That gay marriage thing........

[pharmaboy]

3. There is nothing in this process that ensures there will be a free vote in parliament on the issue. The most likely outcome will be current status quo will continue, with the nutters asserting a NO result as the definitive answer on the subject and refusing any further debate on the subject, and a YES result as an interesting anecdote, but a survey is hardly a reason for changing a law that has been set in stone for 13 years, and we should probably start debating a referendum on the matter to make sure it's what Australia wants.
.

Maybe we are getting to the reality here. Is it the case that you are upset with the process mainly because you think it won't pass?

No doubt, tony Abbott thought it had a chance of not passing, but maybe the reason I don't have the anger about the process is because I'm quite sure it will pass and it's a version of democracy.

 

[johnny]

I have zero doubt that if everyone of voting age had to say yes or no then they answer would be yes by a landslide.

But, that's not the process in place here.

 

[Knuckles]

This is somewhat inaccurate.

Opinion polls as we know them (IPSOS, Pew, etc.) are run with strict and reproducible methodologies that ensure that a credible sample size is taken (big enough to statistically infer the results for the relevant population being polled) and it is representative of the population (in that it randomly accesses opinions or a legitimate cross-section of society).

This plebiscite will not reliably tick all of these boxes. The people who will respond and send the letters in are firstly, those who receive them and don't have them flogged out of their mail boxes by lobby groups; those that have the time to send fucking snail mail, those that photocopy and forge mountains of responses, those that are highly motivated by the issue, those that don't live in remote communities, etc. etc.

This plebiscite will not have the credibility of most well-run opinion polls.

True dat, hence the "essentially" bit. I was relating it back to Cptn. Contrary's assessment that the plebiscite is a valid measurement of public will and opinion polls are not. A more accurate simile for a plebiscite, is probably signing a petition......

It's laughable that an organisation like Roy Morgan, turning over $40 million annually can conduct multiple polls on a daily basis, yet it's costing us $120 odd million just so we can have the opportunity to participate in the LibNat factional bitchslapping.

 

[pink poodle]

Pretty sure I read the pieces of paper are going to have bar codes.

 

[scblack]

This is somewhat inaccurate.

Opinion polls as we know them (IPSOS, Pew, etc.) are run with strict and reproducible methodologies that ensure that a credible sample size is taken (big enough to statistically infer the results for the relevant population being polled) and it is representative of the population (in that it randomly accesses opinions or a legitimate cross-section of society).

This plebiscite will not reliably tick all of these boxes. The people who will respond and send the letters in are firstly, those who receive them and don't have them flogged out of their mail boxes by lobby groups; those that have the time to send fucking snail mail, those that photocopy and forge mountains of responses, those that are highly motivated by the issue, those that don't live in remote communities, etc. etc.

This plebiscite will not have the credibility of most well-run opinion polls.

I'm afraid I completely disagree.

Opinion polls are just a small sample, which can be under 1,000 people. From that small number, statistical methods are applied to ATTEMPT to extrapolate the views of a population. How many times have we seen opinion polls at election times proven to be wildly inaccurate, or completely wrong? All the time.

All an opinion poll is telling us is this: from the small number of people who actually took our phone call (and could be arsed giving us a serious answer), we can infer that the population might think XXX is the answer, or their opinion looks to be YYY. An opinion poll is just a statistical extrapolation which has been designed to attempt to show the views of a population, and as we know any poll can EASILY be skewed by how a question is worded, or as simply as the order questions appear.

Do you seriously suggest that a plebiscite replied to by Millions of people will have less credibility than a random poll which has been replied by as little as 1,000 people? Seriously???

 

[Knuckles]

One of the issues I think the NO camp has and I do understand it in some ways (I AM NOT SAYING I AGREE!!!!) is the question of will Churches/Priests be forced to marry a gay couple despite their beliefs, to which they are entitled whether you agree with them or not.

This has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand. It is a diversionary tactic implemented by Abbott which has subsequently been amplified by the religious nutters as a scare tactic, a bit like the "Muslim scourge" pumped by Hanson and her ilk. They're relying on (and probably rightly so) that the average Joe Citizen is an idiot, who rely on headlines and sound bites for their current affairs.

So when do gay rights trump religious beliefs???? I am sure as shit not gonna get into that one but it is an issue. The court case last year where a bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple due to their own (the bakery owners) religious beliefs were forced to pay damages is a perfect example.

No it isn't.

What if it were a surgeon who refused to operate on a critically injured patient because of their relationship status? When do religious rights trump the WMA Declaration of Geneva?

How does your opinion entitle you to make life decisions for complete strangers?

Personally I feel there are far bigger issues out there that need to be tackled and I don't see why we all shouldn't have the same rights, I figure it's pretty fucking simple. And to prove I'm not one of those say one thing do anothers I'll happily post a pic of my yes vote!!!!

Pretty fucking simple indeed. Hence why the rest of your post is irrelevant. The actual issue is not, yes or no, it's why the fuck do you have to ask?

 

[Knuckles]

Maybe we are getting to the reality here. Is it the case that you are upset with the process mainly because you think it won't pass?

No doubt, tony Abbott thought it had a chance of not passing, but maybe the reason I don't have the anger about the process is because I'm quite sure it will pass and it's a version of democracy.

No.

You still seem to be confused.

There is no pass or fail result from this process. There is only a, somewhat dubious, measurement of public opinion.

My issue is that the question has been asked and answered, repeatedly, at zero cost to the public purse. And that a even a 100% yes result from the plebitition is in no way shape or form, a guarantee that there will even be a vote on it, let alone a free conscience vote. And that a certain segment of the population is being used as pawns in factional fighting of a political party. And that the religious biases of members of those factions are being used to dictate policy of a secular democracy. And that our government doesn't seem to be able to function on the most basic level...

 

[pharmaboy]

I have zero doubt that if everyone of voting age had to say yes or no then they answer would be yes by a landslide.

But, that's not the process in place here.

Yes well, another reason to be pissed at the rejection of the legislation at the beginning of the month. The original plebiscite legislation was compulsory, the postal, not so.

 

[Knuckles]

Yes well, another reason to be pissed at the rejection of the legislation at the beginning of the month. The original plebiscite legislation was compulsory, the postal, not so.

Australia has had 3 plebiscites since federation. The most recent was to select the national anthem, which is about the only legitimate reason for one.

The previous two were only a year apart, in 1916 and 17. They were held on the issue of introducing conscription to reinforce the colonial commitment to the European front. Both were no votes, rejecting the idea. After the first defeat, the prime minister, Billy Hughes chucked a spaz and seceded from the Labour party when they refused to introduce it anyway, forming his own party, joining up with the Liberal party, and thus, to his everlasting shame, birthed the national party and giving us the mad kiwi, Barnaby. Barely holding onto the prime ministership by having enough seat holders moving over with him, but not enough to get the legislation through parliament. After that, he embarked on a program of systematic prosecution of the no camp, using the war precautions and unlawful associations acts, to stifle the opposition to his plans for conscription. After re-election he tried again, but was again shot down, but by a greater margin.

These, by the way, were compulsory plebiscites. And the only reason Hughes didn't ignore the result and implement it anyway, was he didn't have full support from the caucus.

Now to this shit-show....Abbott has some sort of sicko, fetish hard on for plebiscites, don't forget this is his baby, his promise from the general election. While leader of the opposition, he also spruiked a plebiscite on the carbon tax, demanding Gillard take the issue to the people:
June 20, 2011
"The people should have a say (on the carbon tax) before the parliament votes and not afterwards,"
Only to demonstrate his utter lack of respect for "the people" by completely contradicting himself the next day:
June 21,2011
When asked in a radio interview if the conservatives won power would they repeal the carbon tax regardless of the outcomes of the plebiscite, he stated "absolutely". As my dad uncle Dodger would put it, "that blighter's got form, 'e as".

Plebiscites are, thankfully, rare, expensive, and unless it's to choose the colours of the duvets in the lodge, divisive and inflammatory.

 

[DJninja]

Although the cost seems massive when they could of just used survey monkey, someone is getting a wage so? Anyone voting no. I will be.

 

[johnny]

Yes well, another reason to be pissed at the rejection of the legislation at the beginning of the month. The original plebiscite legislation was compulsory, the postal, not so.

No. A reason to be pissed that parliament doesn't just do it's job instead of getting us to do it for them.

Plebiscites are a fucking joke, this is not Athens and you can't poll 15 odd million people to sort shit out. That is just dead set loony.

 

[pink poodle]

Although the cost seems massive when they could of just used survey monkey, someone is getting a wage so? Anyone voting no. I will be.

I suspect that there was a bit of consultation with the abs about what % of Tony Abbott's fan base would be ostracised by an online process following the online census this year.

Perhaps also concerns about Russia or North Korea messing with our process.

 

[johnny]

I'm afraid I completely disagree.

Opinion polls are just a small sample, which can be under 1,000 people. From that small number, statistical methods are applied to ATTEMPT to extrapolate the views of a population. How many times have we seen opinion polls at election times proven to be wildly inaccurate, or completely wrong? All the time.

All an opinion poll is telling us is this: from the small number of people who actually took our phone call (and could be arsed giving us a serious answer), we can infer that the population might think XXX is the answer, or their opinion looks to be YYY. An opinion poll is just a statistical extrapolation which has been designed to attempt to show the views of a population, and as we know any poll can EASILY be skewed by how a question is worded, or as simply as the order questions appear.

All the time? I'd be happy to bet you on that one (unless that was hyperbole....., Donald :boink.

They have earned themselves a bad name of late as they got Brexit wrong and struggled badly with the recent US and Indonesian elections. However they have been pretty good elsewhere many times too.

I think you also have to sort the good from the bad polls. Election polls judge how that person will vote on that particular day. For swing voters that can be hit and miss, especially when dealing with complex issues such as elections that have so many different issues to consider and variables such as debates, slip ups, scandals, etc.

Dealing with single issues are very different though as it's much easier for people to be definite and there are less 'swing voters' for matters that most people are well aware of (again, as opposed to elections where people don't trust pollies or understand the issues very well). Secondly, there are credible polls and there are shit polls. 1000 people for a voting populace of 15 odd million would struggle to be considered a credible sample size. And of course they are extrapolations unless you poll people until there are not enough numbers to make a difference to the end result. And given that this pleb isn't compulsory, this poll will also result in an extrapolation.

Again, if the questions or the order of them are leading in anyway then it's not a credible survey. Your Roy Morgans, Pews and IPSOS of the world work very hard to ensure that their questions are not leading in anyway as their reputation/profitability is based on accuracy.

Do you seriously suggest that a plebiscite replied to by Millions of people will have less credibility than a random poll which has been replied by as little as 1,000 people? Seriously???

Haaaaang on a minute, you're the one saying that 1000 people number, not me! What I am saying is that when you run a credible survey (I sat through two lots of methodology of research semesters because of my double major and the fuckwit sociology dept and Usyd, I was shitting this stuff for 12 months, unfortunately) you have to ensure that you get a representative cross section of people. That means if you're using phone you have to call at different times - so you don't just get the people who work all day and are available at 7pm - you have to ensure that numbers are called in all electorates - to make sure you're sample group isn't weighted to Liberal heartlands and whatnot - you have to ensure that selection of numbers within each segment is random, you have to do door knocks to manage for the people who don't have phones or don't answer hidden numbers, etc etc. That's the gist of it anyway, a representative sample group has to be one that represents the voting public, in regards to elections. If you don't manage for that how can you tell that your results accurately represent all society and the numbers you've ended up with are accurate?

And that's what could be wrong with this plebiscite - you're only going to get the numbers of people who are motivated by this particular cause. There could be a huge amount of people who don't want it but can't be arsed mailing a letter and those numbers could tip the end result, especially if it is close.

It could be representative, we just won't know unless they collect details such as age groups, genders, locations, socio-economcs, etc. etc.

 

[Knuckles]

Although the cost seems massive when they could of just used survey monkey, someone is getting a wage so? Anyone voting no. I will be.

Yes, and that someone is already drawing a wage, for other work, that will be put on hold for the work on the plebiscite. Modeling puts the cost of lost productivity at $350 odd, million, additional to the direct cost of the pleb itself.

And the reasoning behind your vote?

 

[DJninja]

I suspect that there was a bit of consultation with the abs about what % of Tony Abbott's fan base would be ostracised by an online process following the online census this year.

Perhaps also concerns about Russia or North Korea messing with our process.

True. Postal vote will probably have the opposite effect an online vote may have.

 

[pharmaboy]

Is compulsory voting really a great thing? There's us, Belgium, Lichtenstein, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Singapore , North Korea and a few others.

If you can't be arsed to vote, have no interest then why force people to show up to a polling station?

Heard an interesting argument the other day from I think Chris Pyne (the other poodle). More or less, if you are concerned about religious freedom the you should vote yes because the lib Nat s will ensure that religious freedoms are protected but if it were down to the current opposition in the future then it would be done without thought to that issue. Ie even if you don't like it, you may as well vote yes because you are better of having some control than no control

 

[DJninja]

Yes, and that someone is already drawing a wage, for other work, that will be put on hold for the work on the plebiscite. Modeling puts the cost of lost productivity at $350 odd, million, additional to the direct cost of the pleb itself.

And the reasoning behind your vote?

I used to care about every thing the government overspent on but then I realised that's what rich countries do. We don't have a debt ceiling aand why should we. Yes I would like to direct that money into my own bank account or some isssue I used to care about but that's not how it works.

I don't want any bisexual/lesbian women removed from the dating world through marriage.

 

[Knuckles]

Is compulsory voting really a great thing? There's us, Belgium, Lichtenstein, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Singapore , North Korea and a few others.

If you can't be arsed to vote, have no interest then why force people to show up to a polling station?

Heard an interesting argument the other day from I think Chris Pyne (the other poodle). More or less, if you are concerned about religious freedom the you should vote yes because the lib Nat s will ensure that religious freedoms are protected but if it were down to the current opposition in the future then it would be done without thought to that issue. Ie even if you don't like it, you may as well vote yes because you are better of having some control than no control

The marriage act already exempts religious institutions from being obligated to solmise marriages that do not align with with their values. All a legitimising of same sex marriage will do is roll back the 2004 amendment to the act, redefining the legal definition of marriage as between an innie and outie only.

The religious freedom bullshit is nothing more than a smoke screen put up but the ultra conservatives to muddy the waters.

 

[The Duckmeister]

I don't want any bisexual/lesbian women removed from the dating world through marriage.

While it's a somewhat unique argument, it's a pretty fucking shallow excuse for supporting discrimination. :tsk:

 

[Knuckles]

I don't want any bisexual/lesbian women removed from the dating world through marriage.

Just, wow. While this does not change my impression of you, it most definitely confirms it.

While it's a somewhat unique argument, it's a pretty fucking shallow excuse for supporting discrimination. :tsk:

It would suggest it implies a rather deluded understanding of female sexuality and relationships in general Acquired through rabid consumption of internet pornography, bad US situational comedies and presidential press conferences.