A moot point is whether this domination of our parliaments by political parties occurs because it is the best way for our country to be represented and run or whether it is a hangover from the past, assisted by the attraction of the status quo and the inbuilt advantages of incumbency.

The fate of independent candidates for any parliament hinges initially on the answer to the question, "Do candidates of political parties have innate advantages as representatives over independents?" Only if the citizen answers "no" to this threshold question do independents have a chance of success.

Other questions follow. Are the several party options preferable to any independent? Is there a particular independent with the personal characteristics and policies deserving of support?

Then the particular jurisdiction and situation comes into play. Can the independent make a difference - or are they likely to be consigned to powerlessness in a situation where their vote makes no difference? In Federal Parliament the balance of power is rarely held by independents, whereas in the Senate it is now the norm. Independents like Rex Patrick of South Australia and Jacqui Lambie of Tasmania show that Senate independents can be decisive in parliamentary voting, sometimes bringing benefits to their state into the bargain.

Yet even if voters are open-minded about electing an independent, they may not do so. The electoral system favours political parties over independents, as does the balance of human and financial resources. The mass media tends to favour the established political parties over any challengers, whether they are new political parties or independents.

Most of all, the established political parties are embedded in our psyche - and many people identify with a party as a matter of course. That is just the way they vote and have always voted. Only under exceptional circumstances will they abandon their party of choice.

This background is the context for considering the chances of any prospective independent. Independents face a huge challenge. Many stand for office, but few are elected. They must be realists - and none more so than those standing for one of the two Senate seats in the Australian Capital Territory. To oust one of the incumbent senators, someone wishing to be elected to one of those two spots must achieve a quota of one-third plus one of the votes.

Kim Rubenstein, a Canberra law professor, has announced she will be forming a new party, Kim for Canberra, to contest an ACT Senate seat at the next federal election. Her initial hurdle is to sign up 1500 members to enable her to register Kim for Canberra as an official party. That will give her the prized "above the line" status on the ballot paper along with other political parties.

Professor Rubenstein's initial pitch to potential supporters addresses the general points raised above. She challenges voters to consider the performance of the existing political parties, promising she can change the way we do politics and "make our parliament work for people - not parties".

She holds the existing political parties accountable for what she sees as the weaknesses of the present system, such as parliamentary deadlock over key issues, an out-of-date constitution, and an unrepresentative parliament. An appeal to "bring Australia into the 21st century" portrays the existing parties as old-fashioned, turning their appeal to continuity and tradition into a weakness rather than a strength.

READ MORE:

Rubenstein also portrays herself as better able to stand up for Canberra than existing political party senators, at a time when the rights of Canberrans to decide issues for themselves is limited by the provisions of self-government. This is a potentially attractive appeal to voters, as party senators are limited by party discipline.

To be successful against the odds, Rubenstein's brave challenge must tick at least four boxes. She also must tick these boxes more emphatically than others who are attempting to do the same thing - especially the ACT Greens. The distribution of preferences will decide the outcome in a highly competitive field. She won't achieve one-third of first preferences against at least three other strong candidates, even if she polls strongly.

The first box she must tick is to capitalise on apparent widespread dissatisfaction with the dominant major-party status quo, hoping for a willingness within the community to consider an independent alternative. Voters must believe that the existing parties no longer have the answers.

The second is to convince voters that what she stands for is an attractive alternative. Her package of policies, including climate action, inclusiveness and reconciliation, must elicit interest and support.

The third is to convince voters she has the necessary personal characteristics, beyond being a "law professor, citizenship expert and human rights advocate". She has less than a year to communicate herself and her policies to the electorate. This will necessitate a hard-working and professional team, an expensive media campaign, and many personal sacrifices.

The final box involves the competition with sitting senators, Labor's Katy Gallagher and the Liberals' Zed Seselja. Both senators will fight back against challengers. In 2019 Zeselja survived a personal campaign against him. Rubenstein, admirably willing to give it a go, must craft a positive challenge which adroitly mixes the personal and the systemic.