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.