The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[tnankie]

I get looked at like some sort of alien when I tell people I mark 36 boxes below the line at the poll booth.

how else do you get your moneys worth?

mind you I always run into trouble distributing preferences. Work from the top down on the ones I know and like, then from the bottom up for the ones I know and don't like. Which usually leaves me with 20-30 boxes of people (senate) I have no idea about.

Come to think of it I dont usually know enough about the local independants either.

 

[scblack]

It would seem that upon looking at the evidence, that this statement is untrue.

I don't know what evidence you are using, but no-one else is holding that little pencil for me. My vote is MY choice.

If you think tabloid newspapers, etc changed the MAJORITY of the population, I'd say think again. That would be a horrifying thought. Imagine the kind of "breaking" stories they get on Today Tonight being debated in Parliament, or at your next Board meeting.

People do have more interest than you think, I reckon.

 

[tnankie]

you would; you give every indication of liking the direction the current government is taking us. Thus your going to play down any mindlessness in the voting public.

 

[rowanr]

^^ where exactly is the government leading us? as far as i can tell we're australia is the strongest its been, at least for a long time.

tinto, if voting wasn't compulsory would you still vote for the smaller parties or do you just vote for them because you don't want to vote for the lib's or labs? can someone explain why these parties even enter, when most of the time they don't even have a chance of getting a single seat. i understand they can cooperate with the major parties to get majority, but what else?

 

[scblack]

you would; you give every indication of liking the direction the current government is taking us. Thus your going to play down any mindlessness in the voting public.

And you seem to think they are mindless because they disagree with your view.

Just having a view different to the majority, does not make any person superior.

You may be amazed, but people other than yourself have very strong views on many topics. And guess what, they voted for what they felt was the better choice. And they are the majority.

Thus your going to play down any mindlessness in the voting public.

Guess what, you are one of the voting public, you know - why call yourself mindless, just out of curiosity?

 

[tnankie]

I was very careful with that first post. I quite specifically did not say that they were mindless. I merely commented that you would be likely to play down any mindlessness.

Why do you think the majority is right?

The majority once thought that the world was flat.

The majority believed in witches.

Actually I do have a question if you think the mass media has no affect, why do you think ACA and today tonight still exist surely its not just to fill up a gap in the programming?

Somehow I doubt the average viewer is sitting back with popcorn and laughing at them (as I think they deserve). These programs do influence the way people think about issues, as this is the only some people are aware of them.

Not everyone has the education you do, I doubt they voted the way they did for the same reasons you did.


Actually let me ask you something, would you prefer to be fat, unhealthy and happy or fit, thin and miserable?

 

[johnny]

^^ where exactly is the government leading us? as far as i can tell we're australia is the strongest its been, at least for a long time.

tinto, if voting wasn't compulsory would you still vote for the smaller parties or do you just vote for them because you don't want to vote for the lib's or labs? can someone explain why these parties even enter, when most of the time they don't even have a chance of getting a single seat. i understand they can cooperate with the major parties to get majority, but what else?

Because of the preferential voting system. You can vote for minor party who gives preferences to a major party. The major party will take on some of the policies of a moinor party to get their preferences. A vote for the minor parties still gets you something in the end.

It'd be a good system if people were aware of how it worked.

 

[scblack]

I was very careful with that first post. I quite specifically did not say that they were mindless. I merely commented that you would be likely to play down any mindlessness.
Well, now that you mention it, I can kinda see it, but thats a very dubious distinction. Saying there is mindlessness in the voting public, rather than calling them mindless, is hardly making yourself clear.

Why do you think the majority is right?
Where did I say that I believed the majority were right? I NEVER said that. I said they have their views, different to yours, and voted for them.

The majority once thought that the world was flat.

The majority believed in witches.
The majority are rather better educated than the dark ages. Are you trying to suggest that the MAJORITY of people are unable to think for themselves? You need to get out a bit more and speak to some of these voters who show such mindlessness. Maybe you'll learn something.

Actually I do have a question if you think the mass media has no affect, why do you think ACA and today tonight still exist surely its not just to fill up a gap in the programming?

Somehow I doubt the average viewer is sitting back with popcorn and laughing at them (as I think they deserve). These programs do influence the way people think about issues, as this is the only some people are aware of them.

Not everyone has the education you do, I doubt they voted the way they did for the same reasons you did.


Actually let me ask you something, would you prefer to be fat, unhealthy and happy or fit, thin and miserable?

Actually let me ask you something, would you prefer to be fat, unhealthy and happy or fit, thin and miserable?

Wow, thats an insightful question????
Lets chuck in a question that is completely random, and has NOTHING to do with the current topic.

 

[tnankie]

no it actually had everything to do with the topic at hand.

its a choice of economic rationalisim v's social responsibility.

On the extreme end you have economic health at the cost of those who cant survive in such a system.

on the other end you have a system which is falling apart (economically unviable) but everyone is looked after.


your going to go on and talk about middle ground etc etc etc....or rubish my point rather than trying to address it as you usually do.


I have absolutely no doubt that the majority are able to think for themselves, its why we have the government we do. That is because people think and act for themselves. What I doubt is the ability of the majority to think of anything other than for themselves.

 

[rowanr]

Because of the preferential voting system. You can vote for minor party who gives preferences to a major party. The major party will take on some of the policies of a moinor party to get their preferences. A vote for the minor parties still gets you something in the end.

It'd be a good system if people were aware of how it worked.

no, i understand how teh whole voting system works. why don't you just vote for the major party in the first place ?

Actually I do have a question if you think the mass media has no affect, why do you think ACA and today tonight still exist surely its not just to fill up a gap in the programming?

ummm, so you're saying that ACA is mindwashing people to vote for the 'wrong' party, and thats all its their for? actually, its targeted at the oldies who can sit there and make themselves feel better because they're not an illegal street racing hoon', or a fraud etc etc. i rarely watch tv, and i never watch the news so does that mean i have a better chance of voting for the 'correct' party? you are aware that there are people who will always vote for a certain party too?

 

[johnny]

no, i understand how teh whole voting system works. why don't you just vote for the major party in the first place ?

Wasn't implying that you yourself didn't know (hopefuly you didn't read it that way) but most don't.

Becuase I may like the Green's policies, but know that they will never get in. But I know that if they get enough votes Labor will take on some of their policies. So I may not get 100% what I want, but I may still get 20%. If I just voted Labor and not Greens, then I will only get the core labor policies, not the Greens' policies that I want the most.

Minor parties can influence the major parties if enough people vote for them.

I may not agree with the major parties, so I vote for an independent as a "protest" against major parties (when there is a big swing away from major parties, they call it a "protest vote" that shows dissatisfaction with the major two). This happened in the 80's with the Green party because of the Franklin Damn issue and Nuclear Dissarmerment. Because Labor saw the Greens vote growing, they decided to copy some of their policies and form a sort of partnership.

Once again, the minor parties influenced the major parties. A vote for independents is NOT a wasted vote by any means.

 

[GrubNut]

Once again, the minor parties influenced the major parties. A vote for independents is NOT a wasted vote by any means.

This is especially true for the senate. Since proportional repesentation is used, and minorities often hold the balance of power. Look at how much influence Barnaby Joyce has in the current IR debate. I'm a swinging voter, but I have always voted for indepedents in the senate. Used to be democrat, lately greens.

In the Reps even if you put a minor party first your preference goes somewhere, assuming you dont vote 1 2 3 3 . As I understand once your preference is passed to the major party it carries the same weight. So it really comes down to which major party you put before the other ( i.e last or second last ). On top of that in the Reps youre just voting for the seat in which you live, and some seats ARE dominated and by indepedents.

But yeah as well Pollies do take a lot of notice of where the primary vote is going in the Reps so it still has influence even if you are in a diehard Laboral seat.

 

[rowanr]

it seems strange. it appears from what you guys have been saying is that the main reason for the minor parties is so they can gang up with the major ones so they get the extra votes because basically most of them don't have a chance in hell of getting any real power or even a seat. seems like some guys just want their 15 minutes of fame by being on a voting slip.
i guess politics is confusing though...

 

[johnny]

It may seem like their ganging up, but it's not really. When you think about it, in Australia it's actually a minority that gets their way at election time. Even if it was just the two parties figting it out, you still may, and usually do end up with a 56-44 majority victory. That means that 46% don't get their way, that's a lot of people (about 9 million). Then add to this all the people who vote for minor parties instead, that decreases the majority even further when you take secondary (preference) votes into account (few elections are won without using preference votes).

So this system that we have allows a little bit of influence from here, a lot from there and a bit more from the otherside too. It's a way where you can try and please as many people as possible and disappoint a least people as possible. Designing elections and elective structures is unbelievably complex and frustrating. Australia has a pretty good and fair systems. Of course it can do with some progressive and incremental changes, but it's actually pretty fair.

 

[Commander Dilsnikk]

The only electoral reform I'd like to see happen at the moment would be the ability to distribute your own party preferences on the senate form without going to the trouble of tackling the entire tablecloth. If people could number all of the boxes above the line it would still allow parties to distribute votes to their preferred candidates but wouldn't subject a parliamentary system already suffering from the pitfalls of party-politics to shady back-room preference dealing.
I can't really believe that too many democrats and labour voters (esp. in Victoria) thought that their preferences would be going to Family First.

Give people the chance to distribute their own preferences in that way and I'd warrant that far more people would do so than would number all boxes below the line.
Problem is..you can't just give people 'democracy' you have to make it easy enough for them to participate in.

 

[johnny]

Interesting that you've methioned Family First. I remember during election time everybody was running for the hills because the Christian Fundementalists were a comin'!

I haven't paid too much attention to them, but everytime I hear them put forward a policy, I tend to think I may be voting for them instead of the Greens next time.

*Disclaimer: They may have said and done some stupid things that I'm unaware of, but I'm going on their pro-choice, anti-war, anti-mandatory detention for refugees and civil liberties platform.

 

[Commander Dilsnikk]

Interesting that you've methioned Family First. I remember during election time everybody was running for the hills because the Christian Fundementalists were a comin'!

I haven't paid too much attention to them, but everytime I hear them put forward a policy, I tend to think I may be voting for them instead of the Greens next time.

*Disclaimer: They may have said and done some stupid things that I'm unaware of, but I'm going on their pro-choice, anti-war, anti-mandatory detention for refugees and civil liberties platform.

Yeah...'tis very interesting... what with the pro-family thing and all Stevy Steve has actually come up with some good platforms.
Unfortunately..in order to sit as they do on a few issues they've had to give in to the Government on a few issues (Telstra, IR, etc.) and their idea of civil liberties and 'familes' don't extend far beyond a general nuclear setup - ie homosexuals and aboriginals need not apply.

A blessing in disguise on some issues, certainly... especially because they're ideologically aligned with Howard on enough issues so as to be able to take a stand on others without fear of being harangued by the Murdochs, Packers and Stokes...but I'll always remember their Queensland candidate suggesting a ritualistic torching of lesbians at the stake.

 

[johnny]

Yeah, if I remember correctly some dumb things were said about Islam as well. But I did also see the mainstream of FF disassociating themselves with his positions (I think it was the same idiot saying these things). I thought I also recalled FF having a fairly compassionate stance towards single parents on the basis that marraiges DO break up and people still need to be cared for. I also remember FF sticking up for David Hicks which I appreciated. I don't know anything about their indigenous policies though.

I think one of the main things for me is just he way the main dude (what's his name?) carries himself when being interviewed. He doesn't dodge the question, he gives a straight forward reply and states his position pretty unambiguosly. I really appreciate that, I hate the "answer the question you wish you were asked" game.

I hate domestic politics altogether, it just seems so much more petty and insipid when contrasted with internatinal stuff.

 

[Cave Dweller]

I would like to see a maximum of 2 terms introduced into the system so no one politician can stay as prime minister for years, and years, and years. Keep them on their toes i say.

 

[rowanr]

i think maximising the terms is pretty silly, if the governemt is working, then why change? if its not then they should get voted out. i think decreasing the time between elections would be much better, as if they really fuck up then they'd be out quicker. i've heard a lot about family first, and they have some good ideas. i can't see a party like that running the country though...