I mean, this is really the second major story of the election. And the proof is in the vote difference between the Nationals and Greens.

The Greens have about twice the number of votes as the Nationals, and have for a while, but have until now been less represented due what amounted to a rural/pastoral gerrymander.

Its really good to see the Upper House start resembling the shares of votes these Partys recieve, whoever they are.

Labor, for their reasons as well, did the right thing here.

I’m tired so please correct any mistakes.

If we just take the current count as-is (55% counted, 34 seats decided, 3 in doubt):

• labor = 15
• lib+nat = 10+2 = 12
• greens = 4
• one nation = 1
• aus christians = 1
• legalise cannabis = 1

19 votes is a majority.

• If Labor get all three remaining, they end up with 18 and need any one extra vote to give them a majority.

• But if Labor only get two and the other goes to Lib/Nat, only Lib, Nat or the Greens can give them a majority

• If Lib+Nat get all three remaining, and if we assume for the sake of example that they always have one nation and aus christians, they still only have 17 and need either Green or Labor for a majority. Greens can also still give Labor a majority in this situation.

• If, somehow, one nation, christians or cannabis get all three, they can give Labor a majority without Greens’ help, but can’t give Lib+Nats a majority without Greens.

The bottom line is, in any situation from here, Labor cannot form majority alone, and Labor+Greens will always form majority. However, if Labor are lucky, they could instead form a majority with Legalise Cannabis Australia, or another minor party, rather than Greens. And, obviously, Labor and Liberals can always form a majority on issues they agree on.