Wm Trevor – The Senate system although described as proportional is not proportional. Senate representation does not take on board State and Territory population and the current preferential will further distort the result.

At best it could be made more proportional within each State and Territory with a mix of directly elected seats and list seats. Preferences should only be transferred to parties or individuals that have reached a certain threshold, with that threshold increasing with each distribution round.

The preferential system distorting the Senate also distorts the House of Non-Representatives. We have the Coles and Woolworths of politics with a minority of primary votes getting majority power and claiming mandates. A shift of 4% the equivalent of six seats is called and results in a landslide. Most importantly it leaves approximately 20%, a fifth of Australians underrepresented or not represented at all.

My preference would be to dispense with the Senate and for that matter State Government totally. We can only receive those for whom we vote when Australia evolves to a genuine proportional voting system like Germany and our more advanced Kiwi cousins.

We now have another minority government, but this time with majority control. That is not democratic!

Belly - Like usual with some of your posts they defy logic with regard to the original post.

She entered the political race as a member of the Palmer Party she would have had to know what that party's policies were, if she told them and the people she was not going to follow those policies they could have picked another candidate. (that is deception.)

She hid her contempt of Abbott and the liberals till after the voters had cast there vote knowing it would have effected the way a lot would have voted, CONTRARY to what you say "bar a Senator for holding an opinion" she was deliberately DECEPTIVE.

AT no stage did I say she had no right to an OPINION I am pointing out her deception, before she even gets in she is shown to be a untrustworthy person.

BELLY I would like to remind you of something you said previously "I come here for intellectual stimulation, not the very opposite."

Belly - It also has to be noted YOU are the only person so far who has read the post and come up with I am trying to stop free opinions by people.

Pericles - The system is absolutely broken when someone can get elected with only a 0.22% of the people supporting them.

I think this is a case of "times change", WmTrevor.

>>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.<<

Back then, elections were taken relatively seriously. Certainly, they were not considered a vehicle with which to scam money from the public purse by gaming the mathematics involved in becoming "elected". Nor, I would dare suggest, seen as a perfect platform for the mega-rich to parade their narcissism.

Both developments have caused the list of candidates to swell over time, to the point where the public hasn't the faintest chance of evaluating the impact on the outcome of their individual vote. This is now the province of "tacticians" driving sophisticated computer software.

I suspect that it never occurred to those worthy folk who framed the legislation that it would be rorted and manipulated in such a fashion, so they didn't think to include any safeguards.

And a working description of a mechanism that is being used outside its operational spec, and as a consequence produces unintended consequences, is, I suggest, "broken".

We're in furious agreement, Pericles... I was only drawing attention to the fact that the process for Senate elections is unchanged over enough years to warrant the moniker 'traditional' and that it seemed to represent no issue to the major parties (and the DLP).

That it now doesn't suit the 'Laborals', and they consequently describe it as broken gives me no cause for concern - as they deserve to reap what they sowed.

That it increasingly doesn't suit or represent the electors of a state does concern me and needs must be addressed.

I just do not trust the major parties to do so.

Philip S sorry my fault, I continue to forget you lack any intellectual ability's.
Will stay away, means, writing slowly, its your sand box .

Unfortunately some bloke from the LDP, a Mr David Lyonhjelm, looks like getting elected to the senate from NSW. Mr Lyonhjelm said, I quote; "Looks like I'm going to be the senator for the donkeys", a fruit cake voted in by donkeys. Listening to this bloke I formed the opinion he is from the Loony Dumbo Party or some such organisation.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/detours-ahead-as-minor-parties-claim-senate-balance-20130908-2te36.html

Sometimes the voters get it right, they tipped the bucket on Ms Fish Shop, Pauline Hanson and the so called Stop The Greens Party. My only disappointment with the whole election was Cate Faehrmann did not win a senate spot.
Must be of great concern to the ALP to see Adam Bandt win the seat of Melbourne with a swing of over 7% while their candidate suffered a 10% loss, Liberals got nothing. Shows that a good progressive Green member like Adam, when given the opportunity, will win popular support from the electorate. This is why Conservative Labor fear The Greens. Some will say, Paul what about the national swing against the Greens, not of concern, I think long term and how we progress over time. As for the overall result, nothing more than one bunch of conservatives cannibalising the other bunch of conservatives, ho hum