Klaas, I agree that the Senate should be THE place to build a truly representative democratic system from but your comment:

"Voters could make use of their precious right to vote in Senate candidates who are NOT members of the major political parties. Indeed I would go as far as to say that it would be sensible not to vote for any major party Senate candidates. The proportional representation of the Senate certainly does provide that opportunity."

is unfortunately not in step with reality.

Only through "deal making" with large political patrons can smaller parties expect to make much ground in Senate elections.

And the Group Ticket and compulsory preferential voting system makes it impossible for voters to actually "express their view" on the day.

I advocate ending compulsion to number every box under the line and restriction of ticket voting such that your above the line vote only allocates preferences to candidates of your chosen party.

In this way the balance between above and below the line will be achieved, removing the natural inclination of 96% of voters to "outsource" (knowingly or not) their precious vote.

A website that might interest anyone trying to convince politicians of the need to make the Senate electoral system simpler (and I'd argue, finally in compliance with section 7 of the Constitution) is:

www.myspace.com/savethesenate

Like getting that first breath sans stale VB leaving the pub on 3am Melbourne Cup night, this election will likely bring a refreshing change.

However, let's be wary of too much of a good thing.

Ol 'brows did his worst work (the war, Hicks, the pacific solution, and appointing his bluebloods to the RBA, High Court, ABC, as Governors-General, and so on, people we might have around for up to two decades) when he had the both-house majority. Even then he had to get convince the states for some things, for example, the national security legislation.

Australia is at risk of becoming a one-party nation. All houses in all states, plus the NT, plus the House of Reps, plus the Senate might, for the first time, belong to Labor. In my view, this is a situation a federal democracy was designed to avoid. A one-party Australia is potentially more dangerous than returning a tired, tarnished, out of touch and out of ideas government that is at least the devil we know.

How do we avoid this?

We still have the possibility of a more independent senate, at least.

History suggests that a Labor controlled Lower House and a Liberal controlled Senate is not the greatest idea for stable government.

Harradine proved he gained power far in disproportion to his mandate by using his balance of power to blackmail the government, creating some ignorant abominations of legislation, such as the most stringent and easily avoided internet censorship regime in the world.

The best solution might be a Green/Democrat/Xenophon etc balance of power. To vote for this outcome in NSW, without pandering to the small party preference-swap gerrymander, I have to number 79 boxes.

So be it.

A very stimulating article.

Recognising the genesis of the Senate as a States house, it is now time to reconfigure the Senate as an Australian Upper House.

I am loathe to vote for senators who pander to parochial state issues. Brian Harradine's blackmail of the House of Representatives is enough to illustrate the folly of this.

What we need is a Senate elected by the Commonwealth, not by the states. The idea of 60-70 blokes and blokesses up there who do not represent major parties, who do not push parochial interests, who view themselves as Commonwealth statespersons is highly appealing to me. I leave the problem of how to engineer such a change to those more sophisticated in constitutional and political matters than I.

The only way our political system can be improved is by referendum. The key point in the referendum would be to provide that all future referendums, including this referendum, would be regarded as being approved by the people if a majority voted "no".

The only problem is that I can't work out which way I would vote.

the Senate is most definately and Constitutionally the House of Review. The imbalance inthe Senate in recent times has shown what certain ideolgies can do with such power. It came back to bite them didn't it? We have a new PM, Labor accross the board, the people have had enoughof being hoodwinked. And they have spoken. And they have, we have, haven't we? The results in the Senate shall determine the best outcome for Australia, through this imbalance and sometimes unAustralian policy pushed through, has done one good thing.
It has taught the Australian citizenry what the Senat is, how it affects the outcomes of legislation and how it can be abused. Itis really our house, the ppeoples house i think, because that is where we are put on the chopping block or saved from execution. The Senate will have the right power this time, it will be interesting to see the final set up, who sahll weild this power and how ill they use it? WIll they throw it away like we've lived htese past years or will they truelly use it for the good of the people, the Nation?

These are good times ahead tough, you can smell it almost.
Go-mum's gotta go!

Did it occur to any of you guys that the gov't is elected because that is what the majority of people across Australia wanted?

The checks and balances of the senate are important but they DO NOT have the mandate of the people. That lies with the elected gov't of the day.The senate is essentially a non-democratic body since the number of voters in a particular state is irrelevant.

All those who disliked Howards policys would do well to remember that most were, at one stage, supported by the majority. Attempts to subvert the gov'ts agenda merely because you don't like the policys is undemocratic in the extreme.

In this country, as in any democracy, minorities do not get to dictate policy.