I believe that the senate is a valuable contribution to democracy and should act as a house of review, in a similar way to the Westminster house of lords. As not doubt most people are aware that was not quite the original intention, as it was more concerned with protecting the rights of the states. However I agree the system in the senate requires reform. I hold to the following principles:-

1 I should know where my vote is likely to end up
2 Any one should be able to stand for election.
3 The ballot paper must be relatively simple.

Under the current system a vote above the line leads to unpredictable consequences as far as the voter is concerned and is open to abuse. Voting below the line leads to a fairly high risk that vote will be informal and therefore not counted. It also requires considerable research to come up with an order which makes sense and risks one´s preference going somewhere that you do not like.

I have looked at various systems and they all seem to have potential problems. I therefore propose the following system for discussion. The total number of preferences would be limited to 24 for the states or 4 times the number of senate seats available. A formal vote would require you to fill out 24 squares only. This would in my view ensure that your vote did not end up in the hands of someone that you did not approve of. It would also ensure that you could vote for an individual, simply because he was a good candidate rather than just accept, whoever the party machine decides to put at the top of the list.

An iteresting though warmair, wish I had thought of it!
I question todays Senate, is it a house of review?
Has it ever been.
Haven given my view about its formation and why in pre Federation days I must ask.
What part of Democracy supports rule of minority's?
Let us forget the squirrel grip it both now and after next years Senate renewal has on Abbott.
Is it more democratic to stop both Labor and Liberal governments passing legislation at the will of say the party that got one thousand nine hundred votes .
Then took a Senate seat with a crafted preference deal, surely sidelining thousands of voters wishes?
Are we fair dinkum enough to see greens contaminated Labor and pressed demands not wanted by most.
And do we see the danger in the senate next year and even now?
If democracy is letting the odd angry idiot team run the country lets have a dictatorship!
Until we have the back bone to stop bending our heads to true damage that house does lets change a few things.
A time will come, very soon, that sees Abbott,s wish for a dissolving of both houses will be seen as a must.
Lets first stop paying party,s to run in that house.
Then put a referendum that says the Senate is a house of review and that only.
Appoint Senators from within both party,s based on votes gained only, and introduce one vote one value, in all houses and states.
End forever preference deals that deal most of us out.

Belly - Although you don't name it, I get the feeling that real democratic proportionality is becoming somewhat attractive?

Belly,

Yes it should be a house of review and that only.
Senators should not be able to hold ministerial positions or positions of power in any party. This makes a joke of the whole process of review.
Three preferences on the ballot paper as the limit.

SD

The number of preferences must not be limited so long as the preferences are made by the voter, rather than by a party.

One should be able for example to say 'NO' to the big parties by preferencing all small parties.

Yes, it was a problem in the recent elections that voters were not aware of the inside dealings between parties, but that must not be used as punishment to those other voters who understood and supported that particular policy of preferencing.

So optional and unlimited preferences above the line to parties rather than to individual candidates, is the way to go.

Why can't it be that:
Senate candidates failing to achieve a certain minimum portion of first preferences are automatically eliminated from contention, and;
The distribution of 'preferences' is limited to only three or four such 'rounds' - with further eliminations at each round of candidates failing to achieve a certain determined portion of the total 'distributed' votes.

With each elimination, 'preferences' are distributed only to candidates still remaining eligible before the distribution commences.

An alternative would be, as someone else has suggested, to have 'above the line' preference choice, by numbering up to ten boxes on this line. (But, I still think the number of preference distribution 'rounds' needs to be limited to only 3 or 4, and still with candidates being eliminated if they fail at any stage to amass the predetermined minimum requirement for progression to the next round.)

In either of the above systems, 'below the line' numbering could still be available, but, with the number of choices to be made to constitute a valid vote being limited to, say, four times the total number of senators to be elected in that particular ballot.

How the Senate operates as a 'house of review' is another matter.
Let's get the voting system right at least, so that the members elected do in fact represent the 'real' majority view of the relevant constituency. (Because, at least in part, the 'system' is proving not to be reliable in that respect under current arrangements/methodology.)