Why do we bother, if no-one of importance is 'ever' going to take any notice of we 'contemptible mortals'?

Well, maybe by exchanging our views 'we' may achieve a better understanding of the options (and the reasoning behind these) so that, if we are ever given a choice in the matter (or in any other matter of import) we may be in a better position to exercise a 'considered' opinion, or choice.
That is reason enough for me to participate - as it is expanding my understanding and my awareness, just in case anyone should ever ask; and because I am already a part of the 'system', it is in my interest to make myself aware, even my responsibility, as a voter, to do so.

Wm,

That looks like 'first past the post' to me, and, are you suggesting 12 '1's' (which would be giving everyone more than 1 'genuine' first-choice vote, thereby creating a terrible mess), or numbered 1 to 12; but, 'above' or 'below' the line?
(This is still looking like at least a partial 'preferential' voting system).
And, given that there may be 150 candidates listed (below the line), and possibly with more than 12 candidates listed under any single above-the-line 'grouping', your proposal could only work if these votes were cast 1 to 12 below the line - and would still be partial preferential.
(Also, it is likely that 12 candidates would only ever need to be elected in any State after a double dissolution.)

Still, 12 below the line is a lot better than 150, but is 12 sufficient, or 24, or 'Z'?

The present system provides:
A '1' above the line goes to the first candidate in that 'grouping';
Given sufficient '1's', a portion of those first preferences go to the second candidate in that grouping; and so forth - such that any single grouping may end up with more than one candidate being elected.
First preferences (ie the initial vote) may only be 'allocated' once - so, those attributed to the first candidate 'elected' by that vote cannot be further 'distributed'; they stop with that candidate, with only any superfluous first preferences (those not needed to get the first candidate 'over the line') being passed on to the second candidate in that grouping - or moved on to the grouping to which the initial group (or Party) has 'allocated' its (superfluous) preferences.

With 6 to be elected, 17% of first preferences will get a candidate over the line (elected), and will stop 'dead' with that candidate.
But, the Commission does not 'eliminate' the bottom-runners. Instead, computerisation has enabled every single also-ran to remain in contention until the last preference has been 'distributed'.
No other 'competition' works this way - why this one?

The unlimited distribution of preferences leads to 'million-to-one' candidates getting up.
If you want a 'dog's breakfast' in the Senate, then stick with unlimited preference distribution.
If we want sanity, then preferences should be passed down the line NO MORE THAN three or four times - IMO. (And, with 'bottom runners' eliminated from contention at each 'count'.)

Another possible alternative would be voting 1 to X above the line ('X' being the number of Senators to be elected on that ballot), with the 2, 3, 4 etc indicating your choice for the 'distribution of preferences'. (You choose, not the group or Party.) But, given the potential variation of choices which could be registered against each '1' vote, I no longer think this would be workable. (As, whose second preference to distribute first? The one who chose Party Z, or the one who chose Party B?)

David f, 'hoops' don't apply to the House, so why to the Senate?

"The mainstream media wouldn’t give the aspiring Senators five seconds of attention last week when voters were looking for information, but tonight, they get five minutes of prime time and are fast becoming household names. Meanwhile the media complain that the voters couldn’t know who they were voting for. Really? And whose fault is that?

In comparison, the ABC took longer than a day (more like a decade) to find some old taped antics of one Ms Julia Gillard (antics now being investigated by police).

Who else suspects that if the new micro-party senators had views more in line with the commentariat, the commentariat would be chortling and purring about the genius of our democracy and its preferential system?

While wealthy inner city journalists wail that the micro parties are gaming the system, the truth is that micro parties and start ups don’t have a chance of getting mainstream attention or funds to run an election campaign, unless they happen to be a billionaire. Is it so bad they cluster into groups of parties that preference each other? If the media paid micro parties more attention before an election and gave them half a chance, the best ones would rise to the top quickly. Instead the media blackout creates a system where disaffected citizens are willing to take a calculated punt."
http://joannenova.com.au/

"That looks like 'first past the post' to me..."

That, Saltpetre, is because it sort of is. And I am sorry for adding confusion to a simple concept by enumerating 12 (as in a DD) instead of saying "the number of vacancies". So in a usual half-Senate election you are selecting your choice of a field of 6. It is still though a single 'vote', just not for a single candidate.

There is nothing preferential involved since there would be no redistributions.

Logistically, choice would be expressed by numbering 1 through 6 (12 in DD), making the mechanics the same as for the House of Representatives and, incidentally, the same in each state.

As normally only 6 'ticks' are required I would argue there is no need for 'above the line' options and that the ballot names would be in an AEC supervised random draw order.

Hope this helps.

Whilst this would prevent preference ploys it's probably no promise to promote politicians' perspicacity, performance, principles or prevent pandering. (Guess who that was for Pericles?)

Senate preferences should be limited to the number of Senators to be elected – normally six, or twelve after a double dissolution, and always two in the two mainland territories.
DIS

"What's wrong with the Senate's electoral system and how to fix it": - Antony Green.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-11/green-hand-the-power-of-preferences-back-to-the-people/4951020