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

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Labor

    Votes: 21 30.9%

  • Nationals

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Greens

    Votes: 21 30.9%

  • Independant

    Votes: 15 22.1%

  • The Clive Palmer shit show

    Votes: 4 5.9%

  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • One Nation

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 3 4.4%
  • Total voters
    68
johnny said:
The problem is that this has always been the case for referendums and Dutton and LNP have always been aware of this. Either this should have been raised through previous processes or they totally missed it (very hard to imagine this being the case) and are now having a cry due to their own incompetance. Given all the cynical tactics we've seen them use so far, I'd suggest that they were always aware and are now doing their best to undermine confidence in the process.
Click to expand...
100%. My point was the AEC could have seen this coming and tested the situation by flipping the question. eg Do you NOT want a Voice in the constitution then:
Yes =Yes - No voice.
Tick = Yes - No Voice
No = No - Get a Voice
Cross = Not counted or maybe not counted. I can’t see that the AEC has completely ruled it out.

I would imagine the yes side would be jumping up and down at the above hypothetical too.

So a change or a better designed question/collection of the response could avoid the unnecessary debate over the process.
How hard is it to have a box for yes and a box for no and you cut your self and sing it with blood.
 
Halo1 said:
the AEC could have seen this coming and tested the situation by flipping the question. eg Do you NOT want a Voice in the constitution then:
Yes =Yes - No voice.
Tick = Yes - No Voice
No = No - Get a Voice
Cross = Not counted or maybe not counted. I can’t see that the AEC has completely ruled it out.
Click to expand...
Haha, so if people are struggling to understand a simple yes or no question, flipping it so yes means no is going to really confuse them.

Halo1 said:
So a change or a better designed question/collection of the response could avoid the unnecessary debate over the process
Click to expand...
I mean it really couldn't be simpler, and the reason for the tick vs cross thing has been clearly explained by the AEC - ie a cross is sometimes an affirmative choice on a form.

Anybody who is actively agitating about this aspect of the referendum is being disingenuous.
 
David2406 said:
Maybe we need another referendum next year to see if we allow crosses or ticks as well as yes or no
Click to expand...
1693296088463.png
 
Halo1 said:
100%. My point was the AEC could have seen this coming and tested the situation by flipping the question. eg Do you NOT want a Voice in the constitution then:
Yes =Yes - No voice.
Tick = Yes - No Voice
No = No - Get a Voice
Cross = Not counted or maybe not counted. I can’t see that the AEC has completely ruled it out.

I would imagine the yes side would be jumping up and down at the above hypothetical too.

So a change or a better designed question/collection of the response could avoid the unnecessary debate over the process.
How hard is it to have a box for yes and a box for no and you cut your self and sing it with blood.
Click to expand...
I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I've worked with the AEC over the years on numerous issues, including quite recently, and often with Tom Rogers himself (I'm not working with him on a one-to-one basis, but I'm in the room, literally, if I can put it that way. He was also on my podcast once!). I've never worked with an organisation that thinks things through as thoroughly and comprehensively as the AEC does. They are one of the very few orgs in Australia that I have actual faith in.
 
Tubbsy said:
Haha, so if people are struggling to understand a simple yes or no question, flipping it so yes means no is going to really confuse them.


I mean it really couldn't be simpler, and the reason for the tick vs cross thing has been clearly explained by the AEC - ie a cross is sometimes an affirmative choice on a form.

Anybody who is actively agitating about this aspect of the referendum is being disingenuous.
Click to expand...
johnny said:
I don't have answers to any of these questions, but I've worked with the AEC over the years on numerous issues, including quite recently, and often with Tom Rogers himself (I'm not working with him on a one-to-one basis, but I'm in the room, literally, if I can put it that way. He was also on my podcast once!). I've never worked with an organisation that thinks things through as thoroughly and comprehensively as the AEC does. They are one of the very few orgs in Australia that I have actual faith in.
Click to expand...
That is good insight and good to know. I do see that some things are easier to say than do in reality. it will always be the case that if you give the likes of Dutton an inch they will take a mile and it just becomes a pure distraction.
 
Scotty T said:
Then you should vote yes, because it will never affect you.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I don’t think it will make any difference, but it might and it cant hurt. Just seems to be reinstating Atsic with more permanence from what I can tell. Sure that was a bit of an argumentative clusterfuck in the end, but it’s abolition was a dick move (yet another one…) by Howard.

Plus it pisses off the so called “conservatives”, so that’s a win all on its own.
 
Haakon said:
Exactly. I don’t think it will make any difference, but it might and it cant hurt. Just seems to be reinstating Atsic with more permanence from what I can tell. Sure that was a bit of an argumentative clusterfuck in the end, but it’s abolition was a dick move (yet another one…) by Howard.

Plus it pisses off the so called “conservatives”, so that’s a win all on its own.
Click to expand...
I think the big mining interests like Jabba and Gina, Rio Tinto, Santos and BHP are shitting themselves that they might actually have to pay proper royalties to the traditional owners, and also not fuck up their ancient cultural sites, and acutally consult with them & treat them with respect.
That would be a refreshing change for the better.
While they are at it, the mining corps can pay proper tax, and a decent resource tax, so Australia isn't just giving away our mineral wealth for cents on the dollar, FFS.
 
ForkinGreat said:
I think the big mining interests like Jabba and Gina, Rio Tinto, Santos and BHP are shitting themselves that they might actually have to pay proper royalties to the traditional owners, and also not fuck up their ancient cultural sites, and acutally consult with them & treat them with respect.
That would be a refreshing change for the better.
While they are at it, the mining corps can pay proper tax, and a decent resource tax, so Australia isn't just giving away our mineral wealth for cents on the dollar, FFS.
Click to expand...
And the traditional owners would be more likely to push for action on climate change, etc...
 
Some shit just popped up from the guy who now runs a Western Sydney bike shop where I worked in the 90's, son of original owner. Hadn't seen him for years, recently bumped into him back at Blacktown (yep it's that shop) and added on Facebook. Shared some shit saying the vote is a UN agenda to take our land. I gave him a mouthful. Looking forward to a reply, no reply, a block or he deletes the bullshit message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top