It isn't knowledge you are tapping into here, Jayb, just opinions.

>>I'm gonna keep asking until I get an answer from the wonderful knowledgeable people on this Forum. What is the problem with having Micro Parties? Please explain?<<

There is of course absolutely nothing wrong, in my opinion, with the existence of Micro Parties. They are a necessary part of our right to hold a view, promulgate that view, and to ask people to support that view all the way through to Parliament.

What is under discussion here is whether they carry an impact on our political system way more substantial than the votes that have been sent their way. To give an individual with fewer than two thousand people voting for him (that's around a thousandth of one percent, give or take) the power to single-handedly impact the legislative process, makes a mockery of our entire sort-of-democratic system.

Nothing to do with Micro Parties themselves. Everything to do with allowing them undue influence over our lives.

'Apart from the one which left the economy in good nick by world standards - post GFC...and AAA credit ratings coming out of our ears....nah, can't think of any.. '

Yea Poirot amazing since the Greens/Labour did everything possible to waste every penny that they could. Thankfully it will only take a decade to recover rather than a century had they had another wasteful blitz of taxpayers money. They are big into generational theft leaving future generations to pay for the waste (not unlike Greece and much of Europe).

Belly, "Paul requires a old time Socialist/Communist country." Not so. In fact like America, Australia is very much in danger of becoming a one party state, in every way but name. Alas that one party may masquerade as two parties, but with no real discernible differences, nothing more than emphasis and degree that is, then the danger is real. A political duopoly with no agenda, no vision, both offering their version of "more of the same", never engaging in any real debate, and with 80% of the mostly affluent population in support, things run fairly smoothly, well, that is most of the time. Every few years we throw out one side and replace it with the other, and feel democracy has been served, as it was last Saturday.
However, there is a problem, political elements within the duopoly see real danger from political elements within the remaining 20%, the loose cannons so to speak. They ridicule, malign and generally attack these minorities, often painting them as being some way demented. With the failure to silence these minorities which agitate for meaningful political change, often peacefully and through the existing political system, the duopoly seek to politically silence them through disfranchisement. With their 80% support the duopoly feel "good" government is best served if they should hold 100% of the representation, which will take care of unwanted dissenting policies, views and opinions.

I see where you are coming from peri, but would the people in the Micro Parties be the voice of the people who are normally drowned out by people in Major parties with other agendas. I guess we'll find out when thing get under way.

I see the Senators of Major Parties as being obstructionist if they are not "IN". Maybe this can put a stop to that practice. I'm looking on the bright side here.

I see my idea of marking every box on top of the line with a number as a way of guaranteeing an Independent Senate free from obstructionist Major Party influence, that's all. I suppose that wouldn't suit everybody here as there are signs of sour grapes everywhere when "Their" Party isn't "IN."

Jayb,

I don't think anyone should have a problem with any micro party, or parties, as long as it/they are legitimate - meaning they have, and promulgate, sound policies representing a sound basis for seeking election/support; and sound representatives - meaning people genuinely committed to the political process, and genuinely capable of representing their party's policies, vision and constitution.

The problem arises when any of the above provisos are not evident, and, more importantly, when any candidate (micro or mainstream) is elected 'by default' - meaning through rorting or chance-operation of 'loopholes' in the electoral process (such as has been evident in various upper house elections).
The electoral process is not supposed to be a 'lottery'.
Those elected should represent the true majority view of the constituency; and not a 'freak' outcome of a flawed preference distribution process.

'We', the people, get annoyed when some fruitcake, with virtually no political expertise (or even any real interest) enters the race just for fun, or with nothing better to do (or to afford by-chance support to some other fruitcake lobby) (ie to 'rort' loopholes in the system) and ends up getting elected - to a position of real responsibility to an electorate whom they don't really represent.
Anyone who achieves a miniscule portion of first preference votes in any election does not deserve to be elected, period.

Paul,
The Greens might do better if they were renamed the 'National Greens' (to be more 'catchy' on the ballot), and focused more on sustainability and quality of life issues - conservative immigration, conservative foreign investment, conservative trade relations, conservative defense relations, and balanced, science-based resource conservation. (And got out of social 'engineering' areas like marriage equality and boat people.)

What are your thoughts on a House of Review where representatives from each State are elected from within the Industry and Services on a percentage of persons involved of more than say representing 150,000 members; i.e. transport, mining, pensioners, retail, agriculture, education, etc, etc, etc. The reason to have a voice on how proposed legislation will affect them.