[Mothy]

The "balance of power" in the Senate has always been an interesting thing in Australia. The Australian Senate is modelled on the US Senate - state representatives forming a house of review. In recent times (say the past 25 years) there have been very few times when the same party has held both the lower and upper house majority. In the 70's with Labor under Whitlam they lost the Senate mojority when Qld appointed a Lib/National to replace a Labor Senator who had died.

Fraser controlled both houses but Hawke/Keeting never had Senate control. Neither did the Liberals under Howard until the last term.

By not having the same party running both houses there was a reasonable level of control over some of the more radical ideas and policies. Its what kept both Hawke and Howard in the centre. In more recent times Howard gained control of both houses and then pushed through an agenda of more right wing policies such as "work choices". Moving off the centre line allowed Labor to jump in the middle again.

So we are now back to a Labor Governmant with a Liberal controlled Senate which will change to a Senate with the Greens holding the balance of power once the newly elected take up their positions (from memory it does not happen straight away). Given the Greens preferences were directed to Labor, I wonder what the price will be?

I wonder if the US Senate has ever been in a position where neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have the numbers in the Senate and have needed the support of independants or other parties to pass legislation?

One difference betwen USA and Australia is that in Australia voting is compusory - you are not allowed to sit on the fence or leave it to someone else. One thing is certain - it does not matter who you voted for, you still end up being represented by a politician.

Dewolf is right. We are blessed in this country to have the rights to make the choices we do - there are many other countries where it would only be a dream.

Tim