Who Did You Vote for? (1 Viewer)

[Ziff]

What worries me is all the Greens votes!

 

[timrie6]

it doesn't worry me

 

[Dougie]

What worries me is all the Greens votes!

why would it?

 

[thorrnydevil]

Hahaha...we're tying now. You know I love you Timrie6, but hahahahahahahahah!!!

 

[paper cup]

argh that just sucks, you know what I want to pulverise people at BOS now.
go the ALP.

 

[zahid]

a bit late anyhow

ALP for the UPPER

and also

ALP for the LOWER....although i am not old enough to vote, I told my mom and dad what to do, and they did just that.

 

[Scanorama]

ALP all the way

 

[ohne]

a bit late anyhow

ALP for the UPPER

and also

ALP for the LOWER....although i am not old enough to vote, I told my mom and dad what to do, and they did just that.

MUM and dad! don't take american spelling past labor please.

 

[ohne]

well i wanted labor in power but i also wanted to vote for the greens.
so i voted below the line and put the 1st labor candidate as 1, and then all the green candidates (2, 3, 4 etc) then went back to labor again.

was that the right thing to do asq?

yes and no....

under preferencial voting the best thing to do is allocate your preferences in the order you wish to see candidates elected. there is no need to vote tactically under compulsory preferencial.

your senate vote would have gone to the ALP then the greens then back to the ALP again. the elections of two labor and 2 coalition senators in each state is always a foregone conclusion. therefore your 1st preference would have easily been a surplus after all the above line votes had been counted. it would then have went to your second preference (the greens). the last place in NSW was a contest between the ALP, greens and liberals for forests. the greens were second last to be eliminated and your vote will eventually have gone to the ALPs third candidate michael foreshaw and he was last to be elected

your vote was essentially one for the greens, however after their candidate was eliminated because their vote was too low, your vote would have gone to the ALP. there is little point in giving your first preference to the first ALP senator and then second to another party as their election is always a foregone conclusion. if you favour the alp over the greens then you should place all their candidates before the greens. if you favour the opposite then you should vote that way

in australia senate contests are a battle for the third place for the coalition and the ALP and first place for minor parties. the four coalition senators elected in queensland appears to have been a freak event with the liberals and nationals running separate tickets and some good preference deals. combined with the fact the coalition is very strong in queensland

 

[arson_system]

ALP ALP ALP...it's over man...y still talk abt it? Wait until the next elections

 

[Generator]

ALP ALP ALP...it's over man...y still talk abt it? Wait until the next elections

It isn't as though the politicians only have a role to play every three or so years.

 

[Ziff]

I hope they institute above the line preferential voting in the senate. I don't see it happening. Another model would be to simply abolish the senate - it's representative of the states (rather the parties these days, come on, do any senators vote along state lines?), not the people. Don't see this happening either.

 

[thorrnydevil]

I like the idea that Senators don't belong to any party, but in fact are independents with no party ties. This should be the way that councils work too. No parties, just independents standing up for the people.

Also, I can't believe the Lord Mayor of Sydney is also a Lower House Member. Thats just ridiculous. Does she get paid for her second job? I hope not.

 

[thorrnydevil]

You do realise that independants will be gone if the liberals flag a change to the way the senate is elected...?

There will always be party lines and coalitions...a parliament of all independents would be usless...no one would agree...alliances would never last...government woul d be unstable...stable government is needed for foreign investement...country is not stable...country goes bankrupt...people move to NZ or Sweeden

I'm actually going to Sweden on Exchange

Yeah, I do see your point. However, in local council I still don't think you need to belong to a particular party.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Maybe you should go to asia...

No...i mean no one is interested in local council...you will always have blockhead mayors...

Our Mayor is some blockhead who spent all his time removing the channel 10 news add on the overpass becuase she was showing some chest...

He is also tough on Brothels...i mean...GREAT...shut them down...force them into the suburbs..force them underground...dont monitor the health of the workers...= sex slaves = higher incidence of STDs... etc...cos you know life is as simple as saying 'its not there...i cant see it...its gone!'

How does this have anything to do with our debate. Once again, you go off on a tangent because you don't have any good, valid arguements.

 

[Ziff]

How does this have anything to do with our debate. Once again, you go off on a tangent because you don't have any good, valid arguements.

How to construct an argument:

Take a point of view - A. Explain your point of view - B. Use examples to show and prove your point of view - C.

A - i mean no one is interested in local council
B - you will always have blockhead mayors
C - Our Mayor is some blockhead...

It is all in response to your harking on about local councils see? It actually is relevant, not a tangent.

I have to agree, local councils are useless. In Wollongong we've had paedophiles (Arkell) as Lord Mayor. We've also had a dodgy Italian laywer (Harrisson) who burnt down his own restaurant for the insurance money.

I think we're overgoverned...

Now I'm going to go read up about how Queensland's unicameral parliament works and if that's any good...

 

[waterfowl]

I have to agree, local councils are useless.

In Warringah we don't even have a council! They were so corrupt they've been sacked three times since like 1965. Since their last sacking we've had an administrator, who actually does a better job. His term has been extended to 2006 (I think) and some people are upset because they say it's undemocratic to have one person in charge, and no election, for so long. But most of the people complaining are the ex-councilors themselves