http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29


Quote:

By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences.

Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29 Quote: By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences. Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly.

The greens would just love that there be the opposite of optional. Cant have people having options.

There shouldn't even be preferential voting, but at worst, it should only remain an option. First past the post should be the only way to vote.

Australia should embrace democratic human rights and have optional voting.

Mind you the AEC are pretty useless at tracking down the 1 mil of optional non-voters, myself included when we don't bother to show up.

Make those bastards really work for their $2 and a pension.

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 11:36am:

freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29 Quote: By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences. Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly. The greens would just love that there be the opposite of optional. Cant have people having options. There shouldn't even be preferential voting, but at worst, it should only remain an option. First past the post should be the only way to vote.

I agree, that way the conservatives would have only won power twice in the last 70 years. While we're at it, ban coalitions,that is for losers that cant win in their own right,anyway. With a first past the post system only the single winning party should/could form government,majority rules,hey bro???

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly.

A smooth way of saying that if we get your primary vote we then expect full control of your preferential voting.

Looks to me to be saying that people are not voting the way we expect them to vote.

I tend to make up my own mind on where my preferences go and I know the major party's hate this.

Quote:

A smooth way of saying that if we get your primary vote we then expect full control of your preferential voting.

That is not what I said. You are thinking of the senate.


Quote:

Looks to me to be saying that people are not voting the way we expect them to vote.

No. It is saying they are not voting. The outcome was entirely predictable. In the end the voter loses due to reduced choice at the polls.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 11:57am:

Quote: A smooth way of saying that if we get your primary vote we then expect full control of your preferential voting. That is not what I said. You are thinking of the senate. [quote]Looks to me to be saying that people are not voting the way we expect them to vote.

No. It is saying they are not voting. The outcome was entirely predictable. In the end the voter loses due to reduced choice at the polls.[/quote]
They must be voting because they signed off. They just are not voting the way the greens want them to vote. The greens are that lame, they can only survive on preferential votes. So forcing like the dictators they are, to do preferential instead of it being optional, will help them.

You are not getting it eaither. It was actually a conservative party that introduced the current preferential system still used in most states because it unfairly harmed their election prospects. It was labor who got rid of it, because they have the most to gain from the reduced choice that will inevitably result.


Quote:

They must be voting because they signed off. They just are not voting the way the greens want them to vote.

I am sure the Greens are quite happy with the outcome. For starters it destroyed the National party.

Preferential systems are actually a series of elections. They do vote in the first election. It is the failure to vote in subsequent election rounds that causes the problems. People are still forced to turn up and vote, but not to rank all candidates. Hence people chose Nationals, but did not distribute preferences to Labor or Liberal, which meant that Labor ended up winning those seats even though the majority would have preferred Liberal.

So the Nats did what they had too. They cut their own throat. Labor forced them into an impossible position, all the while being cheared on by idiot conservatives who did not understand what they were doing.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 11:57am:

That is not what I said. You are thinking of the senate.

Queensland's voting system - optional preferential voting

Queensland State elections have used Optional Preferential Voting since the 1992 State election. OPV is also used in Queensland local government elections (in those councils divided into single member wards or divisions) and in the New South Wales Lower House.



freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 11:57am:

No. It is saying they are not voting. The outcome was entirely predictable. In the end the voter loses due to reduced choice at the polls.

The voter has the same choice just that some elect to not utilise that choice. I would think this only comes into play in a three way contest.

Combining like in QLD is only a work around to formalise removing that possibility, obviously because they are either too stupid or selfish to avoid this type of conflict.

I can honestly say that I just don't care either way with a slight preference to allow people to vote how they like.

I can see every possibility that there would be Liberal voters unwilling to preference the Nationals and vica versa.

You can practice non-preferential voting in ANY election in Australia

It's better known as INFORMAL
Most of the electorate are IGNORANT to the fact that ( ... in most cases) if you DON"T go with Labor or Coalition, your vote is BINNED in the first count

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29 Quote: By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences. Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly.

Yesterday you said that coalitions reduce voter choice. now you are saying that MERGING reduces choice. you cant have it both ways. which is it?

skippy. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 11:44am:

progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29 Quote: By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences. Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly. The greens would just love that there be the opposite of optional. Cant have people having options. There shouldn't even be preferential voting, but at worst, it should only remain an option. First past the post should be the only way to vote. I agree, that way the conservatives would have only won power twice in the last 70 years. While we're at it, ban coalitions,that is for losers that cant win in their own right,anyway. With a first past the post system only the single winning party should/could form government,majority rules,hey bro???

and now for the truth... under your idiotic system you would allow a government to be formed with a MINORITY of the seats thus ensuring that they could never get their legislation passed, would lose every no-confidence motion and have an election every 3 months. Of course what they could do is negotiate with other minor parties to establish a de-facto coalition to ensure govt can function.
in other words, EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 12:17pm:

You are not getting it eaither. It was actually a conservative party that introduced the current preferential system still used in most states because it unfairly harmed their election prospects. It was labor who got rid of it, because they have the most to gain from the reduced choice that will inevitably result. Quote: They must be voting because they signed off. They just are not voting the way the greens want them to vote. I am sure the Greens are quite happy with the outcome. For starters it destroyed the National party. Preferential systems are actually a series of elections. They do vote in the first election. It is the failure to vote in subsequent election rounds that causes the problems. People are still forced to turn up and vote, but not to rank all candidates. Hence people chose Nationals, but did not distribute preferences to Labor or Liberal, which meant that Labor ended up winning those seats even though the majority would have preferred Liberal. So the Nats did what they had too. They cut their own throat. Labor forced them into an impossible position, all the while being cheared on by idiot conservatives who did not understand what they were doing.

quite the silliest interpretation of the LNP merger Ive heard yet. And if to prove my point, the polls are currently showing the LNP winning all but one seat in QLD and only Rudd's personal standing stands in the way of a clean sweep. Sounds to me like it wasnt merely a good decision but an incredible good one.

buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 12:41pm:

You can practice non-preferential voting in ANY election in Australia It's better known as INFORMAL Most of the electorate are IGNORANT to the fact that ( ... in most cases) if you DON"T go with Labor or Coalition, your vote is BINNED in the first count

informal voting is NOT voting at all which is hardly the same thing. and the reality is that no-ones vote is binned unless youi consider that voting for a losing candidate is the same thing as your vote being 'binned'.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29 Quote: By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences. Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly. The greens would just love that there be the opposite of optional. Cant have people having options. There shouldn't even be preferential voting, but at worst, it should only remain an option. First past the post should be the only way to vote. I agree, that way the conservatives would have only won power twice in the last 70 years. While we're at it, ban coalitions,that is for losers that cant win in their own right,anyway. With a first past the post system only the single winning party should/could form government,majority rules,hey bro??? and now for the truth... under your idiotic system you would allow a government to be formed with a MINORITY of the seats thus ensuring that they could never get their legislation passed, would lose every no-confidence motion and have an election every 3 months. Of course what they could do is negotiate with other minor parties to establish a de-facto coalition to ensure govt can function. in other words, EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

So you dont agree with your rightard chum, progresives lol? longwhine???
I thought the Lib congo line would have a meltdown when they realised first past the post meant they only get to govern once every 35 years or so, ;D ;D ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:11pm:

Yesterday you said that coalitions reduce voter choice. now you are saying that MERGING reduces choice. you cant have it both ways. which is it?

He is obviously right.

In degree you can have two stand alone groups acting differently and you get the most choice.

You can have two groups acting in coalition with two separate processes which is much less choice but still scope for disagreement and a change of position.

Not the best option in terms of choice but defiantly better then an amalgamation where you turn two into one and have no choice at all.

In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:14pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29 Quote: By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences. Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly. The greens would just love that there be the opposite of optional. Cant have people having options. There shouldn't even be preferential voting, but at worst, it should only remain an option. First past the post should be the only way to vote. I agree, that way the conservatives would have only won power twice in the last 70 years. While we're at it, ban coalitions,that is for losers that cant win in their own right,anyway. With a first past the post system only the single winning party should/could form government,majority rules,hey bro??? and now for the truth... under your idiotic system you would allow a government to be formed with a MINORITY of the seats thus ensuring that they could never get their legislation passed, would lose every no-confidence motion and have an election every 3 months. Of course what they could do is negotiate with other minor parties to establish a de-facto coalition to ensure govt can function. in other words, EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW. So you dont agree with your rightard chum, progresives lol? longwhine??? I thought the Lib congo line would have a meltdown when they realised first past the post meant they only get to govern once every 35 years or so, ;D ;D ;D

You cant take past history to mean the same history under different circumstances.

If the circumstances changed, I would vote accordingly.

skippy. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:14pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29 Quote: By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences. Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly. The greens would just love that there be the opposite of optional. Cant have people having options. There shouldn't even be preferential voting, but at worst, it should only remain an option. First past the post should be the only way to vote. I agree, that way the conservatives would have only won power twice in the last 70 years. While we're at it, ban coalitions,that is for losers that cant win in their own right,anyway. With a first past the post system only the single winning party should/could form government,majority rules,hey bro??? and now for the truth... under your idiotic system you would allow a government to be formed with a MINORITY of the seats thus ensuring that they could never get their legislation passed, would lose every no-confidence motion and have an election every 3 months. Of course what they could do is negotiate with other minor parties to establish a de-facto coalition to ensure govt can function. in other words, EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW. So you dont agree with your rightard chum, progresives lol? longwhine??? I thought the Lib congo line would have a meltdown when they realised first past the post meant they only get to govern once every 35 years or so, ;D ;D ;D

if you had half the brain if a real kangaroo you would realise that in almost every seat (a couple of exceptions) libs and nats dont stand against each other. In the last election the coalition would have romped it in with first-past-the-post voting as around 20 seats were won for labor using green preferences.

so yeah. if you want, bring in first=past-the-post voting. there might not be another labor govt for decades - if ever.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:11pm: Yesterday you said that coalitions reduce voter choice. now you are saying that MERGING reduces choice. you cant have it both ways. which is it? He is obviously right. In degree you can have two stand alone groups acting differently and you get the most choice. You can have two groups acting in coalition with two separate processes which is much less choice but still scope for disagreement and a change of position. Not the best option in terms of choice but defiantly better then an amalgamation where you turn two into one and have no choice at all.

libs and nats dont stand against each other except in rare cirucmstances. that manes the 'choice' you now think has gone was never there in the first place.

and FD was silly in his two statements that bother merging AND coalitions denied choice. I rarely know what FD is syaing/thinking at the best of times but this is opaque even for him.

skippy. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D

you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better.

get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:49pm:

skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:20pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:14pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29 Quote: By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences. Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly. The greens would just love that there be the opposite of optional. Cant have people having options. There shouldn't even be preferential voting, but at worst, it should only remain an option. First past the post should be the only way to vote. I agree, that way the conservatives would have only won power twice in the last 70 years. While we're at it, ban coalitions,that is for losers that cant win in their own right,anyway. With a first past the post system only the single winning party should/could form government,majority rules,hey bro??? and now for the truth... under your idiotic system you would allow a government to be formed with a MINORITY of the seats thus ensuring that they could never get their legislation passed, would lose every no-confidence motion and have an election every 3 months. Of course what they could do is negotiate with other minor parties to establish a de-facto coalition to ensure govt can function. in other words, EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW. So you dont agree with your rightard chum, progresives lol? longwhine??? I thought the Lib congo line would have a meltdown when they realised first past the post meant they only get to govern once every 35 years or so, ;D ;D ;D if you had half the brain if a real kangaroo you would realise that in almost every seat (a couple of exceptions) libs and nats dont stand against each other. In the last election the coalition would have romped it in with first-past-the-post voting as around 20 seats were won for labor using green preferences. so yeah. if you want, bring in first=past-the-post voting. there might not be another labor govt for decades - if ever.

If you had  half the brain  of a senile old fart you'd realise that under the first past the post discussion being had a coalition would not be allowed,and the LIBS have NEVER won the first past the post in this country alone without NATS help, and even then only a few times. Keep dreaming grandpa.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country.

Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine???

skippy. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:49pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:20pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:14pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:36am: freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29 Quote: By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences. Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly. The greens would just love that there be the opposite of optional. Cant have people having options. There shouldn't even be preferential voting, but at worst, it should only remain an option. First past the post should be the only way to vote. I agree, that way the conservatives would have only won power twice in the last 70 years. While we're at it, ban coalitions,that is for losers that cant win in their own right,anyway. With a first past the post system only the single winning party should/could form government,majority rules,hey bro??? and now for the truth... under your idiotic system you would allow a government to be formed with a MINORITY of the seats thus ensuring that they could never get their legislation passed, would lose every no-confidence motion and have an election every 3 months. Of course what they could do is negotiate with other minor parties to establish a de-facto coalition to ensure govt can function. in other words, EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE NOW. So you dont agree with your rightard chum, progresives lol? longwhine??? I thought the Lib congo line would have a meltdown when they realised first past the post meant they only get to govern once every 35 years or so, ;D ;D ;D if you had half the brain if a real kangaroo you would realise that in almost every seat (a couple of exceptions) libs and nats dont stand against each other. In the last election the coalition would have romped it in with first-past-the-post voting as around 20 seats were won for labor using green preferences. so yeah. if you want, bring in first=past-the-post voting. there might not be another labor govt for decades - if ever. If you had  half the brain  of a senile old fart you'd realise that under the first past the post discussion being had a coalition would not be allowed,and the LIBS have NEVER won the first past the post in this country alone without NATS help, and even then only a few times. Keep dreaming grandpa.

of course. lets ban coalitions and ban preferences and ban how-to-vate cards for conservatives. what about banning the right to advertise for conservatives?

all you are doing is showing your desperation by constructing a fantasy scenario that can disenfranchise the electorate so that your party can get in.

it is as lame as it sounds.

skippy. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine???

the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY.

suck it up now.

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29 Quote: By contrast, a variation of the preferential system known as Optional Preferential Voting has proven a significant handicap to coalition co-operation in Queensland and New South Wales, because significant numbers of voters don't express all useful preferences. Is this the ultimate reason behind the merger in QLD? That is, optional preferential voting is leading to a reduction in voter choice, as political parties seek to limit the options given to the public so they are commensurate with the ability of the voting system to handle those options fairly.

using wikipedia as a source of relevant political analysis is not helping your credibility.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:02pm:

skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now.

How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority?
Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now. How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority? Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up.

Imagine the tanty if Labor get back in. ;D ;D ;D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now. How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority? Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up.

the ASSUMPTION that it is 23 months away is a big if. the govt isnt stable. it has a huge leadership struggle going on and has the polls of a pedophile party. it might last 23 months but it could fall next week.

and given that the polls have only gone one way in the past 2 years, why would you expect that to change with the same people in place?

skippy. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now. How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority? Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up. Imagine the tanty if Labor get back in. ;D ;D ;D

imagine the tanty if family first got in. the chances are roughly the same and with the current direction of the polls, the votes could be at similar levels before long.

it has a huge leadership struggle going on and has the polls of a pedophile party. it might last 23 months but it could fall next week.


FREEDIVER HOW GOOD A LOOK IS IT FOR YOU TO HAVE A MOD THAT CONTINUALLY CALLS A MAJOR PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY A PEDOPHILE PARTY??????

skippy. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now. How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority? Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up. Imagine the tanty if Labor get back in. ;D ;D ;D

I wonder who will throw the biggest tanty when labor is ejected form office. You or Buzz? bit of a tossup although we can be assure Greens_lose will come on and tell us how the massive majority is a repudiation of the coalition. Nemesis wlll come on and dispute the figures.

we are already p[lanning our election night party since it could be any day!

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:11pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now. How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority? Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up. the ASSUMPTION that it is 23 months away is a big if. the govt isnt stable. it has a huge leadership struggle going on and has the polls of a pedophile party. it might last 23 months but it could fall next week. and given that the polls have only gone one way in the past 2 years, why would you expect that to change with the same people in place?

That sort of smacking CRAP does not enhance debate on any level and is unbecoming of someone who took on a moderator roll to try and re install civil political debate.

But back to the reasonable assumptions in your post.
Even if Rudd comes back which I don't think is likely as I believe Labor has taken the advice that if they are going down they will do it standing up, backing their ideas to the death, the independents will still support Labor WHY, because Tony Abbott is the alternative he remains the biggest hurdle to power both with the independents and the Australian public(I don't think your majority will be anything like the polls)

skippy. wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:14pm:

it has a huge leadership struggle going on and has the polls of a pedophile party. it might last 23 months but it could fall next week. FREEDIVER HOW GOOD A LOOK IS IT FOR YOU TO HAVE A MOD THAT CONTINUALLY CALLS A MAJOR PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY A PEDOPHILE PARTY??????

Is there anything about English Comprehension that you actually comprehend? I dont have high expectations for most labor supporters but even you shoudl be able to understand some things - like basic comprehension.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:11pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now. How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority? Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up. the ASSUMPTION that it is 23 months away is a big if. the govt isnt stable. it has a huge leadership struggle going on and has the polls of a pedophile party. it might last 23 months but it could fall next week. and given that the polls have only gone one way in the past 2 years, why would you expect that to change with the same people in place? That sort of smacking CRAP does not enhance debate on any level and is unbecoming of someone who took on a moderator roll to try and re install civil political debate. But back to the reasonable assumptions in your post. Even if Rudd comes back which I don't think is likely as I believe Labor has taken the advice that if they are going down they will do it standing up, backing their ideas to the death, the independents will still support Labor WHY, because Tony Abbott is the alternative he remains the biggest hurdle to power both with the independents and the Australian public(I don't think your majority will be anything like the polls)

Your complaint is either that you didnt understand that the comment WASNT a direct reference to the ALP but rather by way of using an extreme example to make a point - a literary device seemingly beyond a few... OR you found the reference uncomfortable because of the ALPs problem with such criminal behaviour.

Quote:

Even if Rudd comes back which I don't think is likely as I believe Labor has taken the advice that if they are going down they will do it standing up, backing their ideas to the death, the independents will still support Labor WHY, because Tony Abbott is the alternative he remains the biggest hurdle to power both with the independents and the Australian public(I don't think your majority will be anything like the polls)

while the polls might be uncomfortable, tell me why you think they arent accurate since they have bene unerringly accurate for the past 40 years and picked NSW election spot on? Isnt that just wishful thinking of the most desperate kind?

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:19pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 12:41pm: You can practice non-preferential voting in ANY election in Australia It's better known as INFORMAL Most of the electorate are IGNORANT to the fact that ( ... in most cases) if you DON"T go with Labor or Coalition, your vote is BINNED in the first count informal voting is NOT voting at all which is hardly the same thing. and the reality is that no-ones vote is binned unless youi consider that voting for a losing candidate is the same thing as your vote being 'binned'.

You are SO wrong, on this one, for such a NO-ALL
Given that well over 95% of Labor or Coalition members - EVERY vote that fails to preference one of these is HISTORY on the first count

Where ELSE can it go, in a 2PP ?  


Only a voter with the mentality of a Honsonite would think otherwise

buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:19pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 12:41pm: You can practice non-preferential voting in ANY election in Australia It's better known as INFORMAL Most of the electorate are IGNORANT to the fact that ( ... in most cases) if you DON"T go with Labor or Coalition, your vote is BINNED in the first count informal voting is NOT voting at all which is hardly the same thing. and the reality is that no-ones vote is binned unless youi consider that voting for a losing candidate is the same thing as your vote being 'binned'. You are SO wrong, on this one, for such a NO-ALL Given that well over 95% of Labor or Coalition members - EVERY vote that fails to preference one of these is HISTORY on the first count Where ELSE can it go, in a 2PP ?   Only a voter with the mentality of a Honsonite would think otherwise

And herein is revealed the primary fallacy of elections which so few are able to understand. and it is this.

the TWO PARTY PREFERRED figure is an artificial measure not mentioned or used in the electoral act. it is a simple statistical methodology to REFLECT the voting - not an offical determination.

also preferences dont even enter into the equation if one candidate gets over 50% of primary votes which over half do.

the 2PP which you love to quote is also clearly something you KNOW next to nothing about or the way you spell it, 'NO'

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:30pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:19pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 12:41pm: You can practice non-preferential voting in ANY election in Australia It's better known as INFORMAL Most of the electorate are IGNORANT to the fact that ( ... in most cases) if you DON"T go with Labor or Coalition, your vote is BINNED in the first count informal voting is NOT voting at all which is hardly the same thing. and the reality is that no-ones vote is binned unless youi consider that voting for a losing candidate is the same thing as your vote being 'binned'. You are SO wrong, on this one, for such a NO-ALL Given that well over 95% of Labor or Coalition members - EVERY vote that fails to preference one of these is HISTORY on the first count Where ELSE can it go, in a 2PP ?   Only a voter with the mentality of a Honsonite would think otherwise And herein is revealed the primary fallacy of elections which so few are able to understand. and it is this. the TWO PARTY PREFERRED figure is an artificial measure not mentioned or used in the electoral act. it is a simple statistical methodology to REFLECT the voting - not an offical determination. also preferences dont even enter into the equation if one candidate gets over 50% of primary votes which over half do. the 2PP which you love to quote is also clearly something you KNOW next to nothing about or the way you spell it, 'NO'

My ERROR, acknowledged
The REST of your "bitches" I spell ...

R.E.A.L.I.T.Y.


"SUCK IT UP", as you would put it

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:

Even if Rudd comes back which I don't think is likely as I believe Labor has taken the advice that if they are going down they will do it standing up, backing their ideas to the death, the independents will still support Labor WHY, because Tony Abbott is the alternative he remains the biggest hurdle to power both with the independents and the Australian public(I don't think your majority will be anything like the polls)

I'm guessing he will be back, post election announcement, on the disolution of the current parliament - a la Bob Hawke - which saw the Labor vote sky-rocket

And BY then, Abbott's GREAT BIG TAX scare campaign on carbon permits will be exposed

This is WHY his assured victory rests on an that early election he keeps calling for

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 1:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:11pm: Yesterday you said that coalitions reduce voter choice. now you are saying that MERGING reduces choice. you cant have it both ways. which is it? He is obviously right. In degree you can have two stand alone groups acting differently and you get the most choice. You can have two groups acting in coalition with two separate processes which is much less choice but still scope for disagreement and a change of position. Not the best option in terms of choice but defiantly better then an amalgamation where you turn two into one and have no choice at all. libs and nats dont stand against each other except in rare cirucmstances. that manes the 'choice' you now think has gone was never there in the first place. .

If preferential voting harms them that is the only way I can see it happening - three corner battles with the conservatives effectively not cross preferencing. I think this is the actual core event behind the title.

I agree its rare but has occurred.

There is more choice by electing different party's in coalition as you may be putting differing points of opinion in the same parliament in a manner in which they can be expressed in those terms.

An example would be the sale of Telstra the Nationals were against it - under a merger they would have been for it.

Though they are mostly too gutless to act on their principals or in some cases have any to act on the potential is still there to a greater extent.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 3:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:11pm: Yesterday you said that coalitions reduce voter choice. now you are saying that MERGING reduces choice. you cant have it both ways. which is it? He is obviously right. In degree you can have two stand alone groups acting differently and you get the most choice. You can have two groups acting in coalition with two separate processes which is much less choice but still scope for disagreement and a change of position. Not the best option in terms of choice but defiantly better then an amalgamation where you turn two into one and have no choice at all. libs and nats dont stand against each other except in rare cirucmstances. that manes the 'choice' you now think has gone was never there in the first place. . If preferential voting harms them that is the only way I can see it happening - three corner battles with the conservatives effectively not cross referencing. I think this is the actual core event behind the title. I agree its rare but has occurred. There is more choice by electing different party's in coalition as you may be putting differing points of opinion in the same parliament in a manner in which they can be expressed in those terms. An example would be the sale of Telstra the Nationals were against it - under a merger they would have been for it. Though they are mostly too gutless to act on their principals or in some cases have any to act on the potential is still there to a greater extent.

any party system either single or coalition requires compromise. nothing new here.

So LW your saying that preferential voting doesn't hurt the coalition?

or just being pedantic about a coalition being the same as one merged party?

I think there are substantial differences and the potential for a lot more, imagine if the Nationals got some votes or developed a spine.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:22pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:11pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now. How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority? Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up. the ASSUMPTION that it is 23 months away is a big if. the govt isnt stable. it has a huge leadership struggle going on and has the polls of a pedophile party. it might last 23 months but it could fall next week. and given that the polls have only gone one way in the past 2 years, why would you expect that to change with the same people in place? That sort of smacking CRAP does not enhance debate on any level and is unbecoming of someone who took on a moderator roll to try and re install civil political debate. But back to the reasonable assumptions in your post. Even if Rudd comes back which I don't think is likely as I believe Labor has taken the advice that if they are going down they will do it standing up, backing their ideas to the death, the independents will still support Labor WHY, because Tony Abbott is the alternative he remains the biggest hurdle to power both with the independents and the Australian public(I don't think your majority will be anything like the polls) Your complaint is either that you didnt understand that the comment WASNT a direct reference to the ALP but rather by way of using an extreme example to make a point - a literary device seemingly beyond a few... OR you found the reference uncomfortable because of the ALPs problem with such criminal behaviour.

Your own answer contridicts itself, you have allso previously refered to the ALP as the peado party on numerous occasions, but if you wish to undermine yourself and your stated aims as moderator in this silly partisian way, who am I to stop you.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

So LW your saying that preferential voting doesn't hurt the coalition? or just being pedantic about a coalition being the same as one merged party? I think there are substantial differences and the potential for a lot more, imagine if the Nationals got some votes or developed a spine.

preferential voting advantages the ALP in the current environment by getitng green preferences. preferential voting neither harms nor helps Coalition success. How can it when it is rare for coalition candidates to stand against each other?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:22pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:11pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now. How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority? Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up. the ASSUMPTION that it is 23 months away is a big if. the govt isnt stable. it has a huge leadership struggle going on and has the polls of a pedophile party. it might last 23 months but it could fall next week. and given that the polls have only gone one way in the past 2 years, why would you expect that to change with the same people in place? That sort of smacking CRAP does not enhance debate on any level and is unbecoming of someone who took on a moderator roll to try and re install civil political debate. But back to the reasonable assumptions in your post. Even if Rudd comes back which I don't think is likely as I believe Labor has taken the advice that if they are going down they will do it standing up, backing their ideas to the death, the independents will still support Labor WHY, because Tony Abbott is the alternative he remains the biggest hurdle to power both with the independents and the Australian public(I don't think your majority will be anything like the polls) Your complaint is either that you didnt understand that the comment WASNT a direct reference to the ALP but rather by way of using an extreme example to make a point - a literary device seemingly beyond a few... OR you found the reference uncomfortable because of the ALPs problem with such criminal behaviour. Your own answer contridicts itself, you have allso previously refered to the ALP as the peado party on numerous occasions, but if you wish to undermine yourself and your stated aims as moderator in this silly partisian way, who am I to stop you.

If I had compared labors polls to that of a communist party you wouldnt have been offended.  but by comparing the ALP to the polls a mythical Pedo Party would get, you are offended? the point was saying that the polls for the ALP are so bad that an offensive, unelectable party might do better! Why do I have to explain this? was it really that hard to understand or is my second thought the real one - that labor supporters are sensitive of their poor record in this area?

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:07pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 4:05pm: So LW your saying that preferential voting doesn't hurt the coalition? or just being pedantic about a coalition being the same as one merged party? I think there are substantial differences and the potential for a lot more, imagine if the Nationals got some votes or developed a spine. preferential voting advantages the ALP in the current environment by getitng green preferences. preferential voting neither harms nor helps Coalition success. How can it when it is rare for coalition candidates to stand against each other?

I left out the word optinal but I would agree with you.

Though it does seem to be the reason that they gave for the merged in QLD.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:11pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 4:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:22pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:11pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now. How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority? Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up. the ASSUMPTION that it is 23 months away is a big if. the govt isnt stable. it has a huge leadership struggle going on and has the polls of a pedophile party. it might last 23 months but it could fall next week. and given that the polls have only gone one way in the past 2 years, why would you expect that to change with the same people in place? That sort of smacking CRAP does not enhance debate on any level and is unbecoming of someone who took on a moderator roll to try and re install civil political debate. But back to the reasonable assumptions in your post. Even if Rudd comes back which I don't think is likely as I believe Labor has taken the advice that if they are going down they will do it standing up, backing their ideas to the death, the independents will still support Labor WHY, because Tony Abbott is the alternative he remains the biggest hurdle to power both with the independents and the Australian public(I don't think your majority will be anything like the polls) Your complaint is either that you didnt understand that the comment WASNT a direct reference to the ALP but rather by way of using an extreme example to make a point - a literary device seemingly beyond a few... OR you found the reference uncomfortable because of the ALPs problem with such criminal behaviour. Your own answer contridicts itself, you have allso previously refered to the ALP as the peado party on numerous occasions, but if you wish to undermine yourself and your stated aims as moderator in this silly partisian way, who am I to stop you. If I had compared labors polls to that of a communist party you wouldnt have been offended.  but by comparing the ALP to the polls a mythical Pedo Party would get, you are offended? the point was saying that the polls for the ALP are so bad that an offensive, unelectable party might do better! Why do I have to explain this? was it really that hard to understand or is my second thought the real one - that labor supporters are sensitive of their poor record in this area?

I'm not offended in anyway, I just find the reference childish and stupid to say the least.
You could infer that the Libs were a peado party and I would have posted the same response.
As usual if you don't bow down to the church of Abbott you must support Labor, don't we have a thread about this very thing somewhere?
I support a prosporous and fair Australia, whoever is most likely to deliver these outcomes gets my vote.
That's as far as my political alligence goes.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 4:07pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 4:05pm: So LW your saying that preferential voting doesn't hurt the coalition? or just being pedantic about a coalition being the same as one merged party? I think there are substantial differences and the potential for a lot more, imagine if the Nationals got some votes or developed a spine. preferential voting advantages the ALP in the current environment by getitng green preferences. preferential voting neither harms nor helps Coalition success. How can it when it is rare for coalition candidates to stand against each other? I left out the word optinal but I would agree with you. Though it does seem to be the reason that they gave for the merged in QLD.

if having one party is better thaqn having two then what is the problem given that it is rare for a voter to have a choice as to which one they voted for in the first place?

This whole thread just seems like a lame and pathetic attempt to whine about something they imagine to be unfair despite it being precisely the same as the ALP. Frankly, i dont understand the motivation behind this thread beyond sour grapes at labor's parlous polls.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 4:11pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 4:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:22pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:11pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm: skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm: In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. ;D ;D ;D you laborites/greenies are funny. your votes are so poor you start casting about for artificial arguments to make you feel better. get used to it losers. you are getting HAMMERED around the country. Its hard to deal with the truth for you isn't it longwhine??? the TRUTH is a 59/41 lead for the coalition. thats called the BIGGEST MAJORITY IN HISTORY. suck it up now. How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority? Your in OPPOSITION, suck it up. the ASSUMPTION that it is 23 months away is a big if. the govt isnt stable. it has a huge leadership struggle going on and has the polls of a pedophile party. it might last 23 months but it could fall next week. and given that the polls have only gone one way in the past 2 years, why would you expect that to change with the same people in place? That sort of smacking CRAP does not enhance debate on any level and is unbecoming of someone who took on a moderator roll to try and re install civil political debate. But back to the reasonable assumptions in your post. Even if Rudd comes back which I don't think is likely as I believe Labor has taken the advice that if they are going down they will do it standing up, backing their ideas to the death, the independents will still support Labor WHY, because Tony Abbott is the alternative he remains the biggest hurdle to power both with the independents and the Australian public(I don't think your majority will be anything like the polls) Your complaint is either that you didnt understand that the comment WASNT a direct reference to the ALP but rather by way of using an extreme example to make a point - a literary device seemingly beyond a few... OR you found the reference uncomfortable because of the ALPs problem with such criminal behaviour. Your own answer contridicts itself, you have allso previously refered to the ALP as the peado party on numerous occasions, but if you wish to undermine yourself and your stated aims as moderator in this silly partisian way, who am I to stop you. If I had compared labors polls to that of a communist party you wouldnt have been offended.  but by comparing the ALP to the polls a mythical Pedo Party would get, you are offended? the point was saying that the polls for the ALP are so bad that an offensive, unelectable party might do better! Why do I have to explain this? was it really that hard to understand or is my second thought the real one - that labor supporters are sensitive of their poor record in this area? I'm not offended in anyway, I just find the reference childish and stupid to say the least. You could infer that the Libs were a peado party and I would have posted the same response. As usual if you don't bow down to the church of Abbott you must support Labor, don't we have a thread about this very thing somewhere? I support a prosporous and fair Australia, whoever is most likely to deliver these outcomes gets my vote. That's as far as my political alligence goes.

frankly I would LOVE to have an unbiased, open and frank discussion about the merits of policies and parties. some of us (you included) can be partisan but intelligent; biased but not offensive. The only problem is that to have such a debate, I would have to use my moreator super-powers to delete the vast majority of posters who wouldnt know a rational, balanced opinion if they fell over one. imagine discussing the carbon tax without the rhetoric or political posturing. imagine being free to support an oppsoing party's position fully or in part without being mocked?

only a fully moderated thread could achieve that and the trouble is that very statement is an abrogation of the free speech i was just talking about. Or do idiots fools and cheerleaders have the right to free speech??? LOL

And who knows, in such a calm and rational environment I might have the time to proofread my posts and remove the abundance of typos that I seem to have.
;D ;D

have a think about it. maybe we can have a trial thread for posting well-thoughtout positions that arent derived from a party website?

I wil be out for the rest of the night entertaining our american presenter in computer modelling. he is mormon so the alcohol ont be a problem!

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:28pm:

And who knows, in such a calm and rational environment I might have the time to proofread my posts and remove the abundance of typos that I seem to have. ;D ;D

Start the thread
Give fair warning in the OP & use those super powers within it, the nutcases have plenty of other places to post in the forum.

Quote:

The voter has the same choice just that some elect to not utilise that choice. I would think this only comes into play in a three way contest.

It is always either a one-way contest or a three-way contest. if the two leading candidates are close, then it will come down to whether and how preferences are distributed. It does not have to be three equal candidates. All it takes is the need to distribute preferences.


Quote:

Combining like in QLD is only a work around to formalise removing that possibility, obviously because they are either too stupid or selfish to avoid this type of conflict.

No DNA. It is to overcome a flaw inherent in combining compulsory and optional voting. If it is compulsory to vote in the first election round and optional to vote in subsequent rounds, then whoever can minimise competition from their own side of politics gets an advantage that any rational person would consider undemocratic and unfair. It takes us closer to the US style system. It creates a an adverse incentive for candidates to collude to deny choice to votes. There is no way around it for the parties other than to deny choice to voters.


Quote:

I can see every possibility that there would be Liberal voters unwilling to preference the Nationals and vica versa.

Voting is always a choice between a limited set of candidates.


Quote:

Yesterday you said that coalitions reduce voter choice. now you are saying that MERGING reduces choice.

I was referring to formal coalitions. Obviously agreements to govern do not reduce voter choice.


Quote:

quite the silliest interpretation of the LNP merger Ive heard yet. And if to prove my point, the polls are currently showing the LNP winning

That does not contradict anything I siad. if anything it confirms it. Not that I am the sort to judge the success of electoral reform by who wins an election. That is about as silly as it can get in terms of interpretation. It is possible to have a discussion that is not about which party is best.


Quote:

If the circumstances changed, I would vote accordingly.

And by voting accordingly, you mean voting for someone who is not actually your favourite candidate? If the parties don't do it, the voters will. Either way, you end up with less voter choice and an artifically reinforced duopoly as a result of a flaw in the electoral system.


Quote:

using wikipedia as a source of relevant political analysis is not helping your credibility.

Do you have an alternative explanation for the merger?


Quote:

If preferential voting harms them that is the only way I can see it happening - three corner battles with the conservatives effectively not cross preferencing. I think this is the actual core event behind the title.

It is bad either way. Whether you have a three cornered contest without preferences, or parties reduce voter choice to improve their chances, either way democracy loses.


Quote:

preferential voting advantages the ALP in the current environment by getitng green preferences. preferential voting neither harms nor helps Coalition success. How can it when it is rare for coalition candidates to stand against each other?

You are missing the point Longy. It is the voters and democracy that matter. You seem to see everything in terms of the itnerest of the parties.


Quote:

if having one party is better thaqn having two then what is the problem

It reduces voter choice. It is not better for the voter, only for the parties.


Quote:

This whole thread just seems like a lame and pathetic attempt to whine about something they imagine to be unfair despite it being precisely the same as the ALP. Frankly, i dont understand the motivation behind this thread beyond sour grapes at labor's parlous polls.

 

Longy the reason you cannot comrpehend the issue is because you cannot see past the interest of the parties. Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand it you thought about it more abstractly, without associating it with partisan ideologies? That way you would see it in terms of voter choice, rather than what you want them to choose.

Quote:

I was referring to formal coalitions. Obviously agreements to govern do not reduce voter choice

oh i dont know about that. post election agreements that form governments that a mjority dont want seems to be the ultimate in reducing voter choice.

Quote:

This whole thread just seems like a lame and pathetic attempt to whine about something they imagine to be unfair despite it being precisely the same as the ALP. Frankly, i dont understand the motivation behind this thread beyond sour grapes at labor's parlous polls. Longy the reason you cannot comrpehend the issue is because you cannot see past the interest of the parties. Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand it you thought about it more abstractly, without associating it with partisan ideologies? That way you would see it in terms of voter choice, rather than what you want them to choose.

perhaps thinking that politics is some abstract concept is your problem. it isnt. Democracy isnt a quaint social experiment nor is voting an excercise in statistical analysis. you will always  find a problem with any electoral system or voting system because your goal seems to be pretty confused. you seem to want to handicap winners and give unnatural advantages to losers as if democracy is like a primary school sports day. it is about what the people want. and the people dont want some of the things you seem to think they want. You seem to be despearte for more choice in candidates and parties as long as no simgle party gets a majority and as long as the people dont really get to choose their government.

now if Im wrong abotu this then why dont you EXPANSIVELY AND CLEARLY articulate your vision because no one else knows what you are going on about either.

Quote:

imagine being free to support an oppsoing party's position fully or in part without being mocked?

Being mocked by all but about 5 max posters here, I'd consider a victory & try and bait them on further ;)

I'd love to be able to compare some of Liberal policy against Labor and post in the affirmative for them IF ONLY I knew what they were.
Sorry 3 word slogans are not policy, & everytime I raise this point I'm told they don't need them yet.
How are we supposed to have intelligent debate when one side isn't playing?
Even the released policies i.e Direct Action rely more on faith than substance
Oh well give industry a blank tax payer cheque - I'm meant to believe this will cost me less or nothing, easy to say as I will never be able to quantify how much it cost in reduced services cut or never implimented programms etc.
Oh well plant a billion tree's - how much for the trees, where are they going to be planted, who will make sure they mature etc etc
Oh we'll make sure australian companies can only by credits from Australia - well industry says that that will increase their costs hugely.

Nice thought Longy but the leader of your party is again the biggest hurdle.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9^th, 2011 at 2:19pm:

skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:14pm: it has a huge leadership struggle going on and has the polls of a pedophile party. it might last 23 months but it could fall next week. FREEDIVER HOW GOOD A LOOK IS IT FOR YOU TO HAVE A MOD THAT CONTINUALLY CALLS A MAJOR PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY A PEDOPHILE PARTY?????? Is there anything about English Comprehension that you actually comprehend? I dont have high expectations for most labor supporters but even you shoudl be able to understand some things - like basic comprehension.

I wasn't highlighting it for you, I highlighted it for freediver so he could see what a mistake he made by appointing such a one eyed hypocrite as a mod, but thanks to smithy your hypocrisy has been well highlighted for all to see.

Quote:

oh i dont know about that. post election agreements that form governments that a mjority dont want seems to be the ultimate in reducing voter choice.

So if you can't udnerstand the topic you just invent new definitions for the words until it does make sense?


Quote:

perhaps thinking that politics is some abstract concept is your problem. it isnt. Democracy isnt a quaint social experiment nor is voting an excercise in statistical analysis. you will always  find a problem with any electoral system or voting system because your goal seems to be pretty confused.

You are confused. Not my goals. It is not a good look to complain about being confused at the same time as trying to tell everyone what they are trying to say.


Quote:

you seem to want to handicap winners and give unnatural advantages to losers as if democracy is like a primary school sports day.

Perhaps you should try asking what I want seeing as you are so confused. I want the outcome of elections to reflect the will of the majority. Is that too abstract for you? You can't seem to get past Labor and Liberal.

Quote:

I'd love to be able to compare some of Liberal policy against Labor and post in the affirmative for them IF ONLY I knew what they were. Sorry 3 word slogans are not policy, & everytime I raise this point I'm told they don't need them yet. How are we supposed to have intelligent debate when one side isn't playing?

it is the new way oppositions act now as trialled successfuly by Rudd who had precisely ONE policy prior to the election campaign - if you call hating WorkChoices an actual policy when it really isnt.

You cant complain if now everyone does the same thing.

Quote:

oh i dont know about that. post election agreements that form governments that a mjority dont want seems to be the ultimate in reducing voter choice. So if you can't udnerstand the topic you just invent new definitions for the words until it does make sense?

what exactly prevents you from answering a question with a clear answer? it doesnt matter what is asked you come back with a non-answer like this. you are an appalling debater and would last one round in primary school where the rules actually do involve staying on topic, making coherent comments and answering questions. you seem to do none of it.

You might note tho that it isnt just me. no one else answers or responds much now either because your replies are not even understandable half the time and the other half, a deflection.

Quote:

what exactly prevents you from answering a question with a clear answer?

It wasn't a question at all. It was an absurd claim about coalition governments. That is what MPs are actually supposed to do. To try to equate this with a 'gentlemans agreement' to deny choice to voters is just silly.


Quote:

You might note tho that it isnt just me. no one else answers or responds much now either because your replies are not even understandable half the time and the other half, a deflection.

OK. Lets start with the basics.

Do you understand what I mean by denying choice to voters?

Do you understand the perverse incentive on the part of both voters and candidates to reduce choice to overcome problems with OPV?

And don't accuse me of deflecting then give a non-answer about how all systems have their problems.

Quote:

Do you understand what I mean by denying choice to voters?

I know what the english words mean normally. what YOU think they mean, I have no idea. You might try actual examples to detail what you mean because in one thread you said coalitions denied voters a choice and in another said that single parties denied choice. so imagine my (and everyone elese) confusion!

I was referring to agreements not to compete against each other in electorates. This has obviously been formalised in the QLD merger. There is now one less major political party in QLD as a result. That means less choice for voters, and fewer candidates on the ballot paper. It artifically concentrates political power in fewer institutions.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:29pm:

I was referring to agreements not to compete against each other in electorates. This has obviously been formalised in the QLD merger. There is now one less major political party in QLD as a result. That means less choice for voters, and fewer candidates on the ballot paper. It artifically concentrates political power in fewer institutions.

prior to this merger the libs and nats normally did not run against each other anyhow. exactly how does that reduce voter choice when it wasnt there before?

anyone and everyone can stand for election. no one is denyong any a choice. it is not up to any party to offer more choices. thats up to the people. if they dont put up more candidates then the chocie they ahve is the choice they want (or deserve).

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:32pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 6:29pm: I was referring to agreements not to compete against each other in electorates. This has obviously been formalised in the QLD merger. There is now one less major political party in QLD as a result. That means less choice for voters, and fewer candidates on the ballot paper. It artifically concentrates political power in fewer institutions. prior to this merger the libs and nats normally did not run against each other anyhow. exactly how does that reduce voter choice when it wasnt there before?

That is because prior to the merger they still had OPV. The Libs and Nats ran against each other far less once OPV started in the states it was used in. Thus you prove my point - it was not he merger itself that reduced choice, it was the introduction of OPV. The merger was just a delayed fromalisation of the inevitable.


Quote:

anyone and everyone can stand for election. no one is denyong any a choice. it is not up to any party to offer more choices. thats up to the people.

So you are denying that there is a perverse incentive to reduce choice under OPV?


Quote:

if they dont put up more candidates then the chocie they ahve is the choice they want (or deserve).

Blaming the victim is not a solution. There is a real problem, whether you can acknowledge it or not.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 7:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 6:32pm: freediver wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 6:29pm: I was referring to agreements not to compete against each other in electorates. This has obviously been formalised in the QLD merger. There is now one less major political party in QLD as a result. That means less choice for voters, and fewer candidates on the ballot paper. It artifically concentrates political power in fewer institutions. prior to this merger the libs and nats normally did not run against each other anyhow. exactly how does that reduce voter choice when it wasnt there before? That is because prior to the merger they still had OPV. The Libs and Nats ran against each other far less once OPV started in the states it was used in. Thus you prove my point - it was not he merger itself that reduced choice, it was the introduction of OPV. The merger was just a delayed fromalisation of the inevitable. Quote: anyone and everyone can stand for election. no one is denyong any a choice. it is not up to any party to offer more choices. thats up to the people.   So you are denying that there is a perverse incentive to reduce choice under OPV? [quote]if they dont put up more candidates then the chocie they ahve is the choice they want (or deserve).

Blaming the victim is not a solution. There is a real problem, whether you can acknowledge it or not.[/quote]

its not a problem at all! no one is prevented from standing for election. you can only 'choose' between candidates willing to actually stand. NO ONE IS DENIED CHOICE. it is not up to the parties to provide options. the entire point of standing for election is to WIN. you dont do that by saying 'lets put up 3 candidates so everyone has a nice range of options that cannot possibly succeed'.

I dont see your point. choice of candidates is the responsibility of the voting public to provide. dont liek the choices? stand yourself or start a party you like.

easy to do. or not. either way, its your choice.

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 5:40pm:

Quote: I'd love to be able to compare some of Liberal policy against Labor and post in the affirmative for them IF ONLY I knew what they were. Sorry 3 word slogans are not policy, & everytime I raise this point I'm told they don't need them yet. How are we supposed to have intelligent debate when one side isn't playing? it is the new way oppositions act now as trialled successfuly by Rudd who had precisely ONE policy prior to the election campaign - if you call hating WorkChoices an actual policy when it really isnt. You cant complain if now everyone does the same thing.

I notice you ignore the 1 policy released and my critique of it and instead resort to the well worn track of they did it so we are able to.
How does that promote change or advance debate, why if the liberals are just going to do as Labor does would we waste funds on elections?
Replacing 1 idiot for another again.

Quote:

its not a problem at all! no one is prevented from standing for election. you can only 'choose' between candidates willing to actually stand. NO ONE IS DENIED CHOICE.

Longy you are confusing the right to run with choice. Voters only get the choice if the candidates actually run. If flaws in the electoral system create a perverse incentive for some candidates to withdraw, and they choose not to run because of that, voters are denied choice. Just because it is not written into law that voters are denied choice does not mean it doesn't happen.


Quote:

it is not up to the parties to provide options

Again you are confused Longy. My criticism is not of the parties. They are merely responding to the situation. My criticism is of the compulsory optional preferential voting system. It is up to the system to provide a level playing field that does not impose such perverse incentives. If you check the OP again you will see that I painted the coalition as victims of the system.


Quote:

the entire point of standing for election is to WIN. you dont do that by saying 'lets put up 3 candidates so everyone has a nice range of options that cannot possibly succeed'.

You are assuming that the three parties are acting in collusion. The system should be encouraging them to compete, not avoid competition.


Quote:

I dont see your point. choice of candidates is the responsibility of the voting public to provide. dont liek the choices? stand yourself or start a party you like.

Again Longy, you are looking for someone to blame or take responsibility. My point is that the perverse incentive is real. Do you understand that it exists? Fielding a candidate takes the actions of many people. It is not possible (for good reason) for one person to unilaterally run for office. Once you create a situation that forces the cooperation of many people, you also need to acknowledge the very real impacts that such perverse incentives will have on the outcome. You are suggesting that people accept a bad situation by suggesting they have a rememdy, but the remedy you put forward may actually make the situation worse for them.

The point of running for office is not to win, but to influence government policy. It is not about the one person on the ballot, but about the efforts of a large group of people. OPV severly restricts the avenues people have for influencing policy, because it creates a situation where their efforts will backfire and have the opposite effect to what they want. You suggest that this is somehow OK because people have the right to go ahead and do so, while pretending the potential to have the opposite effect, and the inevitable impact this has one people's actions is not a problem. You need to stop approaching the problem as if the only thing that matters is that the coalition wins.

freediver wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 8:39pm:

Quote: its not a problem at all! no one is prevented from standing for election. you can only 'choose' between candidates willing to actually stand. NO ONE IS DENIED CHOICE. Longy you are confusing the right to run with choice. Voters only get the choice if the candidates actually run. If flaws in the electoral system create a perverse incentive for some candidates to withdraw, and they choose not to run because of that, voters are denied choice. Just because it is not written into law that voters are denied choice does not mean it doesn't happen. [quote]it is not up to the parties to provide options

Again you are confused Longy. My criticism is not of the parties. They are merely responding to the situation. My criticism is of the compulsory optional preferential voting system. It is up to the system to provide a level playing field that does not impose such perverse incentives. If you check the OP again you will see that I painted the coalition as victims of the system.


Quote:

the entire point of standing for election is to WIN. you dont do that by saying 'lets put up 3 candidates so everyone has a nice range of options that cannot possibly succeed'.

You are assuming that the three parties are acting in collusion. The system should be encouraging them to compete, not avoid competition.


Quote:

I dont see your point. choice of candidates is the responsibility of the voting public to provide. dont liek the choices? stand yourself or start a party you like.

Again Longy, you are looking for someone to blame or take responsibility. My point is that the perverse incentive is real. Do you understand that it exists? Fielding a candidate takes the actions of many people. It is not possible (for good reason) for one person to unilaterally run for office. Once you create a situation that forces the cooperation of many people, you also need to acknowledge the very real impacts that such perverse incentives will have on the outcome. You are suggesting that people accept a bad situation by suggesting they have a rememdy, but the remedy you put forward may actually make the situation worse for them.

The point of running for office is not to win, but to influence government policy. It is not about the one person on the ballot, but about the efforts of a large group of people. OPV severly restricts the avenues people have for influencing policy, because it creates a situation where their efforts will backfire and have the opposite effect to what they want. You suggest that this is somehow OK because people have the right to go ahead and do so, while pretending the potential to have the opposite effect, and the inevitable impact this has one people's actions is not a problem. You need to stop approaching the problem as if the only thing that matters is that the coalition wins.[/quote]

that is just plain silly. Ridiculous, even. Those that influence policy are those that WIN not those that compete. I dont know what you are after. Is it seats where there and 258 candidates so that the winner is the first one to 5%? Standing for parliament is a struggle. it take sa lot of effort and frankly, that is how it SHOULD be. it should be a battle for the strong to compete in.

I repeat that I dont see your point. There wil be weaknesses in every system. OPV seems the best of them all allowing people to OPTIONALLY (call it choice!) preference candidates or not.

You seem to be looking for some electoral nirvana. Thats as likely as any other nirvana. NOT.

Quote:

that is just plain silly. Ridiculous, even. Those that influence policy are those that WIN not those that compete.

Wrong. You are voersimplifying the situation to the point of absurdity. You pretend it is all about one person, rather than the thousands of people that support him. Even if only some of those people involved are influenced by the perverse incentive to withdraw, it will have a negative outcome for voter choice and will artifically alter the long term democratic outcome. That is, the long term result will be influenced by the flaws in the system, not just by the will of the people.


Quote:

I dont know what you are after. Is it seats where there and 258 candidates so that the winner is the first one to 5%?

Is is your rpeferred system that allows minority victories, not mine.

I am after the outcome reflecting the will of the majority rather than a flaw in the system. Perhaps your comprehension failure has something to do with your view that these flaws are confined to 'three horse races'. This is not true. Many contests come down to two leading candidates, neither of which would gain an absolute majority in a fair and open contest. In these situations, the presence of a minor or insignificant candidate is likely to alter the election outcome in a way that the supporters of the candidate oppose. This would mean that either the outcome reflects the will of the minority over the will of the majority, or the candidate (and/or his supporters) withdraws in order to prevent an outcome that is the opposite of what he wants, thus reducing voter choice. The second option reduces the short term problem, but introduces even more insidious long term problems, by reducing competition.


Quote:

Standing for parliament is a struggle. it take sa lot of effort and frankly, that is how it SHOULD be.

I am not complaining about the effort, I am complaining about the institutionalisation of a disincentive to invest that effort.


Quote:

I repeat that I dont see your point. There wil be weaknesses in every system.

When you say this it is hard to see why you don't understand. Is it because you aknowledge the flaw but see it as hopeless because of the (wave arms vaguely in the air) 'other' problems?


Quote:

OPV seems the best of them all allowing people to OPTIONALLY (call it choice!) preference candidates or not. You really should clarify this, because I feel like I am banging my head on a brick wall repeatedly explaining the problem to you that you already understand, but refuse to acknowledge out of some kind of idiotic debating strategy.

It is actually compulsory optional preferential voting. This is worse than both truly optional preferentuial voting and compulsory preferential voting. The reason is that it creates elections in which one candidate relies more heavily on compulsory votes and his opponent must rely more heavily on optional votes. It increases the incentive for candidatees to withdraw and reduce voter choice and political competition - hence the informal and then formal merger of the LNP, something which has never happened under the old system, and a black mark on our democracy.


Quote:

You seem to be looking for some electoral nirvana. Thats as likely as any other nirvana. NOT.

How about we start with you actually acknowledging the problem, instead of refusing to debate like an adult in case the debate gets into specifics of the problems. The closer we come to actually discussing the problem, the more you resort to complaining about not understanding it and making vague criticisms of the alternatives.

Longy you appear to be claiming to not understand the problem and know all the answers at the same time. Which is it? Are you just claiming not to understand so you can insist I am wrong without having to provide a rational argument in support?