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.