Klaas Worldring has an article in Crikey on removing the major parties from the Senate. It carries the blurb of removing "the two party tyranny". I don't subscribe to crikey and that article is behind a paywall. I thought it may be an editorial headline, but Worldring has been active on Online Opinion and he has an article titled: Two party tyranny.

Firstly, there hasn't been a two-party system in the Senate for over twenty years because of the Australian Democrats who have invariably held the balance of power in the Senate. The Liberals having a majority is only recent. The last time that happened IIRC was a small period in Fraser's term after the Democrats got up and going.

Westminster has poor separation of powers, however, like the Washington system, the check and balances between branches have largely been led by party machines. The Australian Democrats, as a legislative party and without any reasonable executive aspirations - they don't have the numbers - acted as a party machine check and balance on consecutive Labor and Liberal governments.

If Labor wins the next federal election, which it may do, there will be a party machine check and balance on the Labor executive through the current Liberal Senate majority.

Worldring's article on the Two Party Tyranny is mainly about the single-member districts in the federal House of Representatives and how it enforces a duopoly. The UK has single-member districts but has three cornered contests between the Conservatives, Labor and the Liberal Democrats. There is significant third party representation in the UK Parliament. The difference is that the UK is first past the post.

I am of the opinion if there is to be single member districts then first past the post is the best mechanism. It may not produce condercet majority winners, but it does provide pluralism.

I still can't see why the major parties should be removed from the Senate. Party machine block voting is infuriating for parliament watchers, and makes much of the supposed deliberative debate senseless. Fortunately there are some who take the responsibility seriously. But the effect is minimal unless they have a majority of numbers - which is something that the major parties do well.

Political parties are specialists in the political process. Despite their small numbers - it is believed there are approximately 160,000 liberal party members - they are good at political organisation, raising money and getting candidates elected. Not to mention media management. As groups, they are devoted to achieving election, and the major parties consider themselves failures if they have not achieved government.

James Madison argued in Federalist No.10 that the forming of parties, or faction as he called them, is a result of having the liberty to form differing opinions. To remove the liberty or freedom of association is worse than people forming factions or parties.

The Australian Republican response is the same as Madison's; rather than ban parties, create a constitutional form of government which stops the violence of faction. Many of the political technologies developed by republicanism are expressly for this purpose.