SM,

As I stated earlier if I thought your 'get rid of the senate' line was driven by your desire for a truly democratic system, then I would entertain the notion that the senate is an anachronism with no true democratic base. rather I consider your motive has nothing to do with democracy but more to do with short term political advantage, that is get rid of those pesky Greens.
You did not answer my question with 1.4 million votes should a party have only 1 rep in the lower house? That is people who voted to have the Greens represent them in parliament not the Labor Party as you would have it.
p/s I don't know if you were around in the good old days of Australian democracy when your party who were in the minority used the senate to have a legally elected government dismissed by a non elected person. If you were around in those days I suspect you were all in favor of senate action (2 members of the senate then were unelected as well). Can't have your cake and eat it to. Again Rupert's NOnewspapers had a lot to do with that.

" with 1.4 million votes should a party have only 1 rep in the lower house?"

If their votes are spread thin enough not to get sufficient to get a candidate through in another electorate? ABSOLUTELY. Note that the greens vote was sufficient on preferences to get many Labor MPs in that would not have under the Westminster system. Is our system not democratic, or does it simply not suit fringe parties like the greens?

Would you prefer the proportional vote system, where you vote for a party not a person, as in Italy, where it has been an abject failure?

Then if one party gets 10% of the vote, is it democratic that they get to pass 10% of the legislation?