warmair:
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.

I agree. This is a must.

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

I agree. This is a must.

I have three suggestions;
Firstly. No major party is to have a seat in the Senate.
Secondly. Any Political affiliation would have to be declared before applying to be a senator.
Thirdly. Number all the boxes above the line with the candidates for that Group listed below the line.

The two major parties have dominated the Political System for too long. They have stymied progress & made our Governments a joke. The notions held by the two major parties are; you wouldn’t let us have that so we won’t let you have it & if you get something passed it’ll look bad for us. Like two little girls fighting over the one dolly.

A system of Independent Senators would be able to look at Legislation on its own merit without interference. Provided, of course, they weren’t brought off by the major parties or big business, so safeguards would have to be put in place to counter that.

It occurs to me that before we settle upon a voting procedure, we should first determine the role of the Senate in the twentyfirst century.

The original intention was to protect the interests of each State, and the ballot designed accordingly. Is that still the objective, if so, is there any need to change the selection process. If it is not, and we feel the need for a review of legislation by an Upper House, then it is critical to determine what makes that body different to the Lower House.

Once we have a clear idea of why we actually need another bunch of freeloaders - sorry, gathering of responsible citizens - to act as a check-and-balance on the rampant, politics-are-everything House of Reps, then we might start pontificating on how they should get there.

Should the Senate be open at all to organized political parties? Should there be hoops (not just financial) through which individuals are required to jump through before landing on the ballot paper? Should there indeed be a limit to the number of participants, or should we instead adopt a free-for-all but with one vote only, winner takes all?

One thing you can guarantee though. Nobody will actually consider asking us. After all, who are we to question the likes of them, the self-branded political elite?

Dear Pericles,

<<One thing you can guarantee though. Nobody will actually consider asking us. After all, who are we to question the likes of them, the self-branded political elite?>>

Exactly!

There was a loophole in the system and some real people managed, unintentionally of course by the founders of this 'nation', to sneak into the senate by preferencing each other. The dinosaurs didn't see that loophole before, they never considered the possibility of people daring to break their divide-and-conquer tactics, so now they are determined to close it down so that they are never interrupted again in their perpetual rule over us, contemptible mortals.

Didn't Queensland delete their upper house back aways ?
Our current senate is dysfunctional, would deleting it really make a lot of difference in the long term?
SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,,

<<Our current senate is dysfunctional, would deleting it really make a lot of difference in the long term?>>

'Dysfunctional' is always relative to a function.
It may well be that you do not agree with the upper-house's function and assume it should have a different function, in which case you would indeed find it dysfunctional.

As I see it, the function of the upper house is to slow down the tyrannical madmen from the lower house.

As for the lower house, if you believe that its function is to oppress us, ordinary people and make our lives bitter and miserable, then you may rightly claim that it is functional.

Otherwise, I wouldn't mind deleting the upper-house - provided that the lower-house is deleted first!

Yuyutsu,
A rhetorical question is what it was.
The senate is supposedly the states house but does not work that way at all.
Based on the original intent why have it if it is not carrying out the task it was established for.
Personally I think we need an upper house but the premiss of its existence would need to be different from that of days of long ago.
Leave the machinations of the lower house to those who frequent the chamber but the upper house should be beyond reproach and a major overhaul is needed to achieve a modicum of virtue from the esteemed members who sit therein.
Take it easy.

SD