The House of reps represent people in an area, and country areas are bound to have less votes than densely populated areas of cities where they are influenced by Greens propaganda.

http://results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/HouseDefault-20499.htm
The link shows seats won
It however, neither can any poster, tell what voters think or why
Telling us they did not know what they wanted is foolish
We can however see in the above link some things of interest
Clive Palmer, now trying for a rebirth, is spending very very big
But if current polls mean anything he will not do all that well
Be honest
Polling points to a coming change in government
Surely that is based on opinion of that government nothing else

" but what can they [Small party's and independents] achieve"?

First they can try to achieve momentum. Lots of other small parties have developed into true political forces in this country over the years - Australia party, greens, Democrats.

Second they can indicate to the majors where the electorate's views really lie. By far the best example of that was the first Hanson surge. This showed the Libs that a large part of the electorate and particularly a large part of their erstwhile supporters were (and are) concerned about the nations immigration policy. This in turn caused Howard to subtly move Liberal policy toward a more Hanson-lite policy. End result...Tampa and the boat turn-backs.

I would also argue that the Greens have forced the ALP to move more to the left to try to protect their far left vote.

Its a misunderstanding of politics to assume that the only issue is getting bums on seats in the House of Representatives. A vote for a minor party or independent doesn't always go unnoticed.

Pauletc,

"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. "

That's an utterly false comparison. The Greens run candidates in every electorate. The Nats run candidates in only about 1/3rd of the electorates - they don't run in Queensland and they don't run against sitting Liberal members.

It'd be interesting to know whether you made this false comparison because you utterly misunderstand the the issue or because you thought you could slip it through. I guess we'll never know.

Belly Quote "Philip S it is not my intention to have this post put in the fantasy section Or to teach you how to research things"

It is in the fantasy section because you say "well the three Liberals challenging other Liberals, will surely rejoin the Liberals if they win" To me that is fantasy because I do not think they will.

The problem with researching things are two people researching the same subject can and often do come to different conclusions.

Just out of interest what makes you think you would be teaching me how to research things?

mhaze not able to mount a case against your view on why the greens get only one lower house seat
Do not wish to in fact
The Chook Pen Senate, is different, but they do better than most there
Look at the history of the more prominent small party's
DLP Democrats, Greens, One Nation, and King of them all National party
Not one made it to the top, or ever will
You can make a case for the Nationals being in decline, for this election at least
NSW will be bleak in the extreme for the Greens
But both, not unlike true Liberals, may/will bounce back, as a result of this election loss

Belly,

"One vote one value,in both houses, if for some reason we keep the Chook House Senate,seems best, and Democratic too"

Do you mean 'First Past the Post'?