I didn't vote for Fielding , however I endorse what he did .
My kids and their mates switched to Yeagermiester which turned out to be a bad move and expensive . Probably too it's a double whammy for the Govt whose extortion netted a fortune from those who stuck to Alcopops and probably even more so on Yeagermiester .

Rudd's response to the Senate was the same as his response to the young Flight Stewardess ; Pig like .

"In the end, Australia’s parliamentary system, though not perfect, holds its own with most in regard to reconciling the contradiction between votes lodged, seats won, and representation."

nonsense.

bushbasher, you stated "nonsense" in reponse to my conclusion

"In the end, Australia’s parliamentary system, though not perfect, holds its own with most in regard to reconciling the contradiction between votes lodged, seats won, and representation."

bushbasher, please enlighten me so I can observe and learn about better political systems. I assume you have some real knowledge and evidence of such national examples.

My personal experience suggests that the senate is a positive part to government whoever is in power. The last thing I would want to see is no house of review - it (mostly) adds some accountability to the process.

Bushbasher, I was wondering whether you could elaborate on examples of better systems. Other than the Australian system I have only lived under the UK system, which is, in my opinion, not anywhere near as representative as the Australian one. There are many examples of proportional representation throughout Europe, but my knowledge and experience of them are not great. Many of them seem to function reasonably well as coalition governments.

chris and phil, i'm sorry but i don't have time right now to respond in detail. (phil, yes, there are many countries with well-functioning coalitions). if the thread keeps going i'll try to get back to it.

in brief, chris, though i'm not totally unsympathetic, i think your argument is all over the place. certainly labor has no right to whine about fielding. i do have such a right, not necessarily on the basis of democracy, but on the basis of sanity: fielding is an ineffectual idiot.

but your argument wanders here and there, pulling statistics from here and there, and in a manner which smells of cherry-picking. it gives no real picture of the problems with the australian voting system, or of the benefits of some other systems. these issues are subtle and your approach was not.

i find it amazing that you are not more sympathetic to the respresentation of minority voices in an australian system dominated by two monoliths. and i find it amazing that you are not more scathing of the party system, where dozens of labor zombies vote as one, and ditto the liberals. this is representation? in a romero movie, maybe. in a thinking society, it is simply farce.

then again, most americans also think their much more idiotic system is just fine. i guess that's part of the price of conservatism: if it was good enough for my idiot father then it's good enough for idiot me.

sorry again for the lack of detail. i'll try to return in a few days.

As Chris Lewis says,there is no problem with the Senate.
The real problem is in the House of Representatives and that is because of the first past the post voting system modified in a small degree by preferential voting.

To make the House more democratic we need a multi member electorate system like the Hare-Clarke in Tasmania.This allows minor parties with a certain level of support to gain representation.
The usual cry from the major parties,Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum,is that this would create instability.
It would seem that it is stability and lack of accountability which we have to thank,in part,for the present parlous state of the nation.