Comments on: NSW Greens choose Lee Rhiannon for Senate

By: Brenton

Brenton — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:03:42 +0000

I KNEW this preselection would be a complete disaster and NOW I really know it! The Conservatives will have a field day! How could NSW Greens Members be SO STUPID!!!!!!! By the way , your Senate candidate is NOT popular in other states!

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:13:35 +0000

If there had been a 14-Senator a state system for the 1996 and 1998 elections then the numbers in the Senate would have been different. This difference may have meant a majority for the coalition in the Senate after 1996 and this may have meant that the GST and other votes were passed only on Coalition votes and caused them to loose in 1998 due to an even bigger loss of unpopularity that there was. There would have been more Democrats in the Senate and this may have changed the balance within the Democrats on the GST. There would have have been a fifth Democrat elected in 2001 so that the Democrats would have had parliamentary party status until 2008 (but this last one is unlikely to have saved them.

By: Phil

Phil — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:50:47 +0000

57# It wasn’t the 6 senator system that destroyed the Democrats.

By: Ben Raue

Ben Raue — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:36 +0000

I’ve previously said I think we should add 2 extra Senators for each state, bringing the number of Senators elected per state per election to 7 and also adding over 20 seats to the House of Representatives. I don’t think that is primarily about helping out the Greens. We would probably be able to elect more MPs, but then again so would all other parties.

By: Stewart J

Stewart J — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:00:13 +0000

Have to agree with Phil here – we should expand the Senate because it increases representation across the community, not just because it might favour one party or another. The same goes for looking at how the Senate elects peoples (ie PR, OPV etc). The reason often given for increasing the number of MP’s to an odd number, though, in respect of increasing the chance of electing a non-major party MP, is a good one as it starts to inject some diversity into the Parliament (this is true also of 5 seat electorates as in Victoria, ACT & Tasmania).

As for changing the system, it does occur, just slowly…

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:45:37 +0000

If there had been 7 senators elected from WA in 2007 then Liberal surplus would have been over 5% more and they would have taken the preferences from the CDP and taken the extra seat. The differences between the 6 senator outcomes and the 7 senator outcomes, for 1996, 1998 and 2001, may have not destroyed the Democrats.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:44:44 +0000

The CDP would have won the 7th seat in WA in 2007. http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/senate/wa.htm

Anyway, I don’t think that’s really the point. Saying that the Senate should be enlarged because it favours a party that you support isn’t great logic. The system is what it is and is highly unlikely to change.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:53:48 +0000

One Nation was elected in 1998 in Queensland anyway. What elections would have produced a CDP(FNG) (or to use its old name CTA(FNG)) Senator since the enlargement?

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:28:03 +0000

53# It would also have meant that One Nation and Fred Nile parties would have been elected over the years.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:42:30 +0000

When the Senate was increased in 1984, it should have been increased to 14 per state. This would mean that the Greens would probably got 6 Senators elected in 2007 and 4 in 2004 and would be looking to get 6 again in 2010 (unless there is a DD where they would be looking at 7-13 Senators). The Democrats would also have been winner out of this because they would have got a Senator from each mainland state at most elections 1990-2001. Had this increase been in one go in 1984 then Peter Garret would have been elected for the NDP at that election (and possibly other elections).