And how would you vote on the "Government's official stance on the recent incident in Lower Chad"?

Anybody who has listened to entire Senate debates or read Hansard would have a very different view on actual proceedings performed in that chamber.

It's far more than the 20 second media bites or edited highlights broadcast on the ABC and mostly consists of poring over endless and mundane administrative adjustments to existing legislation as well as considering new Bills.

What of those without internet access? Are they no to be longer regarded as citizens? What if somebody wants to challenge a decision because they did not have enough information to be able to cast an informed vote.

We have a representative democracy (dumbocracy) in this country - not some sort of "Dancing with the Stars" phone-in poll system.

Dear Wobbles,

If you have no specific view about Lower Chad, or have insufficient information, then you need not vote about it. Alternately, there should be some proxy mechanism whereby you can pass your vote in the matter to your Lower Chad expert. If you know of no such expert, or trust none, then pass your vote in the matter to your favourite senator.

Thus, you don't need to work harder if you don't want, but those who want can, so there are no losers - only winners!

Paul,

Is the senate about democracy? Not at all. The number of voters per senator in NSW is nearly 10x that of Tasmania, and the senators have double the terms of MPs which mean that 50% of the senators are out of synch with the recent electoral cycle.

On top of that the purpose of the senate is not to create legislation but to protect the vested interests of the states by blocking legislation, or by extracting "sweeteners" or compromises that are often contrary to the interests of Australia as a whole.

The senate is an anachronism whose time has well passed.

Dear SM,

<<The senate is an anachronism whose time has well passed>>

I agree that representing the states is a crude way to represent the people, but at least it is better than nothing!

The senate is there to mitigate the damage of the parliament and this thread discusses whether there are better ways to mitigate that damage.

Ideally, once there is no parliament, then the need would not arise for either a senate or for referendums.

The best is to do away with the commonwealth: why allow a bunch of politicians to control a whole continent, forcing their laws on everyone living in that vast area of land and sea? at least if the units of control were smaller, then if one felt too oppressed in one state, s/he would have the option to move to another where the laws that affect him/her are more relaxed.

"I agree that representing the states is a crude way to represent the people, but at least it is better than nothing!"

Are you kidding me? what is state government for, or local government? The senate is a vestigial undemocratic remnant of state protectionism. The federal elections are based on a representative from each electorate representing them in the best way they can. The senators are not voted for in person, but are appointed by their parties based on allegiance to a voting block.

Senators are yet another drain on the taxpayer, and mostly contribute stuff all.

For the very small %age of people who do not have access to the internet, these people could be given government funded access (if they are that disadvantaged they need assistance anyway) for an insignificant cost compared to senators costs. The remainder could opt in for a chosen representative.