Small party's and independents, growing in numbers but what can they achieve
Out side the Chook pen of Australian politics the Senate, not much it seems
The last independents who did much Tony Windsor and his mate, attempting a return did
Who else could, well the three Liberals challenging other Liberals, will surely rejoin the Liberals if they win
Greens still hold I think, only one lower house seat,a decoration at best
Bob Katter is not going to say anything we can understand, woops vote with other than LNP so what happens to disaffected votes
It in the end is called two party preferred

Hi Belly,

Its hardly democratic that the likes of the National Party can win 10 seats in the Federal Parliament with an average of 62,500 votes per seat won. Whilst the Greens get one voice with around 1.4 million votes. Even Labor won 69 seats at an average of 68,000 votes. As I said its hardly democratic.

Hi Paul,

So would you support NZ's MMP system, a double-system of elected representatives by electorate, AND party representation on the basis of national share of votes ? All in the one house of parliament.

But isn't that what our two-house system, Reps and Senate, is supposed to resemble ?

Clearly, if the Greens had half a brain between them, they would focus their electoral and financial efforts on the handful of seats that they are most likely to do well, i.e. gain at least 25 % of the primary vote.

That way, they might be able to sneak one or two of their candidates over the 2PP line.

Of course, that was then; the dissolution of the Greens, 2019, is now.

Good luck. :)

Joe

Belly Quote "well the three Liberals challenging other Liberals, will surely rejoin the Liberals if they win"

** What information do you base that statement on. **

Philip S it is not my intention to have this post put in the fantasy section
Or to teach you how to research things
We are talking about small party's
And it seems clear they both earn money and gain influence in the Senate
Out side the Senate they rarely have an impact
I do think the first two posts need addressing
One vote one value,in both houses, if for some reason we keep the Chook House Senate,seems best, and Democratic too
Not even remotely interested in the NZ one
And warn about the America system
Interested people could go to past election results, look at their seat, and say a few others, and see what did happened to minority votes

Hi Joe,

The Greens rightly believe to maximise the Senate vote they need to contest lower house seats at the same time. It is critical that as many polling booths as possible are manned. Labor and the Coalition who have far greater financial resources do the same thing.

//Clearly, if the Greens had half a brain between them, they would focus their electoral and financial efforts on the handful of seats that they are most likely to do well, i.e. gain at least 25 % of the primary vote.//

Absolutely; from my experience all of the labour costs are covered through volunteers. The direct finances from head office would range from a low $6k in tough low vote seats, to about $30k in the more receptive seats. Adam Bandt seat of Melbourne would have a substantial budget to work with. Then there is the general expenditure as well.

The biggest problem for minor parties is finding candidates, and then finding supporters to back up those candidates. A party like the CDP often run a candidate from well beyond the electorate, and then can't support that person at pre-polls or on the day. In some small unmanned booths they might score 10 votes. Ghosts than don't even show their face to the voters, mystery candidates we call them.

The Senate is unrepresentative with Tasmania having as many Senators as NSW. The Senate can't make its own laws, so its not the same as the fairer NZ system.