Quote:And according to Bam, the difference in outcome either way, is minuscule.
According to Bam, the difference was the outcome of the Senate election. In what sense is that miniscule Aussie?
Quote:what changes did they promise and what changes did they make
They promised to use the recount method instead of the order of election method. See the OP in the link I gave in the OP of this thread.
Quote:and what if anything would be the difference
It is hard to tell without actually doing the recount method, but most likely it will affect which senators get 3 vs 6 year terms.
Quote:you are annoyed they didnt make the changes they promised 20 years ago... what were they how do they differ to what did change???>..
Changes that they have been repeatedly promising for 20 years. It was an agreement to do something specific in the event of a double dissolution election, not something they promised 20 years ago and then forgot about.
Quote:the senate hasnt functioned for Australia for years....it appears to me just a clone of the Reps...now with a few self interested people who all have a degree in selfhelp... and you want people to complain ....hahaha
It has been working as a house of review. Fundamentally, it is a check on power of the PM and lower house.
Quote:I wish I understood that.....blimey its complex.. why dont we have the lot go to the polls every 3 years???.. if as you say the major parties can influence the outcome.. wouldnt that stop it?..
To put it simply, the senators themselves decide, as a group (by majority vote), who loses their seat in 3 years time. They agreed to do it fairly and repeatedly affirmed this promise. But when it came to the crunch, they acted out of self interest.