Democrats - now known as the 'Others'

Without this 90's Democrats constitutional change Janet Powell would have led the Democrats into the 1993 election (probably with a similar result, given that she and John Coulter had similar “Australia Party” tendencies which were not well reacted to by voters) - although it is likely nothing would have stopped Cheryl Kernot getting into the leadership in due course.

Without that constitutional change it is also likely Meg Lees would have had a second election. Of the eleven leaders, only Don Chipp and Janine Haines have led the Democrats into election battle more than once. Even the most successful leader of all, Janine Haines, had to fight no less than four member-leadership ballots in a row before her first election, her challengers being from the Democrat Left.

The Democrats achieved 8.5 per cent in the Senate in that (Haines) 1987 election. To put that into perspective, Senator Lees got 8.48 per cent 11 years later in 1998, so it was not an extraordinary result. After that 1987 election Janine's polls and popularity soared as the public got interested in her and got used to her.

There is a lesson there - leaders need to be in harness for some time.

In the 1990 election, this remarkable woman delivered a 12.6 per cent Senate result, the highest the Democrats ever achieved, and 11.3 per cent in the House of Representatives, also by far the highest the Democrats ever received.

Again, to put that in perspective, just three years later in 1993, under then (Democrat Left) leaders Janet Powell and John Coulter, the House of Representatives Democrat vote had plunged from 11.3 per cent to 3.8 per cent.

The Democrats never recovered their high Haines polls, although strong campaigning leaders were able to lift the Party in an election - for instance, Senators Kernot and Lees did achieve much higher election percentages than the polls promised.

Main observations on the Leaders and Polls graph

The period when Janine Haines led the Democrats saw the highest public percentage support, both in polls and in the 1990 election. These heights were not accompanied by significant increases in the numbers of Senate or State Upper House seats. The critical mass was still too low.

In all other polling periods the Democrats have struggled to achieve sufficient public support to translate into seats, always polling in single figures. Unlike the similarly sized National Party, support was generally widespread and not concentrated. The Democrats even lacked enough regional strength to win lower house seats in their traditional stronghold of South Australia.

The Democrats peaked at a maximum of 15 incumbent federal, state and territory parliamentarians, and in 3 decades never gained representation in Queensland State, Northern Territory, or Victoria State parliaments.

Lack of sufficient regional strength has meant the Democrats have almost never been able to achieve lower house representation. With low parliamentary numbers they have nevertheless punched way above their weight and had (and still have) a very high national profile.

Cheryl Kernot’s defection to Labor was fatal to Democrat stability and strength, which was recovering after the debacle of the Powell/Coulter years.