I thought this might be of interest to those who think seriously about how they vote... which I hope is everybody here. It comes from the Greens website. If the paragraph starting "In a nutshell" is correct it certainly brings a new perspective to the coming election which we haven't heard much about yet.

Welcome to the Australian Greens

2007 is an exciting year for the Greens. With a federal election in the second half of the year our aim is to get more Greens elected to the Senate and rescue the senate from Howard government control.

We Greens believe that the Senate must be restored to its proper role as a house of review - the only place where the laws drawn up by the government are subjected to proper scrutiny and accountability. Since 2004 the Howard coalition has held control of the Senate enabling it to push through laws which are bad for Australians, bad for democracy and bad for the environment - laws on industrial relations, voluntary student unions, Australian media ownership and diversity of opinion, the sale of Telstra and further downgrading environmental protection. With this control the Howard Coalition has disempowered the important senate committee system and the role of opposition senators.

Rescuing the Senate from Howard government is vital for the future of our democratic system. The only way to make this happen is to elect more Greens to the Senate.

In a nutshell, Labor, which has 28 seats now, cannot win a Senate majority of 39 seats at this year's election. So there are two possible outcomes: Howard's Coalition retains a Senate majority, with Family First as its backup. Or the Greens win the balance of power. If Rudd Labor wins government, it will face a hostile Howard Senate blocking major bills such as industrial relations reform, or it will have the Greens in the balance and the Senate as a House of Review.

Join in and help Rescue the Senate at this year's Federal Election. Vote Green to Rescue the Senate - because Labor can't.

*****

Here's an interesting response from a clergy-friend:

I wonder if those who shaped the constitution would be so thrilled to see how the Senate's review powers have become diverted into the plaything of pressure groups with a thirst for power unmatched by their sense of perspective once they hit the chamber. Regardless of whether they are Green, DLP, Democrat or Family First; their power outweighs the legitimacy of their power base.

The Senate was instituted as a house of review on the basis of states' rights, so (for example) Bob Brown can only legitimately speak for Tasmanian interests; Andrew Bartlett for Queenslanders and Steven Fielding for Victorians. It was probably okay to fear centralising of power in the 1890's; but transport, trade, communication and a more mobile resident population require a more cohesive, strategic approach to life in an international community. The colonial and competitive mindset embedded within the states is increasingly extravagant and irrelevant in a nation of only 21 million. Who needs a third layer of government with its proliferation of bureaucrazies?

I doubt that the Senate was ever intended to become politicised in a party sense, but since governments of all persuasions have continued to allocate portfolios to senators, the points-scoring, manipulation, lobbying and bluffs persist. All aggravated by the absurdity of preferential voting, which requires us to vote for candidates that we don't want, or our votes are invalid.

Those who benefit from this system are unlikely to change anything, so there is little structural improvement ahead.

I can only give thanks for the existence and influence of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, which may be able to counter the common view that politicians are like bananas: they start off green; end up yellow; hang together in bunches; and it's hard to find a straight one.