Off Topic

Australian Election

67 replies · 1,291 views
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Looks like it. Greens to hold the balance of power?

I like STV. It encourages people to vote for smaller parties but ensure that doesn't split the vote. Certainly the most democratic system available. Perhaps we'll adopt it following the MMP referendum. I know STV has been used in local elections here in the past. I assume that's the case again this year (I really should know this!).
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Robb wrote:
StopOut wrote:
If WA goes pear shaped labour are screwed.


WA is pear shaped, if you tilt your head a bit.
 
Pear shaped heads are the norm down in Tassie.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Leggy wrote:
2ndBest wrote:

loyalgunner wrote:
I wonder, are either main parties doing anything to court specifically the Aboriginal vote or are they just hoping their policies will be attractive to everyone?
They are less than 3% of the population.  So probably not really a viable target group for a population.  Much easier to use them as a political football.


Neither party does.


Err John Howard?
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Footpaul wrote:
Looks like it. Greens to hold the balance of power?

I like STV. It encourages people to vote for smaller parties but ensure that doesn't split the vote. Certainly the most democratic system available. Perhaps we'll adopt it following the MMP referendum. I know STV has been used in local elections here in the past. I assume that's the case again this year (I really should know this!).


I like STV too.  Reduces the number of wasted votes.  Hope it comes in for our general elections.  STV is being used again for local elections here in wgtn.  I think it is fine for your votes for Major and councillors where generally there is enough information about each candidate, but it gets pretty hard to rank 40 or 50 people going for 12 spots on a health board.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:

Footpaul wrote:
Looks like it. Greens to hold the balance of power?I like STV. It encourages people to vote for smaller parties but ensure that doesn't split the vote. Certainly the most democratic system available. Perhaps we'll adopt it following the MMP referendum. I know STV has been used in local elections here in the past. I assume that's the case again this year (I really should know this!).
I like STV too.� Reduces the number of wasted votes.� Hope it comes in for our general elections.� STV is being used again for local elections here in wgtn.� I think it is fine for your votes for Major and councillors where generally there is enough information about each candidate, but it gets pretty hard to rank 40 or 50 people going for 12 spots on a health board.


The major diference is that it is compulsory to vote in Aussie.

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Coalition could take this if it is a hung parliament. It's going to come down to the independents and they all come from conservative electorates. No one knows where it is all at until postal votes come in.

A good year for close elections!
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
STV is a stnk system when used for parliamentary elections like in Australia. A system where a party gets 11% of the nationwide vote and only 1 seat is unjustifiable.
 
Three of the independents are used to be members of The Coalition, so you'd think they'd have a good chance to form government together.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Leggy wrote:
2ndBest wrote:

Footpaul wrote:
Looks like it. Greens to hold the balance of power?I like STV. It encourages people to vote for smaller parties but ensure that doesn't split the vote. Certainly the most democratic system available. Perhaps we'll adopt it following the MMP referendum. I know STV has been used in local elections here in the past. I assume that's the case again this year (I really should know this!).
I like STV too.  Reduces the number of wasted votes.  Hope it comes in for our general elections.  STV is being used again for local elections here in wgtn.  I think it is fine for your votes for Major and councillors where generally there is enough information about each candidate, but it gets pretty hard to rank 40 or 50 people going for 12 spots on a health board.


The major diference is that it is compulsory to vote in Aussie.

Whats that got to do with anything?
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
All this talk about a Hug Parliament makes me wonder...
 
Just how big is Julia Gillards penis?

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Colvinator wrote:
STV is a stnk system when used for parliamentary elections like in Australia. A system where a party gets 11% of the nationwide vote and only 1 seat is unjustifiable.


That's why they need to also have list MPs in the lower house to ensure proportional representation, just like they do in the senate.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
The other great thing about MMP is that if you have a useless local candidate for a party you want, (or an effective candidate for one of the others) you don't have the dilemma of having to vote for a useless prick just because you prefer their party policies on a national scale.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I'm unfamiliar with the STV system, deducing from your posts I assume it basically means that you rank the party or candidate (or both?) according to which you prefer and that gives an incentive to vote for smaller parties as, although there's a high chance of them not getting far you'll still be voting for a big party as well - is that right or have I missed something important entirely?
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
loyalgunner wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with the STV system, deducing from your posts I assume it basically means that you rank the party or candidate (or both?) according to which you prefer and that gives an incentive to vote for smaller parties as, although there's a high chance of them not getting far you'll still be voting for a big party as well - is that right or have I missed something important entirely?


Thats right - you rank each candidate. After 1st preferences are counted, if no one reaches 50%, the bottom candidate drops out and their votes are allocated to the voters second choice and so on and so forth until 50% is reached. I think if you don't want to rank candidates you can tick a certain box and you just make one choice and then that party allocates the order of your preferences. Not sure how that part works.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
aitkenmike wrote:
loyalgunner wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with the STV system, deducing from your posts I assume it basically means that you rank the party or candidate (or both?) according to which you prefer and that gives an incentive to vote for smaller parties as, although there's a high chance of them not getting far you'll still be voting for a big party as well - is that right or have I missed something important entirely?


Thats right - you rank each candidate. After 1st preferences are counted, if no one reaches 50%, the bottom candidate drops out and their votes are allocated to the voters second choice and so on and so forth until 50% is reached. I think if you don't want to rank candidates you can tick a certain box and you just make one choice and then that party allocates the order of your preferences. Not sure how that part works.
 
 
Democracy at its finest...  

"Ive just re-visited this and once again realised that C-Diddy is a genius - a drunk, Newcastle bred disgrace - but a genius." - Hard News, 11:39am 4th June 2009

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
aitkenmike wrote:
loyalgunner wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with the STV system, deducing from your posts I assume it basically means that you rank the party or candidate (or both?) according to which you prefer and that gives an incentive to vote for smaller parties as, although there's a high chance of them not getting far you'll still be voting for a big party as well - is that right or have I missed something important entirely?


Thats right - you rank each candidate. After 1st preferences are counted, if no one reaches 50%, the bottom candidate drops out and their votes are allocated to the voters second choice and so on and so forth until 50% is reached. I think if you don't want to rank candidates you can tick a certain box and you just make one choice and then that party allocates the order of your preferences. Not sure how that part works.


oh. thought there was more to it than that.

So the second choices of the people who chose the least popular candidate can decide an election? That kinda sucks. Doesn't seem a particularly fair system.


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
martinb wrote:
aitkenmike wrote:
loyalgunner wrote:
I'm unfamiliar with the STV system, deducing from your posts I assume it basically means that you rank the party or candidate (or both?) according to which you prefer and that gives an incentive to vote for smaller parties as, although there's a high chance of them not getting far you'll still be voting for a big party as well - is that right or have I missed something important entirely?


Thats right - you rank each candidate. After 1st preferences are counted, if no one reaches 50%, the bottom candidate drops out and their votes are allocated to the voters second choice and so on and so forth until 50% is reached. I think if you don't want to rank candidates you can tick a certain box and you just make one choice and then that party allocates the order of your preferences. Not sure how that part works.


oh. thought there was more to it than that.

So the second choices of the people who chose the least popular candidate can decide an election? That kinda sucks. Doesn't seem a particularly fair system.
 
It's hardly going to decide an election, but it will ensure their vote isn't effectively wasted. Their voice still gets heard. How's that unfair?
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Who won? The goodies or the baddies?

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:

Leggy wrote:
2ndBest wrote:

Footpaul wrote:
Looks like it. Greens to hold the balance of power?I like STV. It encourages people to vote for smaller parties but ensure that doesn't split the vote. Certainly the most democratic system available. Perhaps we'll adopt it following the MMP referendum. I know STV has been used in local elections here in the past. I assume that's the case again this year (I really should know this!).
I like STV too.� Reduces the number of wasted votes.� Hope it comes in for our general elections.� STV is being used again for local elections here in wgtn.� I think it is fine for your votes for Major and councillors where generally there is enough information about each candidate, but it gets pretty hard to rank 40 or 50 people going for 12 spots on a health board.


The major diference is that it is compulsory to vote in Aussie.
Whats that got to do with anything?


I was not talking about STV/first past the post etc., I was just pointing out that people here have to vote.

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Buffon II wrote:
Who won? The goodies or the baddies?


The disillusioned.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Democracy?

All credit to the opposition. Thanks to St John's and also the ladies for bringing a plate.

"Phoenix till they lose"

Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion. 

Genuine opinion: FTFFA

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Still hung like a horse I see..

We will never fully decide who has won the football.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I could see this ending in another election being called.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Footpaul wrote:
I could see this ending in another election being called.


All the pundits say no.

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Footpaul wrote:
I could see this ending in another election being called.


Probably not a bad thing as a guess.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Oceanic Expert wrote:

Footpaul wrote:
I could see this ending in another election being called.
Probably not a bad thing as a guess.


So where is this at? I take it still chit chatting with the government running like a train without a driver?
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Labor looking less likely by the day. Coalition looking more likely, but more implosive by the day. The Independents natural ally is the Coalition, so that still appears the way it will go, but it might not be to stable. All depends if there are any sticking points with confidence and supply deals.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I say we invade while they are not looking. Works in Rise of Nations.Azevo2010-09-01 14:15:30

We will never fully decide who has won the football.

Permalink Permalink