It is futile to speculate on the final outcome of the Tasmanian election because there are at least three permutations that have quite different implications. As of today, it is 10-9-4 to Labor with two seats uncertain (in Denison and Braddon) but Labor can win neither.

Perhaps the final result is already irrelevant. The real story of the Tasmanian election is that voters were unprepared to elect a Liberal government. For the Liberals to poll less than 30% in the blue riband Hobart electorate of Denison demonstrates that they have been unconvincing as an alternative government.

That Liberal powerbroker Senator Eric Abetz could tell a TV audience on the night of the count that anything over nine seats for the Liberals would be a bonus was an indictment in itself. He was admitting that the Liberals were probably not strong enough to win two seats in each of the five electorates. Therefore, how could they win an election?

On Saturday night, Greens’ leader Nick McKim described the result as one for “the new believers”, those who deserted the major parties for the Greens. The majority of those people are not new believers. They have not been converted. They had found themselves homeless.

McKim also claimed that, with a hung parliament, a weight had been lifted from Tasmanians’ shoulders, presumably the weight of a failed Labor government. But a new weight had been added. How does a parliament of this size and configuration work?

An incoming minority government has to find nine ministers, a speaker and a deputy speaker. In the Utopian model, power is shared, but how and how does Cabinet operate? What happens to the concept of commercial confidentiality when investors want to deal with a government of many colours?

The Liberals are eager to govern, even in these circumstances, because their 12-year drought continues.

It may be in Labor’s long-term interests not to accept government under these terms or not to have government thrust upon them. It regroups, out of office, allows its new MPs to learn the ropes of parliament and make mischief with the unholy alliance of the Liberals and the Greens. Labor cedes the election and waits for the next one.

There is another force at work here. The Hare-Clark voting system was not designed with a strong third party in mind. It was certainly not designed to deliver 10-10-5 parliaments in which every government MP is a minister.

Increasing the size of the House of Assembly to 35 seats at the next election, as it was before 1998, eases the problem but does not solve it.

Extrapolating Saturday’s poll result to a 35-seat House (of seven members per electorate) gives a 14-14-7 outcome. It doesn’t produce a majority government but it does provide a larger pool of talent.

So, what have we ended up with — Utopia or a dog’s breakfast?