..those with the power.

BUT WAIT...there's more.. suddenly its not ok to send this garbage to Indigenous communities ? Is this 'racism' ? is this saying "Adult Aborigines are less capable of making good viewing choices than Non Indigenous Australians" ?

Would Mr RUDD be any more likely to stem the tide of filth from Canberra ? "Pole dancers, Drunk at strip club"....err.... unlikely.

So...who does that leave us ? Well.. Family First might be a goer, but to avoid being seen as a 'Fundamentalist/Christian controlled' party, I'd doubt they would take a firm stand on the Porn..but hey.. a PUBLIC STATEMENT from them could always prove me wrong. I'd sure welcome that.

"In the past both Bob Brown and Christine Milne, held balance of power in the Tasmanian state parliament under Labor and Liberal Governments respectively. "

Not true Richard - they were part of a government coalition (and claimed to be so) in the lower house - not a seperate party holding the government to account and keeping the upper chamber independent. And quite frankly both times it didn't work and government in Tasmania was tunred into a shambles.

"the Greens' record is that they be even more scrupulous than other parties in maintaining supply." and "If the Greens pick up enough seats at the next election then they will be unable to block a budget, or any other piece of legislation, without the support of one of the major parties."

So why not simply rule out ever blocking supply - why keep it as a weapon in reserve just in case

The Democrats were a product of their time but were bound to die out as they never stood for anything in the political spectrum whereas The Greens are part of an international political movement and way of thinking. I agree that the AD self-destructed over the GST but before that -- and I was working in Federal Parliament as a staffer from 1986 to 1992 - both Janine Haines and Cheryl Kernot showed their true colours by pouring vitriol over Senator Jo Vallentine, the first Green in Canberra. Other Dems like Norm Sanders and Janet Powell were happy to work with the Greens but the AD never shrugged off their origins from the 1970s especially in South Australia.

80% of Western democracies have coalitions and they make better decisions. Hopefully Tasmania will join the States with the Greens holding the balance after 2010 to stop the disaster that is Paul Lennon's oligarchy, as well as in Canberra after July 2008.

It is extremely unlikely that the Greens will end up with the balance of power in the Senate. The swing back to Labor should give it three quotas in every state, while the swing away from the coalition, which has 19 long-term senators not facing election, is unlikely to push it below three quotas in sufficient states to deprive it (or at worst it and Family First) of a blocking majority.

The quota for the Senate is c14.3 per cent. Two quotas need 28.6 per cent; three, 42.9 per cent; four, 57.2 per cent; five, 71.5 per cent; six, 85.8 per cent. The remaining 14.2 per cent may contribute to the election of no one. A major party does not have to get a full quota in its own right but can be pushed to one by the preferences of micro-parties.

If Labor believes that recommending Senate preferences to FF will get FF to recommend House preferences to it, it will be prepared to face the unlikely prospect of a stronger FF presence in the Senate. It will obviously take account of any Green reaction to such a decision as it would like to have Green preferences in the House as well. It has to determine whose preferences are of more use, which will involve a consideration of not only how many extra it will get if each group “directs” preferences, but also the resulting effects on the margins in the seats in which preferences are “directed”.

In summary, the Senate result is of almost no importance to Labor. It will act to maximise its House seats.

The best strategy for the Greens is to preference Labor in every House seat and wait for the almost inevitable double dissolution, when the 7.7 per cent quota will give them an excellent chance of winning the Senate balance of power in their own right.

You seem to have a fairly unambiguous understanding of our parliamentary process Chris C, you have my admiration. I know I am naïve when it comes to politics so I would like your thoughts.

I have always thought it a good idea that some ‘party’ other than the one who has the majority in the Lower House, have the balance of power in the Upper House – to keep the bastards honest is oft quoted. I think the outcome of any debate then becomes more ‘centrist’.

I know it can lead to problems like double dissolutions and “government sacking” re-visited, but is this not better than one party controlling both houses like we have now?

When a ‘far rightist’ party has control of both houses then it could lead to a fascist state, as too when a ‘far leftist’ party has control of both houses then it could lead to a communist state.

Then there are problems with sweet-heart deals and “power of one” mentality.

What is the answer?

I just love the term "Progressive Parties" it sounds so, well, progressive. It is a highly inaccurate description of what is basically a collection loony-lefies who, if allowed, would kill our industries and send us back to the stone age.

Apart from their commendable concern for the environment the Greens vote with Labor on almost every issue, primarily I suspect because they cannot stand the Liberals. Why would I vote for them when I can achieve the same effect by supporting Labor which, at least, has a chance of forming a Government?

The Democrats are, I think, a spent force and their demise started, not with the G.S.T. but with Natasha Stott Despoya's leadership. This country simply will not support the Socialist agenda she pursued. About the only useful thing the Democrats did in recent times was to allow John Howard to introduce the G.S.T. and do away with the confusing mess which was the Wholesale Sales Tax system. Anyone who had to deal with that would agree with me that compliance with the G.S.T is a walk in the park by comparison and far fairer. All we need now is for the State Governments (which party are they??) to stop being so greedy for revenue and abolish the raft of taxes the G.S.T.was designed to replace.

At present the Senate is a sham just being a rubber stamp for the Prime Minister. An example being when Senator Parry expressed great concern about how the Coalition moved on the Mersey hospital. Senator Parry rightly expressed the concern of a great number of his constituents. Senator Parry was stared down and revoked his views.

Senators are meant to represent their States interests; that was the view of our forefathers anyway. If the Senate is to be a proper House of Review we need Greens, Democrats and Independants who are not aligned to the major Parties to hold the balance of power. Otherwise the Senate might as well be revoked as current checks and balances are constantly being eroded.

Bugger the senate, and bugger the concept of 'balance of power'.

The hand wringing, the compromising, the nagging. The senate compromises a governments integrity. Better to get rid of it.

No senate would give us forthright leadership and sharper choices, and a whole lot less mealy-mouthed politicians.

No senate would force the Greens and others to develop realistic policies and to demount their high moral horses.

Anyone else for a unicameral parliament?

That whole ‘the greens taking back control of the Senate’ thing is something I have a problem with.

Putting aside the obvious fact that the greens have never had control of the Senate to take back, it seems to me that the whole issue is that we need an independent senate, not controlled by anyone.

My preference would be a bunch of independents and minor parties holding the balance of power and keeping the major parties and each other to account.

And I just remembered where I’d heard the third party insurance line Bob Brown is using before as well – Natasha Stott Despoja used it in the 2001 federal election campaign. How very practical of Richard to recycle the lines from one boss to the next.

A basic failure to understand this election could wrongly lead some to think the greens can improve their vote.
It is unlikely they will in fact hold it.
Rudd understands the electorate is in a conservative mood, and unlikely over night to think in any way like the greens.
Polarization is the name of the game, Democrats imploded some time ago and would not bring a crowd together with free beer on a hot Sunday at Bondi, their death is assured.
I saw the green vote in state seats that saw the party request voters not to direct preferences to Labor leak one in three back to the ALP.
This election remember is not one that will see an anti Labor vote from other than the outgoing conservative lie machine.

Interesting to see that Malcolm King's paper has had a sequel. Disappointing to note that, as with responses to Malcolm's, a fair chunk of responses here are mere reactionary windprattle.
As to Denness' article, I was glad that the ideological furphy pushed concerning funding from the CFMEU was sent packing for the reasons given. Our environment is part of our common wealth and heritage under assault from the greedy, who employ the media to blur the concept of "public asset". These fund THEIR side of politics to a degree undreamed of by unions or any other public advocacy group combined. Yet those who belly-ache about union fundraising seemingly miss the forest for the trees concerning the big businees political funding they strangely never notice.
It is a good moment to finally distinguish between the disruptive Tasmanian CFMEU forestry division and the CFMEU overall, of course. The traditions informing the latter include those provided by the late Jack Mundy, who led the Sydney BLF in its fight for public "commons", Green bans against inappropriate developments and creation of Green zones back in the 'seventies, before being put under seige by the later discredited Norm Gallagher.
Finally, the dichotomy that comes of stressing the Greens challenge the social paradigm itself whilst the Democrats merely attempt to ameliorate the occasional failure of a workable system. The writer can't beleive that a Democrat would not have developed a viewpoint without also contemplating and challenging underlying economic and conceptual base(s).
In the wider scheme of things the differences are accentuated mainly by antisocial, disgruntled elements as "wedge" by misanthropists. These stress that relative little that is divisive, at the expense of the substantial commmonalities.But surely both parties have enough people of enough intelligence to get beyond the old crude, oppositional and adversarial politics of right-left-as-mutually- exclusive. Let them go the way practitioners like Howard ought to go.
It's way too late for quibbling about the colour of the cup when the tea has gone cold.

Q&A,

I have been interested in politics for amore than 40 years. I agree with you that having a Senate (or a State legislative Council) which is controlled by neither major party is good for democracy. It protects our freedom in the same way as having independent courts and a federal system, under which the democratically elected states have certain powers safe from federal interference, does. It also protects as because it forces a government that wants to push through legislation to have to compromise with other points of view.

A lot of people simply do not understand the concept. They think that a major party, which may get 44 per cent of the vote in the House of Representatives, has the right to do anything it likes. The system is more effective when another 10 per cent have to be convinced. Of course, the balance of power applies only when the two major parties disagree, so it is never true to say that the minor party has disproportionate power. It can do nothing without the support of one of the majors. Nor can a minor party senator be elected without reaching a quota, which is 14.3 per cent of the population.

The double dissolution provision is there to ensure that a government which feels frustrated by the Senate can appeal directly to the people, an appeal which it may lose of course; e.g., the Liberals complained about the previous Senate’s rejection of their IR laws but never dared have a double dissolution on the issue. I think we would be better off to drop the DD option and put any laws that the two Houses cannot agree on to a referendum held at the same time as the normal election (which I would have every four years on a set date).

The answer is for people to use their vote wisely, and not complain afterwards that they didn’t know their Labor preferences were going to Family First when this fact was reported in the press well before the election and any one is free to vote below the line.

I do not think I am alone in asking a few questions, first I am anti greens.
I find them far more than a conservation party, in fact other party's serve that role in my view better.
It is the radical minority politics they follow that puts me in the I do not like the greens line.
We so very often hear the quaint view about representation, you know the one Liberal/Labor/ Nationals split more than 90% of the senate vote.
Greens expect to control the Senate or have balance of power same thing.
10% able to swing the dog? while I like the concept of a house of review we would be better of without the dead hand of any minority in control.
Family first included.
One vote one value one house one government why not?

Because that would give free rein to worst excesses of government.

You don't like the greens, fine, vote for someone else. Remember the only reason that minor parties and independents have any power is because the two major parties are in competition. When they vote together all the others can do is marvel at the hypocrosy

What choice do we have? The major parties have both been captured by corporate interests, leaving the People unrepresented in parliament. Sure the Greens are flawed; amateurish, poor and idealistic. But they are honest, as only people without vested financial interests can be. For the forseeable future, only the Greens offer an organised independent voice in parliament, and while you might not like every piece of their policy platform, they do offer people a voice where there is none.

The people here writing off the Greens either have their head in the sand, or an interest in seeing them off. The Greens lie across four emerging faultlines in the 21st century, which can only see them grow as people become more disillusioned with the Majors. The Greens obviously stand for sustainability, and have been beating this drum for eleven long years while everybody attacked them. Suddenly everyone is a convert, and this is only going to increase as the effects of global warming touch more people.

Labor have left their social justice roots behind, for focus groups and marketing departments. The Greens stand for all the people denied a seat at society's table, who are only going to increase as our oil-based economy collapses.

The Labor government will bend its knee before the US Empire, or follow Whitlam into retirement. Only the Greens stood up in parliament and told our Emperor that he had no clothes on when Bush addressed our parliament. Remember how weak they were when the Iraq war was being debated, I never will.

And most importantly, only the Greens support grassroots democracy, or power to the People. Labor have abandoned their base and have no interest is handing power back to its rightful owners. Whitlam was their last gasp, they are a cowered and power-hungry coven now, Quislings one and all.

Sustainability, Peace and Non-violence, Social Justice and Grassroots Democracy; inevitable forces in the 21st century. The Majors cannot embrace even one of these principles without loosing their favoured status with the Oligarchy. In our generation, it will be the Greens or Fascism.

Line up.

I agree with you, Earthrise, the Greens offer a choice. Let's hope that which ever Party gets elected that they only have a small majority, and so cannot afford to become as arrogant as the present Coalition Government has become. I believe for the Senate to operate we need small parties and Independants to hold the balance of power. Poor drafting of the "Work choice" and Anti Terrorists laws are examples of the need for a functional Senate, not the rubber stamp we have at present.

I will probably put the Greens at, or near, the top of my preferences, but I wish that organisation would have the moral fortitude to tell the Australian that the choice between Rudd on the one hand and Howard on the other, whatever can rightly critically be said of the former, is still an important one.

Give the AWB scandal, the Iraq War, "Work choices", and Howard's overall environmental vandalism that the choice should be a no-brainer. There is no reason why the Greens should not be able to call upon the Australian public to put the Liberals last whilst still maintaining their independence and a capacity to be critical of Labor on such questions as the logging of Tasmania's old-growth forests.

Had it occurred to the Greens that if they had clearly called for a vote for Labor on a two-party preferred basis back in 2004, that much the ongoing carnage against Tasmania's old-growth forests would have ended.

Instead, the Greens equivocated and waffled and, in the last days of the election campaign, Bob Brown even openly held out the possibility of their being an 'accord' between a re-elected Howard Government and the Greens were the latter to have ended up with the balance of power in the Senate. How Brown could have conceived of an accord with the man who lied in order to drag this country into the bloody war in Iraq is beyond me.

It's all very well to say that most Greens tend to preference Labor, anyway, but back in 2004 the electorate needed to hear a clear message that re-election of John Howard's Government represented a mortal threat to democracy, our environment, the workers and the poor of this country. That essential message which could have made all the difference, did not come from the Greens, nor, in fact, from anyone with any sufficiently high profile, and we are now living with the terrible consequences.

Let's not make the same mistake this time.

(tobecontinued)

The Greens can't win, can they. They are either oppositional blockers, pragmatic politicians, ideologues, looney or dangerous. I am seeing more and more attacks from Labor sources deriding the Greens for daring to work with a Liberal government, if such an animal could still exist. I have never seen the Greens preference the Liberals, though in a couple of winnable seats they have run a split ticket. How dare they advise Green voters to exercise their discretion! If the Greens are forced to play politics from time to time, that is the system they find themselves in. Negotiating between conflicting principles is the hardest thing about politics.

Why we are seeing these 'pro-liberal' attacks from Labor against the Greens is due to State politics. Labor is in every State government, with drastically diminished Liberal oppositions. In most States, the Greens also form part of the opposition. This makes for strange bedfellows, and there is a lot about the State Labor governments to oppose.

Now does anyone here think a Liberal-Green accord would last the first week? This alliance would be dead the moment the ink dried, and would be the trigger for a double-dissolution election. That the Greens would enter into such an arrangement in good faith is fairly naive, and born of desperation to achieve urgent policy results. I think these coalitions are ultimately bad for the Greens, as it was in West Germany. It forces them to compromise principle for pragmatic political outcomes, which alienates their voter base. Tricky, eh?

Labor has the most to lose from the Greens, which is why their attacks are increasing. The Greens the true opposition, and their existance exposes Labor's complicity in the Grand Coalition with the 'enemy'. When the Majors join together to thwart the Greens balance of power, the truth is out. But mostly, the Labor Left is weak and unstable, bleeding members into the Greens at an alarming rate. Voters too. The Greens pose an existential threat to Labor, hence these ridiculous 'Liberal-Greens Alliance' spin cycles.

Can't really see Labor lying awake at nights and worrying about the Greens emerging as a opposition that might knock them off in the current conservative environment.

This may not be the Greens best election. Labor rightly or wrongly is seen as having a s-xy, fresh feel about it. A friend who has just purchased her Kevin 07 teeshirt is talking about the feel of 1975. I've never felt the Greens had a s-xy, exciting, feel to them at all.

The locked in Green voters will be thinking that Labor ran true to form and didn't provide an alternative on Haneef (shades of Tampa) and won't stray, but the swingers may be attracted to Labor. Bob Brown of course will hold his seat, but it might come down to preferences for the Greens to hold Kerrie Nettle's seat.

The Democrats sadly will be limping along and struggling this time. They put themselves out of the picture with their support for the GST. Dillusionment with a Labor Government might make the election after this one the Greens best hope.

Whoops, that should have been 1973, not 1975 of course.

Roll on the election!

Red Fairy, when Gough Whitlam was elected it was "TIME", there was no doubt about that. I think during that era that the electorat still had some respect for politicians. The Labor Party now under Mr. Rudd looks more like an old style Liberal Party than a Labor one; he would have been described as a "wet" Liberal using old terminology. But better that than a bungling right wing Coalition; for example, it is a disgrace the way Mr. Andrews has abused his position.

The Democrats do not have the wherewithall to keep "the b_stards honest" this hopefully will be left to a combination of the Greens, Democrats and Independants to do after the next election. Never before has it been the case of needing to review legislation.

No doubt it will not be long before we see gutter politics from the Coalition declaring that the Greens are on the right hand side of Satan.

Red Fairy & Earthrise. Spare me. For one thing you're just reconfirming the Greens brand as a pack of fire stick twirling loonies.

So you don't like the GST. Then the first thing the Greens should do when they gain the balance of power is put forward a private members bill to remove it. Then watch inflation go through the roof. It's a broad based consumer tax. If you want to buy a new Mercedes Benz that's an extra $10K thank you. The Government pockets that and redistributes it (to a formula that no one can understand) so that fire twirling hippies in NSW and Victoria can collect their dole and still have the bus fare to go to the APEC demo and throw rocks and punches at the police.

Here's the bottom line. The Australian electorate is conservative. They like the Green's message but they're far from convinced they're the answer. Every punch or fracas at APEC is a massive vote against the Greens. Remember Hewson's demos? The Greens demos endorse violence writ large against people who were democratically elected. People like you and me.

Recently the Greens said they wanted to spend $80 billion to reduce carbon emissions. $80 billion. Australia's GDP is about one trillion. So the Greens want to spend 10 percent of our GDP on carbon emissions. We're about 17 million in the black and they now want to throw the whole nation in to the red by about $60 billion - which is about the figure that Howard left as a deficit for the Hawke-Keating Government back in 83.

The Greens are against commodities trading. There goes our iron ore, nickel and zinc industry. So if your social security payment doesn't arrive next year you'll know who to blame. The Greens. They're just as dogmatic as Family First - who they loath. And I thought the Democrats were the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Goodness me, I got some bites!

Firstly Cheryl, Not a liberal 'associate' are you? - just returning the favour and casting aspersions back here. I recognise the Liberal technique. First disparage. 'Fire stick twirling loonies', could be right out of the Abetz's book of smear. Though my daughter reckons fire stick whirlers are cool.

Then my next 'Social security payment'indicating I'm a parasite on society perhaps. Well maybe I am, in Liberal eyes, I'm not in the workforce, I'm a family carer. But my husband pays considerably more than the average wage in tax and manages to provide for his family as well and still donates to charity. If you are a Public servant or Liberal party employee, you can thank him.

Then cloud the issue. 'APEC Protests?' Violence? Then the placing that at the Greens door... Nice try... Really doesn't have a thing to do with the issue at hand.

Then thirdly 'Death and Destruction' should the Greens get in. 'Inflation' 'Deficit' - heavens if I knew that they had so much grunt, I'd join the party.

I don't like the GST. Nothing to do with you having to pay more on your Mercedes Benz, I do hope it's not impacting on you to much. The GST on your daily perm at the hairdressers could bite into your latte money as well.

It's the impact on my children's music lessons, sport etc. We can stretch to it, other families can't. It's not just a consumption tax, it's a life participation tax. I suppose the kids of the great unwashed working masses, don't really need extras though.

I spent the anti GST campaign hanging out with some of Harradine's crowd. They were distinctly unmagic like - it was a broad movement.

A lot of the other Democrat supporters and members didn't like the GST either. It was a bit of a blood bath post sellout

"No doubt it will not be long before we see gutter politics from the Coalition declaring that the Greens are on the right hand side of Satan".

Nicely predicted ANT - see Cheryl above!

Cheryl, if the Greens et al were to have the balance of power in the Senate; one of the major Parties will control the House of Representative at the same time. The major Parties support industry and mining, and so, will not allow legislation to be passed which is not in the interest of these enterprises. Cheryl, you are presenting a hypothetical situation that will not occur.

If your happy about the poor legislation that is being allowed to go through the Senate at present, I'm pleased for you. However, there is a significant number of people who wish the Senate to operate as a House of Review, rather than the rubber stamp it is presently being used as.

The Greens are not going to end up with the balance of power in the Senate.

The territory senators always split Labor 2, coalition 2. Combine these almost inevitable results with the long-term senators and we have coalition 21, Labor 16, Greens 2, Family First 1. For the Greens to win the balance of power, the coalition has to be cut to 36 senators; i.e., to winning only two quotas in each of three states.

Two quotas need 28.6 per cent; three, 42.9 per cent. If there is a state result of Labor 42, coalition 40, Greens 10, FF 5, others 3, Labor will have a 13.4 surplus and the Liberals, an 11.4 surplus. FF will definitely not favour the Greens over Labor or the coalition, and the last two seats will go one each to the coalition and Labor.

For the Greens to win, 1) they will have to get a quota in their own right or with the help of micro-parties, or 2) the Labor vote will have to drop so far that its surplus after two quotas is below the Greens vote and Labor will have to preference the Greens over whomever else is left in the race, or 3) the Labor vote will have to climb sufficiently above three quotas (42.9 per cent) for its surplus to transfer to a Green and the coalition fall short, even with preferences, of three quotas. Such a result is possible in Tasmania, but for the Greens to win the balance of power it would have to happen in three states.

I’d like to see those who think that the Greens have a chance of winning the balance of power to nominate the three states that they can win from the third coalition candidate and do the sums to show us how.

Chris C,

I think your third possibility is the closest to the truth you achieve, which is not very close. You obviously don't want to see the Greens win the balance of power, which has affected your judgement. But of course I do, so take what follows under advisement.

I think many people got a shock when they saw how ruthlessly Howard used his dictatorial power after taking control of both houses. Not everyone understood how the HoR/Senate dynamic works, they do now. I think there is going to be a backlash in the Senate, especially from the more astute voter who realises that if they want to repeal any of Howard's laws like Workchoices, Labor statistically cannot win the Senate. Unless the Greens, the Dems and any independents win the balance of power, Labor will suffer a hostile Senate, and Howard's legacy is assured.

The Libs are going to cop a pounding in the Senate, due to their unpopularity, and in revenge for assaulting us with their rubber stamp. I note the massive vote for Nick Xenaphon in the SA State election last year, he got almost three quotas himself; more votes than the Liberals in our Upper House. People are in the mood for change, and someone to really keep the bastards honest.

Polls show the Green vote in the Senate has been between ten and thirteen percent nationally regularly this year, they could get a quota in a few States. SA is a possibility, as is the West. Still a long way to go, but anyone saying impossible is only fooling themselves.

Dear Pedr Fardd,

It must be said that the Dems ain't dead yet. A recent Morgan poll put us at 5.5%, compared to the Greens at 6%. And it must also be said that the Greens have not ruled out blocking supply, like the Liberal Party blocked it back in 1975. The Dems have ruled that out. The Greens are great outside of Parliament, with their community activism.

But their uncompromising side makes it difficult for them to be a party that is truly "parliamentary"; in the original medieval sense of the word "Parliament"; a "parley", conference or negotiation. The Dems on the other hand work with whoever is in power, to make legislation fairer, particularly for the poor.

Earthrise,

I am quite capable of distinguishing between what I would like to happen and what I think will happen. What is obvious to you is not obvious to me.

If my choice is only between a coalition-controlled Senate and one in which the Greens have the balance of power in their own right, I would choose the latter. As a matter of general principle, I would prefer the balance of power to be shared by more than one party. However, in the particular circumstances of Labor’s rather weak IR policy, I would prefer the Greens to hold the balance of power alone because that would put pressure on Labor to strengthen its IR policy, something a balance of power held by Family First would not do.

What I would prefer or nor prefer does not affect my judgement about what I think will happen. The Greens will not win the balance of power in this election because the coalition has the advantage of numbers in long-term senators, and even though, as you say, it will be punished by the voters for its misuse of Senate power, its vote will not drop far enough for the Greens to win the necessary number of seats to gain the balance of power in their own right. The correct strategy for the Greens is to preference Labor in every House of Representatives seat as a necessary step in bringing about a double dissolution, which will give them an excellent chance of winning the balance of power in their own right.

I never make assumptions about fellow posters in my comments.

Chris C,

I cannot make assumptions about you that you did not put in your post, I don't know you at all. But I can judge what you wrote, and I stand by my judgement. There is no way you can say with any degree of certainty that the Greens 'will not' win the balance of power, this is what I used in making the call that your judgement is flawed and subjective. I am not saying they will, here is the difference. I agree that it will be difficult, but considering the factors I stated (Liberal backlash, not wanting to give Labor too much power, Climate Change), I think there is a fair chance. The Libs have long-term Senators, but they are also loosing half of them to re-election. If the backlash is that great, this number could be slashed. Labor will pick up a bag, the Dems will be lucky to get one now Natasha S-D isn't running, and I think Family First have flattened out.

I agree that the Greens should do a lower house/Senate swap, and the Labor hacks I have spoken to agree. But you see if the Libs retain the Senate, Labor has someone to blame when the country still goes down the toilet. With Labor in every State and in Canberra, 2010 could be a disaster for Labor, and very good for the Greens. Labor may not want to have the Greens playing a constructive role in the balance of power, and them taking all the blame for the mess we are going to be in.

Tricky election, which is why you should never say never.

Hey Chris,

Just reading the Australian today, and came across an article about Union displeasure with the new Labor IR policy. Union bosses are considering advising their members to vote Green in the Senate, due to their more traditionally Labour IR policy. Even if half of Union members vote Green in the Senate, this could be over a million votes.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22331384-601,00.html

How's your prediction looking?

Earthrise,

Thanks for the article reference. My prediction is still looking pretty good. Not many unions will back the Greens over Labor, and not many unionists would take their advice if they did.

However, for the purpose of the argument, I will accept that the Greens vote does rise dramatically. It makes no difference to the Senate balance of power. To win it, the Greens have to take seats from the coalition, not seats from Labor, which is where the seats would come from if unionists switched their votes from Labor to the Greens.

For the Greens to win the balance of power, the results in three states have to be Labor 3, coalition 2, Greens 1. A result of Labor 2, coalition 3, Greens 1 would leave the coalition in control of the Senate.

Never say ‘never’ (except in the command, “Never say ‘never’”), but I am confident in my prediction. We will find out soon enough.

There are more people watching the dialog here than you would imagine - it is very illuminating. Please continue as both sides of the 'debate' have opinions to be considered and will formulate outcomes of future decisions.
Thanks to you all.

Okay Q&A, just a thought. Isn't the Greens snuggling up to the radical Unionists a bit risky?

Might alienate the traditional Greens voters - the conservationists and doctors wives.

Maybe though Labor, if it does win the election with a Green contolled Senate would welcome the chance to push through a more radical agenda, while blaming the necessity of that on the Greens.

Some elements in Labor might get what they want, and the Greens would get all the bad press - or good press if it works out.

The Greens would definitely be a better option for Labor than a coalition controlled Senate.

Lets look at the figures, from a lay perspective anyway. I don't think the Libs will get three quotas in any State, though they may squeak through in a couple of States with National and Family First preferences. I'll assume Labor is going to do a straight swap with the Greens, Lower for Upper. I'll assume the Democrats will not rebound. And I'll assume Family First has stabilised between one and five percent nationally.

NSW (Libs 2, Labor 2, Greens 1, Nats 1) If the Nats don't get this spot, it should go to the Libs.

VIC (Libs 2, Labor 2, Undecided 2) Last two on close preferences, I'll call Labor 1, Green 1.

SA (Libs 2, Labor 2, Undecided 2) Last two on close preferences, I'll call Greens and Libs with FF preferences.

TAS (Libs 2, Labor 2, Greens 1, Undecided 1) Last spot decided on preference, could go to either Major, in my model I'll give it to Labor.

QLD (Libs 2, Labor 2, Nats 1 Dems 1)

WA (Libs 3, Labor 2, Greens 1)

ACT (Libs 1, Labor 1)

NT (Libs 1, Labor 1)

If this were the outcome, we would have 16 new Liberals, 16 Labor, 5 Greens, 2 Nats and 1 Dem. Added to the sitting Senators, we’d have: 33 Liberals, 30 Labor, 7 Greens, 4 Nats, 1 Dem and 1 FF. On most issues, they should line up like this:

Conservative: 38
Labor: 30
Progressive 8

In this model, we would have a hung Senate, which I believe can pass government bills. This would not only put the Greens in the balance of power, but the one Democrat. And as the Democrats have shown their vote is up for grabs, who knows what they'll do. I can't see the Greens or the Democrats winning any more seats than my model, though they could both win less. The only real variable is how many Labor and Liberal Senators get elected after preferences.

Of course these figures will be shot down as soon as I post them, but they should generate some interesting debate.

Gang, now that we're talking numbers, does anyone have a view about the senate preferencing system? Seems to me that the ticket voting system will enable anyone with the right negotiation skills (or incriminating photos) to bypass electoral scrutiny so maybe your assumptions need to take account of something other than electoral popularity.

Earthrise,

An equal vote in the Senate means the proposal is defeated. (The presiding officer does not have a casting vote.) In any case, I do not understand your determining of 38 conservative senators. I guess you have added the Democrats to the coalition. I know they are a centre-right party and that they did vote for the Howard Government’s first set of IR laws, but I would not call them conservative.

On your predicted results, the Greens, Family First and even the Democrats would join with Labor to roll back WorknotcalledChoicesanymore, though neither the Democrats nor Family First can be guaranteed to go as far as Labor wants.

In any case, I do not agree with your predictions. I think the more likely result will be 3 coalition and 3 Labor in each of five states and three Labor, 2 Liberal and Bob Brown in Tasmania. We will know soon enough.

Tebbutt,

The reason for ticket voting is to reduce the informal vote, which has been high in elections in which significant numbers of people have been unable to count up to 40 or 50 or 60.

I have never voted above the line and therefore am not affected by ticket voting. That more than 90 per cent of people do is their choice. My only objection is to all those who complain afterwards about the perfectly democratic result that is produced, particularly those who complain that they did not know the preference deal even though it had been widely reported in the press beforehand.

Chris C,

I added 33 Liberal Senators, four Nats and one Family First on the conservative side. I put the Dems on the progressive side, which is a stretch I know. You again expose your bias by saying the Greens will only win one seat, which would mean a loss of one back to three. This is below the worst case scenerio, my honest prediction is both returned, with one other from WA or SA. Five in total is fairly safe. I'm not sure what information you have, but it is certainly anti-Green. Or you live in another world.

Chris C.

You cannot honestly believe that the vast majority of the 95%+ who vote above the line have a clue about where their preferences go. The ticket voting system is a labyrinth of deals and counter deals, the outcomes determined more by algorhythms than informed voting decisions - what I would have thought was the bare minimum requirement to call an electionm democratic.

9% informal is better (to me) than 95% uninformed.

Earthrise,

In October, Newspoll produces a state-by-state summary of opinion poll results. I hope we have an opportunity to discuss the likely Senate results based on the figures then available – even though the election may be upon us.

Tebbutt,

I certainly do not believe that the majority of those who vote above the line know to which other parties their preferences go. What I said was that if they paid attention to the press, they would know and that they ought not to complain afterwards if they didn’t pay attention..

I, too, prefer, the old system under which voters have to number every candidate, but I would not call the current system undemocratic.

Chris C, I hope you do "have an opportunity to discuss the likely Senate results based on the figures then available" - not just before the election, but after as well.

Thanks for your analysis guys.

Well, Chis C, you and I obviously have a different notion of what is democratic and what isn't. Forcing people to vote. Is that democratic? Then skewing the way they vote by making it extremely easy to vote above the line but a pain in the arse to vote below it. Is that democratic? Reading newspapers and listening to the TV or radio will not alert anyone to the myriad deals that drive preference distribution in Senate ballots (each Party gets up to 3 bites at the cherry) and you (no doubt) know it. It is quite simply an appallingly shabby way to treat voters, the ultimate dumbing down of an electorate's one opportunity to express itself. And don't even bother to ask AEC staff at the polling station to actually show you the list of preference deals - unless you enjoy blank stares.

I don't like the Senate ticket either,

It gives more power to the Parties than needs be, they have already subverted our democracy. We should have preferential voting above the line, so we can choose our own preferences. At least the Senate has proportional representation, if we have to vote for a Party, at least give us some choice!

I have always voted below the line, a bit of election day fun about where to put Family First in comparison to HEMP. But I stopped last time, as I didn't want to risk doing an informal. I know this disenfranchises independents, but this goes to my vision of how our system should be. I would prefer our Lower House to be all Independents, really representing their electorates. Then quarantine the Parties to the Upper House. Introduce two-way legislation (both houses can draft bills), as in some of our State parliaments. One House represents the People, the other the entrenched powers. The Government is crafted from a joint sitting, and we could even have non-partisan Ministries by the best people for the job.

Oh well, time to wake up now.