Senate voting is rather different. Parties do not want you to vote for individuals but by the party ticket (which, by far, most people use). If many voters gave individual first preference votes to each possible candidate - and parties mostly field more candidates than they can reasonably expect to be elected - this would dilute the chances of their preferred candidate/s, or shock/horror any candidate, getting a quota. In the last election (Queensland senate) Pauline received 20,927 first votes Malcolm Roberts 77 Fraser Anning 19 Combined these are less than 10% of the party ticket "above the line" vote of 229,056. Following the party ticket, Fraser would have received 229056 fourth preference votes, on top of his 19 direct votes.
All parties follow a similar pattern with perhaps a few popular candidates getting a few extra direct votes.
As Australia is a representative democracy this means that even people others/majority find abhorrent are entitled to have a vote and a voice in parliament if there are enough like "voices". The house of reps style voting tends to weed out extremists unless they are very popular, but the Senate allows some of those voices to be heard - even though some consider it "unrepresentative swill". I personally consider it better that they have a voice that others can counter than to try to suppress - as is happening. Occasionally they may have good ideas or provide a catalyst for a change (even against them) that is needed. Is it better to hear them and throw them a tidbit occasionally to keep them happy or to shout them down and they go away ferment disorder in silence?
