Without even knowing what Abbott is going to do we have 1 potential new senator saying. Quote "Palmer United Senate hopeful warns Abbott not to expect her support"
Further "Ms Lambie says if she is elected, Tony Abbott should not expect her support, including on the scrapping of the carbon tax.

"From what I've seen the Liberal Party, it's a very big boys' club and there's no room for boys clubs in politics," she said."

Without hearing anything she is potentially rejecting legislation because of her bias against Abbott. Stuff the people who elected her she will do what she wants.

She was elected on the policy of the Palmer party but says "despite the PUP policy to repeal the carbon tax, she wants it kept."

Already she has shown she is a liar, by rejecting a policy that may have helped her get elected.

Any money says this policy rejection or failure to consider legislation on its merits was not relayed to any voters before the election.

If Ms Lambie, with less than seven percent of the primary vote, can be elected to the Senate and enjoy a full vote there, we are not hearing the "will of the people".

In WA, it is entirely possible that Wayne Dropulich from the Australian Sports Party might win with 0.22% of the primary vote. To even contemplate that as a possibility tells us, surely, that the system is broken.

Labour go into all the council elections with umpteen candidates on single issues who preference each other, then they get in. When it was Labour & the Greens no problem but now others are on the game it is a problem.
I think a referendum is needed offering current, no preference or two preferences for our voting system.
Oh yes and moaning about politicians saying one thing and doing another, well the solution is waiting till the next election.

The though our author wants to bar a Senator for holding an opinion is disturbing.
No truly!
We are a democratic country and under the system in place all Senators have been elected or will be, but not one can be forced to think only as some wish.
Yes the Senate is a matter for concern.
But how many under stand why?
Elected for 6 year term, only half the Senate must be reelected at each federal election.
Newly elected Senators who won this time enter that place next mid year, at the time one half leaves.
Senates are for states rights.
In the time of our constitution states did not like each other.
Even taxed goods coming from other states.
Had different wishes even different train track widths, so interstate trade suffered.
Some states did not want to become part of the Federation!
So given the history and the reason the Senate is what it is we stand at the top of a very tall cliff.
Do we understand a senator seems to have been selected on 1900 primary votes?
Then by what seems shonky deals [at a cost] got enough preferences to over take the bigger partys and get a seat?
Yes we have a problem, but lets not bury democracy at the first sign someone will not vote as we want.
Tell me, how bad is Queensland for not having an upper house.
And tell me, are we willing to keep a senate that chokes policy,s supported by the most to keep the few happy?

" Proportional representation voting, as used in the Senate, is designed to secure the election of several candidates in each state (twelve in the case of a double dissolution, six in the case of a regular half-Senate election) each of whom has obtained a number of votes equal to or exceeding a required quota (or proportion of votes) necessary for election. The quota is obtained by dividing the total number of formal votes by one more than the number of candidates to be elected, and adding one to the result. Thus, if the total of formal votes in a state at an election for six senators is 700 000, the quota is 100 001. That is, a candidate will need to win at least 100 001 votes to be elected. "

"In introducing the legislation in 1948 the Attorney-General of the time, Dr H.V. Evatt, said that ‘the fairest system and the one most likely to enhance the status of the Senate is that of proportional representation.’ (Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 16 April 1948, p. 965)."

The system seems to have suited the major parties for a long while... or are they just slow on the uptake to need 65 years to see that something is broken?

I think it fair to say it is no more broken than it has ever been.

It could be worse and maybe it is just as well the Senate can't pass a senatus consultum... though I am prepared to be magistratus extraordinarius.

(I don't really want the job, but just like the idea of being attended by 24 lictors.)

Michael Kroger made a good point about optional preferential voting (vote for as many as you want to without having to number others)and more information on the ballot identifying where preferences will go.

The AEC puts up a list of preferences for each party but I wonder how many people check it before voting.