[alastairpat]

I'm all for Assange's senate bid, but given he doesn't seem to have declared/decided which state/territory he will be running for the Senate in, I'm curious as to how these data can be considered accurate/representative of any actual electoral outcome.

[jwilliams]

True - the closest analog I'd see is Nick Xenophon who won a senate seat in 2007 as an independent, with 15% of the primary vote.

If Assange did get 25% of the primary, then he'd be a shoe-in, probably at the expense of a Green.

However, the article is a bit woolly. "25% would vote for" does not necessarily mean the primary vote.

[vacri]

It's pretty easy for a minor party (well, 'one of the', not 'a') to pick up the last senate seat in a state, given the way they're allocated. It all depends on which way the preferences flow.

[jwilliams]

Yeah, you're probably right -- I went and had a look back at 2007. Xenophon won, but a Green also picked up a Senate seat (in SA). The Greens polled just 6.5% and picked it up off preferences.

I was figuring his vote would come at the expense of the Greens, but even in that case the major parties were marginal enough on the 6th seat to get the Greens in.

(Plus the DLP won a seat in Vic in 2010, off just 2.3% of the primary).

I expect the next election will be quite a shake-up, especially in the Senate - certainly can't see the major parties gaining. So, you're probably right that preferences will dominate the 5/6th seats.

[nl]

Given the current political climate I think his seat might come at the expense of a Labor senator.