Dear Belly,

Previously in senate elections, parties were able to elect default preferences in case people voted for them by only placing a [1] above the line under their name. The recent changes mean that those who vote above the line, rather than their most preferred party, must number their preferences in at least 6 boxes.

So previously, those who wanted to vote for (and only for) small parties, had to either accept the preference-list of their first party (which they might not like), or vote under the line (which is tiresome and easily prone to errors). Now they can number all (or most of) the small parties above the line, which is much easier.

Yes Foxy but too the preference swaps will not longer see the one issue partys get seats, o sung wo, unfortunately for you voters not some phantom, them,, put greens in the senate, my wish to remove that house or reform it remains, as does my one vote one value wish

Dear Belly,

Preference swaps will continue, the only difference is that they will now be made by the people rather than by parties. It's a case of "If I don't make it, then let one of my friends make it, rather than have it fall to the monsters".

Now you want "one vote one value"? Then how palatable for you is the fact that currently one voter has practically no vote at all because they happen to live on one side of a street that happens to fall in "stable" electorate A, while their neighbour across the street has more than one vote because they happen to live in "marginal" electorate B?

Hi BELLY...

I couldn't agree with you more. Instead of being a genuine 'House of Review' it's devolved into an almost seperate law making facility. I agree, lets get rid of it, their behaviour lately has been very much obstructive in the extreme.

To O Sung Wu- With respect I like the Senate. And they are the only ones to stop the crazy policies coming out of the two major parties- if some sane Senators get elected.

Thank you CANEM MALUM for your opinion, I guess you're right, we do need to keep our politicians, especially those with unfettered powers, in some sort of check, otherwise we might have anarchy? More than what we already have, do you think? Thank you my friend, as always the voice of reason.