The Nation:

People look to the Senate for its supposed high-minded, impartial reasoning and good judgement on issues of national importance. If previous Senates were any guide, the public has been sorely disappointed, as most of the senators were political old-timers, particularly former MPs and retired government officials. Only a small minority were academics, social workers and independent thinkers. The problem was that the majority of those senators with political connections couldn’t be trusted as it was much easier to profess impartiality than to practice it. It turned out that many senators were wolves in sheep’s clothing.

COMMENT: Who said these previous Senators were professing impartiality? The electoral campaigning laws have meant the Senate is a bit of a lottery as people know next to nothing about the candidates. They are rarely if ever on TV, on the radio, or elsewhere except for billboards. Finding out more information is difficult too. The rules for campaigning are so so strict that it is on name recognition. The assumption seems to be with family members that they are a known quantity and they will represent the other family member. This is why I don’t get the the impartiality claim from The Nation.

By academics, social workers, and independent thinkers The Nation means those who agree with its views. What about representatives from rural communities?

btw, I would say a 45-50% turnout for tomorrow’s election.