The Government is confident changes to Senate voting laws will get support, and stop crossbenchers with miniscule votes getting into Parliament.

The Prime Minister announced the news on the same day a new opinion poll showed the major parties were 50/50 with voters.

We are anticipating The Greens will back the government, giving the Coalition the numbers in the Senate to get this legislation through.

Greens Leader Richard Di Natale says it's about democracy and the current system allows "faceless men" and "factional operators" to wield hidden power.

But Senator Di Natale The Greens say they will be looking closely at the detail.

http://images.scribblelive.com/2016/2/21/20897476-95d1-43f7-9cee-5a3f2834760d.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CbxxL5QUUAA7MAh.png

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-22/abc-politics-live-blog-february-22/7188348

It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed.

At first glance, most of the proposals look sensible. I have stated before that ticket voting is undemocratic.

One thing that I disagree with - why must voters voting below the line number 90% of the boxes for a valid vote while voters above the line only have to number one?

What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand???

Kat wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:20am:

What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand???

oh for crying out loud...

the political retard strikes again...  ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 10:55am:

It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed.

x 2

Kat wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:20am:

What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand???

So you're okay with dipsticks like Muir being able to hold the government of the day hostage on less than 0.5% of the primary vote when others secured significantly more votes than him?

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:31am:

Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::)

Kat's reliable, gotta give her that!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 10:55am:

It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed.

It only means that some faceless party person will be elected on a half precent of the vote and be used to subvert the purpose of the senate.

I prefer what we have in preference to a blind rubber stamp with the same vote thanks.

At least what we currently have puts a person in place who can make a merit based decision.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:36am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:55am: It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed. It only means that some faceless party person will be elected on a half precent of the vote and be used to subvert the purpose of the senate. I prefer what we have in preference to a blind rubber stamp with the same vote thanks. At least what we currently have puts a person in place who can make a merit based decision.

No, they won't be. These changes will mean that the exact opposite will occur. The candidate who is the one who garners more votes will be the one who is elected. No more of this farce of people elected on a miniscule number of votes. Oh, and you mention merit. Remember that halfwit Lambie and her threat to block all government legislation unless Abbott gave something specific to her (I can't recall what it was exactly)? That isn't merit - it's spite.

Give independent's a position at the top and I would think that a lot of people would place them at number 2 ?

Kat wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:20am:

What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand???

A very undemocratic position you hold there. You insist on denying the voters the right to elect a government that is allowed to govern.

We fully understand what you are saying. We just think you are an idiot.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:31am:

Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::)

he would rather see someone with 1% get in than a lib... hes that manic......sad but true..

does it say anywhere where those who are elected simply because they belong to  a party..

should remain with the party or get out?....


thats what I dislike about the senate......

once in they can do as they like...and change sides......WRONG.

and we are stuck with them.

people have to have the right to know if they are voting for a party or a person.....

I would say a few of our senators have been elected thanks to the party they once belonged too...

apart from Muir of course.. how we got him I will never know????.......

Dnarever wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:36am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:55am: It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed. It only means that some faceless party person will be elected on a half precent of the vote and be used to subvert the purpose of the senate. I prefer what we have in preference to a blind rubber stamp with the same vote thanks. At least what we currently have puts a person in place who can make a merit based decision.

Well that is both silly and unsupportable. Plus, the entire purpose of representative democracy is allowing the voters t\o install senators, not loopholes in a system

mariacostel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:44am:

Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? A very undemocratic position you hold there. You insist on denying the voters the right to elect a government that is allowed to govern. We fully understand what you are saying. We just think you are an nice person.

Kat would rather have the joke that was the Gillard/Brown failed marriage. The kids (taxpayers) were the losers with the aborted child being the ill-fated carbon tax based on a lie.

cods wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:45am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) he would rather see someone with 1% get in than a lib... hes that manic......sad but true.. does it say anywhere where those who are elected simply because they belong to  a party.. should remain with the party or get out?.... thats what I dislike about the senate...... once in they can do as they like...and change sides......WRONG. and we are stuck with them. people have to have the right to know if they are voting for a party or a person..... I would say a few of our senators have been elected thanks to the party they once belonged too... apart from Muir of course.. how we got him I will never know????.......

He got in on preferences deals. Best example yet of why preferences should be abolished.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:32am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:55am: It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed. x 2

x 3

Throw in phonies that gain Senate seats on false pretenses by resigning from the party they represented to be elected

Lambie
Lazarus
Madigan

If they resign from the party they should resign from the Senate.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:45am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:55am: It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed. It only means that some faceless party person will be elected on a half precent of the vote and be used to subvert the purpose of the senate. I prefer what we have in preference to a blind rubber stamp with the same vote thanks. At least what we currently have puts a person in place who can make a merit based decision. Well that is both silly and unsupportable. Plus, the entire purpose of representative democracy is allowing the voters t\o install senators, not loopholes in a system

I would think that although the system needs to be looked at people would be correct to be cynical about a move to rush through changes that will advantage the major party's in an election year.

Like it or not the current system has consistently produced good results and this move looks like it would weaken the role of the senate.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:49am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:45am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:55am: It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed. It only means that some faceless party person will be elected on a half precent of the vote and be used to subvert the purpose of the senate. I prefer what we have in preference to a blind rubber stamp with the same vote thanks. At least what we currently have puts a person in place who can make a merit based decision. Well that is both silly and unsupportable. Plus, the entire purpose of representative democracy is allowing the voters t\o install senators, not loopholes in a system I would think that although the system needs to be looked at people would be correct to be cynical about a move to rush through changes that will advantage the major party's in an election year. Like it or not the current system has consistently produced good results and this move looks like it would weaken the role of the senate.

It's not going to advantage the major parties. Even the Greens will probably stand to gain from this. It simply means that people will get who they vote for, instead of the fewer than 1,000 votes that Muir got getting someone elected. Surely you can see the stupidity in Muir's election on the back of preference deals!

Lambie, Lazarus & Madigan have all misled the electorate

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:49am:

If they resign from the party they should resign from the Senate.

I've always thought it would be better in the senate to vote for a party, who then chooses their senators.  You would need some precautions to make sure that parties couldn't just shuffle members around at will though.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:33am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that!

And 100% correct.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:48am:

cods wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:45am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) he would rather see someone with 1% get in than a lib... hes that manic......sad but true.. does it say anywhere where those who are elected simply because they belong to  a party.. should remain with the party or get out?.... thats what I dislike about the senate...... once in they can do as they like...and change sides......WRONG. and we are stuck with them. people have to have the right to know if they are voting for a party or a person..... I would say a few of our senators have been elected thanks to the party they once belonged too... apart from Muir of course.. how we got him I will never know????....... He got in on preferences deals. Best example yet of why preferences should be abolished.

Preferences should not be abolished. What should be abolished is anything that allows political parties to control the flow of preferences, such as group voting tickets and HTV cards.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:49am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:45am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:55am: It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed. It only means that some faceless party person will be elected on a half precent of the vote and be used to subvert the purpose of the senate. I prefer what we have in preference to a blind rubber stamp with the same vote thanks. At least what we currently have puts a person in place who can make a merit based decision. Well that is both silly and unsupportable. Plus, the entire purpose of representative democracy is allowing the voters t\o install senators, not loopholes in a system I would think that although the system needs to be looked at people would be correct to be cynical about a move to rush through changes that will advantage the major party's in an election year. Like it or not the current system has consistently produced good results and this move looks like it would weaken the role of the senate. It's not going to advantage the major parties. Even the Greens will probably stand to gain from this. It simply means that people will get who they vote for, instead of the fewer than 1,000 votes that Muir got getting someone elected. Surely you can see the stupidity in Muir's election on the back of preference deals!

Depending on exactly how it works the Greens could likely be significantly disadvantaged. Those green seats like Melbourne achieved on Liberal preferences would have never happened had the Liberal voters known who they had voted for ?

The senate isnt the problem , the Libs are , hence the poll results , 50 /50 and plummeting for the political anhialation

Its time wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:19pm:

The senate isnt the problem , the Libs are , hence the poll results , 50 /50 and plummeting for the political anhialation

It's only one poll, best not get too carried away at this stage. It has a MoE of 3% and other recent polls have been in the 52-48 range.

I would wait for more polls before passing judgement.

Abolish compulsory voting

These new changes means all prior elections are null and void ... changing a voting system any time they feel like it means it's all rigged to advantage those doing the changing (rigging)

Kat wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:05pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct.

.....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D

Swagman wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 1:54pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct. .....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D

Insults don't make me any less correct, either.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:33am:

Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? So you're okay with dipsticks like Muir being able to hold the government of the day hostage on less than 0.5% of the primary vote when others secured significantly more votes than him?

Muir has 1/76 of one vote. How does he manage to hold anyone hostage.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:32am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:55am: It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed. x 2

Well Armie, it's like this. If the majors were overflowing with credentialed, honest candidates that represent their constituent's wishes there wouldn't be any Muirs in the first place.

Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 1:10pm:

Abolish compulsory voting

Be a good start

Votes are like money, eventually hundreds of ways are found to manipulate them

crocodile wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:17pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? So you're okay with dipsticks like Muir being able to hold the government of the day hostage on less than 0.5% of the primary vote when others secured significantly more votes than him? Muir has 1/76 of one vote. How does he manage to hold anyone hostage.

and he still picks up the same paycheck..  ::) ::)funny that.


what has he done exactly..to make OZ a better place for us all to live in???....

Its time wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:19pm:

The senate isnt the problem , the Libs are , hence the poll results , 50 /50 and plummeting for the political anhialation

you should be grateful for the polls they are the only thing that give you lefties HOPE....

look where you were last week and the week before that.. a horrible sight.

at this rate WALLY might be the new PM>.


omg.

cods wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:49pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:17pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? So you're okay with dipsticks like Muir being able to hold the government of the day hostage on less than 0.5% of the primary vote when others secured significantly more votes than him? Muir has 1/76 of one vote. How does he manage to hold anyone hostage. and he still picks up the same paycheck..  ::) ::)funny that. what has he done exactly..to make OZ a better place for us all to live in???....

All senators base pay cheques are the same

crocodile wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:17pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? So you're okay with dipsticks like Muir being able to hold the government of the day hostage on less than 0.5% of the primary vote when others secured significantly more votes than him? Muir has 1/76 of one vote. How does he manage to hold anyone hostage.

A Tasmanian senator's vote is 14 times more powerful than a NSW Senator.....in terms of representation

cods wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:49pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:17pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? So you're okay with dipsticks like Muir being able to hold the government of the day hostage on less than 0.5% of the primary vote when others secured significantly more votes than him? Muir has 1/76 of one vote. How does he manage to hold anyone hostage. and he still picks up the same paycheck..  ::) ::)funny that. what has he done exactly..to make OZ a better place for us all to live in???....

He's done EXACTLY what he's SUPPOSED to have done - oppose bad legislation and rein-in bad government.

Ask yourself ~ who profits from this, electorally.  It is the major parties.  I do not want a Senate to be controlled by whoever is the Government, and that is what this is about. 

I think the last time the Government controlled the Senate was in 2004 under Hayseed, and that was just terrible to experience.  Nah, I quite like the current situation.  The current Senate has acted sensibly, even though it has not rubber stamped what the Coalition wants. 

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:45pm:

Ask yourself ~ who profits from this, electorally.  It is the major parties.  I do not want a Senate to be controlled by whoever is the Government, and that is what this is about.  I think the last time the Government controlled the Senate was in 2004 under Hayseed, and that was just terrible to experience.  Nah, I quite like the current situation.  The current Senate has acted sensibly, even though it has not rubber stamped what the Coalition wants.

Nailed. I said the same thing, with the usual predictable responses.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 11:49am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:45am: Dnarever wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:36am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:55am: It was absolutely ridiculous that arsewipes like Muir could get into the Senate on less than half a percent of the primary vote and hold the government hostage. Lets hope these changes are passed. It only means that some faceless party person will be elected on a half precent of the vote and be used to subvert the purpose of the senate. I prefer what we have in preference to a blind rubber stamp with the same vote thanks. At least what we currently have puts a person in place who can make a merit based decision. Well that is both silly and unsupportable. Plus, the entire purpose of representative democracy is allowing the voters t\o install senators, not loopholes in a system I would think that although the system needs to be looked at people would be correct to be cynical about a move to rush through changes that will advantage the major party's in an election year. Like it or not the current system has consistently produced good results and this move looks like it would weaken the role of the senate.

How do you figure that? Oh of course... if the senate blocks liberal policies then you consider it good. You are beyond transparent.  The changes DONT advantage the major parties at all. What it does is require that crossbench senators are actually elected fairly. No party is likely to get a senate majority anymore than they are now.

Bam wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 12:09pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:48am: cods wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:45am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) he would rather see someone with 1% get in than a lib... hes that manic......sad but true.. does it say anywhere where those who are elected simply because they belong to  a party.. should remain with the party or get out?.... thats what I dislike about the senate...... once in they can do as they like...and change sides......WRONG. and we are stuck with them. people have to have the right to know if they are voting for a party or a person..... I would say a few of our senators have been elected thanks to the party they once belonged too... apart from Muir of course.. how we got him I will never know????....... He got in on preferences deals. Best example yet of why preferences should be abolished. Preferences should not be abolished. What should be abolished is anything that allows political parties to control the flow of preferences, such as group voting tickets and HTV cards.

Agreed. The concept of preferences is quite fine, but the current rules allow preferences to be traded and moved around so they end up in the lap of just one person eg Muir. That is not right and is the antithesis of what was originally intended. It is hard to imagine anyone in the major parties criticising the changes. Labor should lend support as well.

Kat wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:06pm:

Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 1:54pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct. .....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D Insults don't make me any less correct, either.

NOTHING could ever make you correct.

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:45pm:

Ask yourself ~ who profits from this, electorally.  It is the major parties.  I do not want a Senate to be controlled by whoever is the Government, and that is what this is about.  I think the last time the Government controlled the Senate was in 2004 under Hayseed, and that was just terrible to experience.  Nah, I quite like the current situation.  The current Senate has acted sensibly, even though it has not rubber stamped what the Coalition wants.

The real problem is that the Senate is meant to be a house of REVIEW, not a house of alternative policies. It is meant to refine and improve, not unilaterally reject legislation. It frequently acts as a house simply to frustrate the policies of the elected government.

The new senate rules do not advantage anyone at all. They do however take away an unfair advantage from the preference-dealers and those who get elected (LDP) by virtue of a similar name to the Liberal party and advantageous ballot positioning. How anyone can complain about something that is inherently fair is beyond Me. Actually, it isn't beyond me at all. I understand fully why drongos like PUP supporters would be opposed - not that PUP will ever be elected ever again.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 4:35pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:06pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 1:54pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct. .....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D Insults don't make me any less correct, either. NOTHING could ever make you correct.

Except for the fact that I AM correct.

Suck it up.

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 3:45pm:

I think the last time the Government controlled the Senate was in 2004 under Hayseed, and that was just terrible to experience.  Nah, I quite like the current situation.  The current Senate has acted sensibly, even though it has not rubber stamped what the Coalition wants.

of course you do... you helped elect what was once PUP members.. didnt you?..

you know the ones that cant stand Clive now they are in for the long term..

then there is the invisible Asian guy... I am sure he turns up to get his pay check.. and as the soul PUP member he makes quite a stand out figure... :D :D :D :D

does anyone remember this guy without the help of Mr Google?.. I doubt it..

of course aussie has his pic up on his wall

its the only way he can remember him

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D..

yep we need more like whathisname

running the show.....I cant wait.

Kat wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 4:50pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:35pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:06pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 1:54pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct. .....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D Insults don't make me any less correct, either. NOTHING could ever make you correct. Except for the fact that I AM correct. Suck it up.

If you think you are correct then why not put up an actual ARGUMENT instead of just venting you infected spleen?

Make your case or just shut up.

Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country.

I've told you before;

When election day comes, don't vote for any incumbent.

It just encourages them.




'It just encourages them.' = = voting for the same 'party politicians',      ....election, after election, simply encourages elected pollies to continue being unaccountable to the people who voted them into office.



Dictionary;
incumbent = =
1 (incumbent on/upon) necessary for (someone) as a duty or responsibility.
2 (of an official or regime) currently holding office.

ole kat the political retard... wrong 100% of the time but still thinks he's right 100% of the time.. 

what a classic.. ;D

When you don't get what you want, you change the rules.  Libs do this the best.  They've done this a lot.

cods wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 2:49pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:17pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? So you're okay with dipsticks like Muir being able to hold the government of the day hostage on less than 0.5% of the primary vote when others secured significantly more votes than him? Muir has 1/76 of one vote. How does he manage to hold anyone hostage. and he still picks up the same paycheck..  ::) ::)funny that. what has he done exactly..to make OZ a better place for us all to live in???....

he's blocked any sort of savings to pay off debt that the useless Labor/Green government put us into and allowing for that debt to keep increasing ...

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 5:52pm:

Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country.

I want a Government to Govern...

and not to be held to ransom by some puissant that doesn't know his butt from his elbo..  ::)

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. I want a Government to Govern... and not to be held to ransom by some puissant that doesn't know his butt from his elbo..  ::)

I want a senate to moderate the worst excesses of the government of the day, if we are going to insist on a rubber stamp then it is time to bring an end to the senate.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. I want a Government to Govern... and not to be held to ransom by some puissant that doesn't know his butt from his elbo..  ::)

Okay then, picking up on your cliche......the Government then would need to take the time explaining to said 'puissant' what his butt is and what his 'elbo' is.  That will do me.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 5:09pm:

Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:35pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:06pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 1:54pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct. .....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D Insults don't make me any less correct, either. NOTHING could ever make you correct. Except for the fact that I AM correct. Suck it up. If you think you are correct then why not put up an actual ARGUMENT instead of just venting you infected spleen? Make your case or just shut up.

I have.

On numerous occasions.

You were probably too busy trolling, and missed it.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 6:21pm:

ole kat the political retard... wrong 100% of the time but still thinks he's right 100% of the time..  what a classic.. ;D

You seem to have me confused with AP or Longie.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 6:29pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 6:24pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. I want a Government to Govern... and not to be held to ransom by some puissant that doesn't know his butt from his elbo..  ::) I want a senate to moderate the worst excesses of the government of the day, if we are going to insist on a rubber stamp then it is time to bring an end to the senate.

That is precisely what the Right want.

And they MUST NOT be permitted to have it.

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 5:52pm:

Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country.

for gods sakes aussie...

if you think that an arsewipe like Muir being in the Senate with 475 votes is democracy... then you have no Political Credibility at all...

that bogan lambie and fat laz didn't even get 2000 votes and now mouthing off all over the media holding Australians to ransom???

you think that's ok???

struth... if that's the case then you may as well move in with Kat...  ::)


Quote:

The current system had been "taken advantage of" he said, highlighting Victorian crossbencher Ricky Muir, who was elected with only 0.5 per cent of the vote.

$200,000 a year for .5% of the vote... ???  :D

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 6:26am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. for gods sakes aussie... if you think that an arsewipe like Muir being in the Senate with 475 votes is democracy... then you have no Political Credibility at all... that bogan lambie and fat laz didn't even get 2000 votes and now mouthing off all over the media holding Australians to ransom??? you think that's ok??? struth... if that's the case then you may as well move in with Kat...  ::)

Do you really think the government having majority control in both houses is a good thing? The last time we had that, we got Workchoices - a radical and unpopular policy that was never revealed at the election that gave the Coalition majority control.

Whenever the government has majority control, there's always the real risk of bad laws getting passed. Just look at what happens in Queensland whenever the government has a majority. Mistakes are more likely to happen, or the government passes laws that enrich their mates.

I do not want that. We have a political system that is prone to corruption. Without a deliberative Senate able to reject bad laws, there would be nothing to stop a government from passing laws to enrich themselves or their donors and changing the political system to entrench themselves in power for as long as possible.

The Senate is not a select club for anyone with a born-to-rule mentality or the establishment of the major parties. Anyone who can get elected should be allowed to try.

http://s8.postimg.org/e6w4ylbj9/4e8aa600108304814874150ccac7f7a0.jpg

Muir is the biggest joke with less than 500 votes. What a bogan fool he is!

the senate voting paper was tooooooooooo long. Something needed to change. I haven't seen the detail of this policy as I've been on the road for a few days, but on the face of it, it looks good to me.

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 5:52pm:

Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country.

Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 6:26am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. for gods sakes aussie... if you think that an arsewipe like Muir being in the Senate with 475 votes is democracy... then you have no Political Credibility at all... that bogan lambie and fat laz didn't even get 2000 votes and now mouthing off all over the media holding Australians to ransom??? you think that's ok??? struth... if that's the case then you may as well move in with Kat...  ::) Quote: The current system had been "taken advantage of" he said, highlighting Victorian crossbencher Ricky Muir, who was elected with only 0.5 per cent of the vote. $200,000 a year for .5% of the vote... ???  :D

it is a blooming JOKE no doubt about it..

but aussie elected half the "independents"...

so of course he supports something that adds million if not billions to the cost of running the govt...

everything is a stalemate......

wasnt Muir unemployed?????......yeah right..

Kat wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 10:25pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:09pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:35pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:06pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 1:54pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct. .....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D Insults don't make me any less correct, either. NOTHING could ever make you correct. Except for the fact that I AM correct. Suck it up. If you think you are correct then why not put up an actual ARGUMENT instead of just venting you infected spleen? Make your case or just shut up. I have. On numerous occasions. You were probably too busy trolling, and missed it.

You are incapable of making a considered argument. You just vent your infected spleen and go back to your 4hr/wk job.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:35am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves.

what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge.

Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then?

It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:39am:

You are incapable of making a considered argument. You just vent your infected spleen and go back to your 4hr/wk job.

was that an example of your considered argument?  :D :D :D :D :D

Bam wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 6:41am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 6:26am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. for gods sakes aussie... if you think that an arsewipe like Muir being in the Senate with 475 votes is democracy... then you have no Political Credibility at all... that bogan lambie and fat laz didn't even get 2000 votes and now mouthing off all over the media holding Australians to ransom??? you think that's ok??? struth... if that's the case then you may as well move in with Kat...  ::) Do you really think the government having majority control in both houses is a good thing? The last time we had that, we got Workchoices - a radical and unpopular policy that was never revealed at the election that gave the Coalition majority control. Whenever the government has majority control, there's always the real risk of bad laws getting passed. Just look at what happens in Queensland whenever the government has a majority. Mistakes are more likely to happen, or the government passes laws that enrich their mates. I do not want that. We have a political system that is prone to corruption. Without a deliberative Senate able to reject bad laws, there would be nothing to stop a government from passing laws to enrich themselves or their donors and changing the political system to entrench themselves in power for as long as possible. The Senate is not a select club for anyone with a born-to-rule mentality or the establishment of the major parties. Anyone who can get elected should be allowed to try.

There is nothing in this proposal that is likely to give senate control to either party. It is trying to ensure that those elected were actually elected by the people and not by preference-whispering. Xenophons running mat got 0.8 of a quota and was no elected while people like muir got elected on virtually nothing at all. It is undemocratic.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:35am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves.

why dont we have people who get elected because they are a member of a party...

only to decide they will become an independent before 12 months is up.....

be made to stand down....

if they cannot stand the party they joined why should we have to put up with them for 6 years.. >:( >:(

cods wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:43am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. why dont we have people who get elected because they are a member of a party... only to decide they will become an independent before 12 months is up..... be made to stand down.... if they cannot stand the party they joined why should we have to put up with them for 6 years.. >:( >:(

To be fair, both Muir and Madigan were thrown out of their respective parties.

John Smith wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:40am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove

Muir got elected with just 16 first preference votes. Still think that is democratic? By the way, if you wondered how Muir got elected, see the following link...

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/how-did-ricky-muir-get-a-senate-spot-20130909-2tfc4.html

The senate is unworkable in the eyes of a Libtard when the reality is they're doing an excellent job knocking back toxic policy.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:52am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove Muir got elected with just 16 first preference votes. Still think that is democratic? By the way, if you wondered how Muir got elected, see the following link... http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/how-did-ricky-muir-get-a-senate-spot-20130909-2tfc4.html

wrong ... Muir got elected with 16 primary votes and thousands and thousands of preference votes. You can't just ignore them because it suits you. That is how our system works. If people didn't want preferences to go to muir they should have given him their preference.

John Smith wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:55am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:52am: John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove Muir got elected with just 16 first preference votes. Still think that is democratic? By the way, if you wondered how Muir got elected, see the following link... http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/how-did-ricky-muir-get-a-senate-spot-20130909-2tfc4.html wrong ... Muir got elected with 16 primary votes and thousands and thousands of preference votes. You can't just ignore them because it suits you. That is how our system works. If people didn't want preferences to go to muir they should have given him their preference.

You're wrong. Open this link and scroll down to ticket Z where Muir is and go across to the far right. You'll note that this is the AEC website for first preference votes in the senate race of 2013, and it shows the total number of first preference votes to Muir was 16. Ergo, I was right, you were wrong.

http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-17496-197.htm

can you even read?

flip

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:02am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:55am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:52am: John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove Muir got elected with just 16 first preference votes. Still think that is democratic? By the way, if you wondered how Muir got elected, see the following link... http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/how-did-ricky-muir-get-a-senate-spot-20130909-2tfc4.html wrong ... Muir got elected with 16 primary votes and thousands and thousands of preference votes. You can't just ignore them because it suits you. That is how our system works. If people didn't want preferences to go to muir they should have given him their preference. You're wrong. Open this link and scroll down to ticket Z where Muir is and go across to the far right. You'll note that this is the AEC website for first preference votes in the senate race of 2013, and it shows the total number of first preference votes to Muir was 16. Ergo, I was right, you were wrong. http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-17496-197.htm

Of course JS was wrong. That is the default position in any debate.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:08am:

Of course JS was wrong. That is the default position in any debate.

what exactly was wrong? I said Muir got 16 primary votes and Armpit came back and said I was wrong, Muir got 16  votes  :D :D :D :D


you're even dumber than he is.

John Smith wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:10am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:08am: Of course JS was wrong. That is the default position in any debate. what exactly was wrong? I said Muir got 16 primary votes and Armpit came back and said I was wrong, Muir got 16  votes  :D :D :D :D you're even dumber than he is.

You said primary votes. The 16 votes he got were first preferences. They aren't the same thing, you dope!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:11am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:10am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:08am: Of course JS was wrong. That is the default position in any debate. what exactly was wrong? I said Muir got 16 primary votes and Armpit came back and said I was wrong, Muir got 16  votes  :D :D :D :D you're even dumber than he is. You said primary votes. The 16 votes he got were first preferences. They aren't the same thing, you dope!

faarrrk you are stupid.

He got 10 votes, 2 absentee votes, i early pre pol  and 3 postal votes making it a total of 16 primary ( or first preference) votes.... your table doesn't show where the preferences come from after that.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:39am:

Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:09pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:35pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:06pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 1:54pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct. .....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D Insults don't make me any less correct, either. NOTHING could ever make you correct. Except for the fact that I AM correct. Suck it up. If you think you are correct then why not put up an actual ARGUMENT instead of just venting you infected spleen? Make your case or just shut up. I have. On numerous occasions. You were probably too busy trolling, and missed it. You are incapable of making a considered argument. You just vent your infected spleen and go back to your 4hr/wk job.

Make everyone's day - go and suffer a total existence failure.

Useless LNP troll.

Kat wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 9:23am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:39am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:09pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:35pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:06pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 1:54pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct. .....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D Insults don't make me any less correct, either. NOTHING could ever make you correct. Except for the fact that I AM correct. Suck it up. If you think you are correct then why not put up an actual ARGUMENT instead of just venting you infected spleen? Make your case or just shut up. I have. On numerous occasions. You were probably too busy trolling, and missed it. You are incapable of making a considered argument. You just vent your infected spleen and go back to your 4hr/wk job. Make everyone's day - go and suffer a total existence failure. Useless LNP troll.

More venting of you infected spleen. You lack so much... one of those things you lack is a full-time job.

John Smith wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:58am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:11am: John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:10am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:08am: Of course JS was wrong. That is the default position in any debate. what exactly was wrong? I said Muir got 16 primary votes and Armpit came back and said I was wrong, Muir got 16  votes  :D :D :D :D you're even dumber than he is. You said primary votes. The 16 votes he got were first preferences. They aren't the same thing, you dope! faarrrk you are stupid. He got 10 votes, 2 absentee votes, i early pre pol  and 3 postal votes making it a total of 16 primary ( or first preference) votes.... your table doesn't show where the preferences come from after that.

So you're saying that the AEC is wrong and you're right? Gawd, what an ego!  ;D ;D ;D

Clive has his say.  Also confirms that in his view Malcolm is just baby sitting the PMship for Abbott.

Link.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:02am:

You're wrong. Open this link and scroll down to ticket Z where Muir is and go across to the far right. You'll note that this is the AEC website for first preference votes in the senate race of 2013, and it shows the total number of first preference votes to Muir was 16. Ergo, I was right, you were wrong. http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-17496-197.htm

Epic fail from Armpit!!

He's posted the below-the-line results for ONE SEAT and tried to pretend that it was the results for all votes cast in all 37 seats in Victoria.

Muir actually got 17,083 first-preference votes, including above-the-line votes.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 8:11am:

You said primary votes. The 16 votes he got were first preferences. They aren't the same thing, you dope!

The 16 votes that Muir got was below the line votes in the division of Aston. The other 17,067 votes that Muir got were conveniently excluded from the discussion.

Bam wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 2:50pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:11am: You said primary votes. The 16 votes he got were first preferences. They aren't the same thing, you dope! The 16 votes that Muir got was below the line votes in the division of Aston. The other 17,067 votes that Muir got were conveniently excluded from the discussion.

Ricky votes with Liberals 54% of the time.

The greens vote with liberal 2% and labor 30%.

Of course the Greens voted with liberals to change the voting system to wipe out minor parties.
This will result in Labor having to form a coalition with the Greens in future, we know how well that worked last time for Labor.

Muir got 17,083 primary votes. That is more primary votes (including above the line) than the following candidates, who were also elected to the Senate in Victoria:

S.Ryan (Liberal) - 737
J.Collins (Labor) - 1804

He got fewer primary votes than the following candidates who were not elected:

Group A - D. Nalliah (Rise Up Australia) 30,925
Group F - F. Riley (HMP) 20,030
Group G - A. Fenn (Family First) 51,532
Group O - T. Maloney (ASP) 28,143
Group Y - P. Boon (Animal Justice Party) 25,246
Group AA - J. Assange (Wikileaks) 41,699
Group AC - F. Patten (ASXP) 63,710
Group AM - M. Farrell (DLP) 23,828

Source

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 11:42am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:58am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:11am: John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:10am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:08am: Of course JS was wrong. That is the default position in any debate. what exactly was wrong? I said Muir got 16 primary votes and Armpit came back and said I was wrong, Muir got 16  votes  :D :D :D :D you're even dumber than he is. You said primary votes. The 16 votes he got were first preferences. They aren't the same thing, you dope! faarrrk you are stupid. He got 10 votes, 2 absentee votes, i early pre pol  and 3 postal votes making it a total of 16 primary ( or first preference) votes.... your table doesn't show where the preferences come from after that. So you're saying that the AEC is wrong and you're right? Gawd, what an ego!  ;D ;D ;D

no I am saying you are wrong ..... seriously, learn to read.

Bam wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 2:48pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:02am: You're wrong. Open this link and scroll down to ticket Z where Muir is and go across to the far right. You'll note that this is the AEC website for first preference votes in the senate race of 2013, and it shows the total number of first preference votes to Muir was 16. Ergo, I was right, you were wrong. http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-17496-197.htm Epic fail from Armpit!! He's posted the below-the-line results for ONE SEAT and tried to pretend that it was the results for all votes cast in all 37 seats in Victoria. Muir actually got 17,083 first-preference votes, including above-the-line votes.

;D ;D ;D ;D

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 10:24am:

Kat wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:23am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:39am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:09pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:35pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:06pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 1:54pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct. .....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D Insults don't make me any less correct, either. NOTHING could ever make you correct. Except for the fact that I AM correct. Suck it up. If you think you are correct then why not put up an actual ARGUMENT instead of just venting you infected spleen? Make your case or just shut up. I have. On numerous occasions. You were probably too busy trolling, and missed it. You are incapable of making a considered argument. You just vent your infected spleen and go back to your 4hr/wk job. Make everyone's day - go and suffer a total existence failure. Useless LNP troll. More venting of you infected spleen. You lack so much... one of those things you lack is a full-time job.

Piss off and become extinct, you troll-tard.

John Smith wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:40am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove

99.5% of the population voted against Ricky Muir yet he is a senator.

Aussie wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 2:00pm:

Clive has his say.  Also confirms that in his view Malcolm is just baby sitting the PMship for Abbott. Link.

Why would you take any notice of a perennial fool like Palmer?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 2:00pm: Clive has his say.  Also confirms that in his view Malcolm is just baby sitting the PMship for Abbott. Link. Why would you take any notice of a perennial fool like Palmer?

Don't.  I don't care either way.  But.....I'll bet he is right.

Kat wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 3:34pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 10:24am: Kat wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 9:23am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:39am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 10:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:09pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:50pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 4:35pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 2:06pm: Swagman wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 1:54pm: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:33am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:31am: Kat wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 11:20am: What part of 'NO government should EVER be permitted to control both Houses' don't these right-wing fektards understand??? oh for crying out loud... the political retard strikes again...  ::) Kat's reliable, gotta give her that! And 100% correct. .....and 100% in fantasy land as usual  :D Insults don't make me any less correct, either. NOTHING could ever make you correct. Except for the fact that I AM correct. Suck it up. If you think you are correct then why not put up an actual ARGUMENT instead of just venting you infected spleen? Make your case or just shut up. I have. On numerous occasions. You were probably too busy trolling, and missed it. You are incapable of making a considered argument. You just vent your infected spleen and go back to your 4hr/wk job. Make everyone's day - go and suffer a total existence failure. Useless LNP troll. More venting of you infected spleen. You lack so much... one of those things you lack is a full-time job. Piss off and become extinct, you troll-tard.

Spend a hard 30 minutes at work today?

Aussie wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:31pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:29pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 2:00pm: Clive has his say.  Also confirms that in his view Malcolm is just baby sitting the PMship for Abbott. Link. Why would you take any notice of a perennial fool like Palmer? Don't.  I don't care either way.  But.....I'll bet he is right.

Palmer is a political amateur whose only weapon is money. HE spent $50M on getting elected and then decided he didnt like it and ran away. His pitiful party followed him.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:32pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:31pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:29pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 2:00pm: Clive has his say.  Also confirms that in his view Malcolm is just baby sitting the PMship for Abbott. Link. Why would you take any notice of a perennial fool like Palmer? Don't.  I don't care either way.  But.....I'll bet he is right. Palmer is a political amateur whose only weapon is money. HE spent $50M on getting elected and then decided he didnt like it and ran away. His pitiful party followed him.

Really?  I know there is no way you'll provide a link to support either outburst.

Aussie wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:35pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:32pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:31pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:29pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 2:00pm: Clive has his say.  Also confirms that in his view Malcolm is just baby sitting the PMship for Abbott. Link. Why would you take any notice of a perennial fool like Palmer? Don't.  I don't care either way.  But.....I'll bet he is right. Palmer is a political amateur whose only weapon is money. HE spent $50M on getting elected and then decided he didnt like it and ran away. His pitiful party followed him. Really?  I know there is no way you'll provide a link to support either outburst.

"political amateur" is a proven fact. He rarely shows up in parliament, clearly has no idea of how to run a party since everyone left him and has mess up almost everything he has tried in parliament before losing interest.

'amateur' is a generous assessment. FOOL is a better one.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove 99.5% of the population voted against Ricky Muir yet he is a senator.

And is by FAR one of the best in the current Senate.

Piss off.

Maria/LongLie, he has been in politics since the day of Joe the Jerk in Queensland.  He has been LNP dna for more than probably touching on 2.5 decades, and was one of its major donors.  Yeas, he's an amateur.

Aussie wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:43pm:

Maria/LongLie, he has been in politics since the day of Joe the Jerk in Queensland.  He has been LNP dna for more than probably touching on 2.5 decades, and was one of its major donors.  Yeas, he's an amateur.

Since when has 'being a donor' made you 'in politics'. The clown got 26% at the last election in his seat and is now on just 2%. That is the kind of swing that proves the point that he has no idea what he is doing. The early days of PUP in the senate was one embarrassment after another until it all predictably unravelled. He has no clue what he is doing in politics. He is incompetent at the art of politics.

What kind of political 'expert' attacks the Clerk of the Senate for refusing to accept his bill despite it being unconstitutional?

He is a fool, as is anyone who still supports him.

Kat wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:42pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:28pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove 99.5% of the population voted against Ricky Muir yet he is a senator. And is by FAR one of the best in the current Senate. Piss off.

Long day at the bike assembly plant? Your anger is showing.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:47pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:43pm: Maria/LongLie, he has been in politics since the day of Joe the Jerk in Queensland.  He has been LNP dna for more than probably touching on 2.5 decades, and was one of its major donors.  Yeas, he's an amateur. Since when has 'being a donor' made you 'in politics'. The clown got 26% at the last election in his seat and is now on just 2%. That is the kind of swing that proves the point that he has no idea what he is doing. The early days of PUP in the senate was one embarrassment after another until it all predictably unravelled. He has no clue what he is doing in politics. He is incompetent at the art of politics. What kind of political 'expert' attacks the Clerk of the Senate for refusing to accept his bill despite it being unconstitutional? He is a fool, as is anyone who still supports him.

Odd you would be critical about a bloke you know nothing of.  He was a Life Member of the LNP and was also a delegate of the Qld LNP to National Conferences.  It seems you know absolutely nothing relevant.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove 99.5% of the population voted against Ricky Muir yet he is a senator.

How do you vote against someone on a senate ticket ?

Can I vote above the line and just vote not liberal, that would make it easy for many people.

I don't believe that anyone specifically voted against Muir, they didn't did they ?

Bam wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 2:48pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 8:02am: You're wrong. Open this link and scroll down to ticket Z where Muir is and go across to the far right. You'll note that this is the AEC website for first preference votes in the senate race of 2013, and it shows the total number of first preference votes to Muir was 16. Ergo, I was right, you were wrong. http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-17496-197.htm Epic fail from Armpit!! He's posted the below-the-line results for ONE SEAT and tried to pretend that it was the results for all votes cast in all 37 seats in Victoria. Muir actually got 17,083 first-preference votes, including above-the-line votes.

He sure isn't have a good day , it's the fear  :)

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove 99.5% of the population voted against Ricky Muir yet he is a senator.

actually, they didn't ... through their preferences. If they had wanted to preference someone else they would have. That they were happy to go along with whatever their first preference wanted that doesn't make it any less democratic.

When will you learn how our system works?

flip

As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984"


So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them

You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove 99.5% of the population voted against Ricky Muir yet he is a senator.

Prob jealous that another lib didn't get the seat.
When people voted just '1' above line, either they accept the convenience of it, or they trust the party (minor or otherwise) to make good 2nd, 3rd, etc choices if that team didn't get in.  Simple.

As pointed out earlier by someone, not voting for someone 1st choice doesn't necessarily mean voting against them. 

Aussie wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:57pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:47pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:43pm: Maria/LongLie, he has been in politics since the day of Joe the Jerk in Queensland.  He has been LNP dna for more than probably touching on 2.5 decades, and was one of its major donors.  Yeas, he's an amateur. Since when has 'being a donor' made you 'in politics'. The clown got 26% at the last election in his seat and is now on just 2%. That is the kind of swing that proves the point that he has no idea what he is doing. The early days of PUP in the senate was one embarrassment after another until it all predictably unravelled. He has no clue what he is doing in politics. He is incompetent at the art of politics. What kind of political 'expert' attacks the Clerk of the Senate for refusing to accept his bill despite it being unconstitutional? He is a fool, as is anyone who still supports him. Odd you would be critical about a bloke you know nothing of.  He was a Life Member of the LNP and was also a delegate of the Qld LNP to National Conferences.  It seems you know absolutely nothing relevant.

Still doesn't change the fact that he is a fool, fuelled by revenge, funded by workers entitlements and powered by a small IQ.

stunspore wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 6:33am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:28pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove 99.5% of the population voted against Ricky Muir yet he is a senator. Prob jealous that another lib didn't get the seat. When people voted just '1' above line, either they accept the convenience of it, or they trust the party (minor or otherwise) to make good 2nd, 3rd, etc choices if that team didn't get in.  Simple. As pointed out earlier by someone, not voting for someone 1st choice doesn't necessarily mean voting against them.

A tad naive to say the least. In a system that requires EVERY candidate receive a preference, you analysis means no one votes against anyone, despite the fact that most voters very specifically choose a party to support and the rest to reject.

If you can support Muir's election as democratic then you have some serious issues to work out.

Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:42am:

As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it

I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense.

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense.

Yet oddly, you support these changes in general. And why? Because it merely seeks to eradicate the undemocratic way in which some senators are elected. The LDP senator got in my being confused for the Liberals. Ricky Muir was elected by Preference-whispering. Neither has any business being in the Senate elected by such undemocratic means. I am a supporter of the democratic process way before a supporter of the Liberals. Let parliament reflect the will of the people and I am happy. Let someone be elected as one party, change sides and put in another party and I am not. Nor am I happy about people elected by less votes than most people have facebook friends.

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense.

I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. Yet oddly, you support these changes in general. And why? Because it merely seeks to eradicate the undemocratic way in which some senators are elected. The LDP senator got in my being confused for the Liberals. Ricky Muir was elected by Preference-whispering. Neither has any business being in the Senate elected by such undemocratic means. I am a supporter of the democratic process way before a supporter of the Liberals. Let parliament reflect the will of the people and I am happy. Let someone be elected as one party, change sides and put in another party and I am not. Nor am I happy about people elected by less votes than most people have facebook friends.

Here's why I do not support minimum quotas. What happens when you've got a 4% minimum to be elected, one seat to be filled and none of the remaining candidates have 4% of the vote?

And I don't care that it is unlikely. It's NOT impossible. The Senate elects too few people in each state to make it workable.

I don't have a problem with a few crossbench Senators being elected on relatively low votes. Sometimes, they turn out to be very good candidates - that's how Xenophon got started with his political career in SA.

What I have a problem with is the ticket voting system that games the system to make it more likely.

The proposed reforms are flawed by discouraging voters to vote for candidates in any order other than that approved by the parties. Why is it acceptable for a vote to be valid by numbering only one box above the line, but voters who vote below the line must number at least 90% of the boxes? The parties' machines win again.  :(

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:57am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose.

Another backyard Fascist..... let the people decide who they want to vote for..... you don't get to 'extinguish' anything...... not on my watch.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose. Another backyard Fascist..... let the people decide who they want to vote for..... you don't get to 'extinguish' anything...... not on my watch.

Well put.

More than 23% of the votes cast in the Senate at the last election went to "other" candidates - not ALP, Coalition or Green. Why should these 23% of voters not be represented in Parliament?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:05am:

stunspore wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:33am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:28pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove 99.5% of the population voted against Ricky Muir yet he is a senator. Prob jealous that another lib didn't get the seat. When people voted just '1' above line, either they accept the convenience of it, or they trust the party (minor or otherwise) to make good 2nd, 3rd, etc choices if that team didn't get in.  Simple. As pointed out earlier by someone, not voting for someone 1st choice doesn't necessarily mean voting against them.  A tad naive to say the least. In a system that requires EVERY candidate receive a preference, you analysis means no one votes against anyone, despite the fact that most voters very specifically choose a party to support and the rest to reject. If you can support Muir's election as democratic then you have some serious issues to work out.

I do.

It was.

And I haven't.

But you mob pushing to let this pack of scum have control of the Senate most definitely have

And they go far beyond merely which side of politics you support.

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:06am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:55am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. Yet oddly, you support these changes in general. And why? Because it merely seeks to eradicate the undemocratic way in which some senators are elected. The LDP senator got in my being confused for the Liberals. Ricky Muir was elected by Preference-whispering. Neither has any business being in the Senate elected by such undemocratic means. I am a supporter of the democratic process way before a supporter of the Liberals. Let parliament reflect the will of the people and I am happy. Let someone be elected as one party, change sides and put in another party and I am not. Nor am I happy about people elected by less votes than most people have facebook friends. Here's why I do not support minimum quotas. What happens when you've got a 4% minimum to be elected, one seat to be filled and none of the remaining candidates have 4% of the vote? And I don't care that it is unlikely. It's NOT impossible. The Senate elects too few people in each state to make it workable. I don't have a problem with a few crossbench Senators being elected on relatively low votes. Sometimes, they turn out to be very good candidates - that's how Xenophon got started with his political career in SA. What I have a problem with is the ticket voting system that games the system to make it more likely.

I said 1% not 4%.  It is about eliminating the irrelevancies, not the minors.

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:25am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:10am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose. Another backyard Fascist..... let the people decide who they want to vote for..... you don't get to 'extinguish' anything...... not on my watch. Well put. More than 23% of the votes cast in the Senate at the last election went to "other" candidates - not ALP, Coalition or Green. Why should these 23% of voters not be represented in Parliament?

84% of AFL supporters are members of clubs that got nothing from the Premiership. Why should they not be represented in the premiership?  BECAUSE IT IS A COMPETITION, just like politics. Winners get elected while losers go home to try again later. 23% is a minority. You dont get a seat in parliament the same way a kindergarten kid gets a sticker for trying. You get one for WINNING.

Kat wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:35am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:05am: stunspore wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 6:33am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 5:28pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:40am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 23rd, 2016 at 7:35am: Aussie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2016 at 5:52pm: Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP.  I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate.  I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country. Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves. what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge. Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then? It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove 99.5% of the population voted against Ricky Muir yet he is a senator. Prob jealous that another lib didn't get the seat. When people voted just '1' above line, either they accept the convenience of it, or they trust the party (minor or otherwise) to make good 2nd, 3rd, etc choices if that team didn't get in.  Simple. As pointed out earlier by someone, not voting for someone 1st choice doesn't necessarily mean voting against them.  A tad naive to say the least. In a system that requires EVERY candidate receive a preference, you analysis means no one votes against anyone, despite the fact that most voters very specifically choose a party to support and the rest to reject. If you can support Muir's election as democratic then you have some serious issues to work out. I do. It was. And I haven't. But you mob pushing to let this pack of scum have control of the Senate most definitely have And they go far beyond merely which side of politics you support.

You are a fool. Most people here agree. Perhaps the Liberals ought to start up a swag of minor parties and get a few senators elected the way Muir did and then conveniently support the Libs in every vote? Would you be happy then? Or better still....

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN HAPPY?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:00am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:06am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:55am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. Yet oddly, you support these changes in general. And why? Because it merely seeks to eradicate the undemocratic way in which some senators are elected. The LDP senator got in my being confused for the Liberals. Ricky Muir was elected by Preference-whispering. Neither has any business being in the Senate elected by such undemocratic means. I am a supporter of the democratic process way before a supporter of the Liberals. Let parliament reflect the will of the people and I am happy. Let someone be elected as one party, change sides and put in another party and I am not. Nor am I happy about people elected by less votes than most people have facebook friends. Here's why I do not support minimum quotas. What happens when you've got a 4% minimum to be elected, one seat to be filled and none of the remaining candidates have 4% of the vote? And I don't care that it is unlikely. It's NOT impossible. The Senate elects too few people in each state to make it workable. I don't have a problem with a few crossbench Senators being elected on relatively low votes. Sometimes, they turn out to be very good candidates - that's how Xenophon got started with his political career in SA. What I have a problem with is the ticket voting system that games the system to make it more likely. I said 1% not 4%.  It is about eliminating the irrelevancies, not the minors.

What you said is irrelevant. Any time there's a minimum quota, it creates the possibility of nobody reaching that quota.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:04am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:25am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:10am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose. Another backyard Fascist..... let the people decide who they want to vote for..... you don't get to 'extinguish' anything...... not on my watch. Well put. More than 23% of the votes cast in the Senate at the last election went to "other" candidates - not ALP, Coalition or Green. Why should these 23% of voters not be represented in Parliament? 84% of AFL supporters are members of clubs that got nothing from the Premiership. Why should they not be represented in the premiership?  BECAUSE IT IS A COMPETITION, just like politics. Winners get elected while losers go home to try again later. 23% is a minority. You dont get a seat in parliament the same way a kindergarten kid gets a sticker for trying. You get one for WINNING.

You don't understand the basics of representative democracy with proportional representation, and the history of Senate voting systems.

We had winner-take-all Senate voting prior to 1949. It was thrown out because it was undemocratic.

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:10am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:00am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:06am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:55am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. Yet oddly, you support these changes in general. And why? Because it merely seeks to eradicate the undemocratic way in which some senators are elected. The LDP senator got in my being confused for the Liberals. Ricky Muir was elected by Preference-whispering. Neither has any business being in the Senate elected by such undemocratic means. I am a supporter of the democratic process way before a supporter of the Liberals. Let parliament reflect the will of the people and I am happy. Let someone be elected as one party, change sides and put in another party and I am not. Nor am I happy about people elected by less votes than most people have facebook friends. Here's why I do not support minimum quotas. What happens when you've got a 4% minimum to be elected, one seat to be filled and none of the remaining candidates have 4% of the vote? And I don't care that it is unlikely. It's NOT impossible. The Senate elects too few people in each state to make it workable. I don't have a problem with a few crossbench Senators being elected on relatively low votes. Sometimes, they turn out to be very good candidates - that's how Xenophon got started with his political career in SA. What I have a problem with is the ticket voting system that games the system to make it more likely. I said 1% not 4%.  It is about eliminating the irrelevancies, not the minors. What you said is irrelevant. Any time there's a minimum quota, it creates the possibility of nobody reaching that quota.

Technically true but at 1% it would require at least 101 equal vote candidates - a virtual impossibility. Even at 4% you would need 26 equal vote candidates.

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:14am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:04am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:25am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:10am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose. Another backyard Fascist..... let the people decide who they want to vote for..... you don't get to 'extinguish' anything...... not on my watch. Well put. More than 23% of the votes cast in the Senate at the last election went to "other" candidates - not ALP, Coalition or Green. Why should these 23% of voters not be represented in Parliament? 84% of AFL supporters are members of clubs that got nothing from the Premiership. Why should they not be represented in the premiership?  BECAUSE IT IS A COMPETITION, just like politics. Winners get elected while losers go home to try again later. 23% is a minority. You dont get a seat in parliament the same way a kindergarten kid gets a sticker for trying. You get one for WINNING. You don't understand the basics of representative democracy with proportional representation, and the history of Senate voting systems. We had winner-take-all Senate voting prior to 1949. It was thrown out because it was undemocratic.

And replaced it with a system where someone gets .8 of a quota and fails while someone with .4 of a quota gets the gig instead. Or worse, a Ricky Muir so got a handful of votes only.  Representative democracy must mean something different to you. IN my dictionary it means being representative of the voters wishes, not the the vagaries of valueless preferences.

I think your real problem is that you agree with the senate changes, but struggle because the Libs put it up and your primitive ALP will probably vote against it - for the same reason.

I am not in favour of any party pushing through legislation that they see will give them an advantage in an election year.

This type of change should be debated looking for consensus and implemented with a cool hand between elections.

Here we see a government who have been holding a war against independent's trying to damage their electoral chances in order to provide them with a more compliant senate.

In my view the absolute wrong motive.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:20am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:14am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:04am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:25am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:10am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose. Another backyard Fascist..... let the people decide who they want to vote for..... you don't get to 'extinguish' anything...... not on my watch. Well put. More than 23% of the votes cast in the Senate at the last election went to "other" candidates - not ALP, Coalition or Green. Why should these 23% of voters not be represented in Parliament? 84% of AFL supporters are members of clubs that got nothing from the Premiership. Why should they not be represented in the premiership?  BECAUSE IT IS A COMPETITION, just like politics. Winners get elected while losers go home to try again later. 23% is a minority. You dont get a seat in parliament the same way a kindergarten kid gets a sticker for trying. You get one for WINNING. You don't understand the basics of representative democracy with proportional representation, and the history of Senate voting systems. We had winner-take-all Senate voting prior to 1949. It was thrown out because it was undemocratic. And replaced it with a system where someone gets .8 of a quota and fails while someone with .4 of a quota gets the gig instead. Or worse, a Ricky Muir so got a handful of votes only.  Representative democracy must mean something different to you. IN my dictionary it means being representative of the voters wishes, not the the vagaries of valueless preferences. I think your real problem is that you agree with the senate changes, but struggle because the Libs put it up and your primitive ALP will probably vote against it - for the same reason.

I think your real problem is that you're incapable of understanding points when explained to you, so you just make up something and pretend that's the point that was made. That's why you crap on about "1%" and so on. I have never said this.

You have not addressed the point that with a group commanding 24% of the vote, SOMEONE from that group has every right to be elected in a system of proportional representation with a 14% quota.

Looks to me that the change will not produce a more representative situation just replace the last positions with .5% changing from independents which are desirable to a lower down selection on the Labor Lib ticket.

i.e. instead of getting a valuable senator it will just be a rubber stamp but still elected on 0.5% of the vote.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:17am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:10am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:00am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:06am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:55am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. Yet oddly, you support these changes in general. And why? Because it merely seeks to eradicate the undemocratic way in which some senators are elected. The LDP senator got in my being confused for the Liberals. Ricky Muir was elected by Preference-whispering. Neither has any business being in the Senate elected by such undemocratic means. I am a supporter of the democratic process way before a supporter of the Liberals. Let parliament reflect the will of the people and I am happy. Let someone be elected as one party, change sides and put in another party and I am not. Nor am I happy about people elected by less votes than most people have facebook friends. Here's why I do not support minimum quotas. What happens when you've got a 4% minimum to be elected, one seat to be filled and none of the remaining candidates have 4% of the vote? And I don't care that it is unlikely. It's NOT impossible. The Senate elects too few people in each state to make it workable. I don't have a problem with a few crossbench Senators being elected on relatively low votes. Sometimes, they turn out to be very good candidates - that's how Xenophon got started with his political career in SA. What I have a problem with is the ticket voting system that games the system to make it more likely. I said 1% not 4%.  It is about eliminating the irrelevancies, not the minors. What you said is irrelevant. Any time there's a minimum quota, it creates the possibility of nobody reaching that quota. Technically true but at 1% it would require at least 101 equal vote candidates - a virtual impossibility. Even at 4% you would need 26 equal vote candidates.

Another example of how you do not understand a point. If there's one seat to be filled, that means we're dealing with far less than 100% of the vote.

Quotas do not work with only six seats to be filled. It's not necessary. All we need is control of preferential voting to be given back to the electors, and the candidates with the fewest votes will be more likely to be excluded early.

There's not been any demonstrated need for minimum vote quotas which is why they were not implemented. The problems with the Senate voting system were caused by ticket voting, not because someone got elected with only a small percentage of the vote. That happened BECAUSE we had group ticket voting.

Abolishing group tickets is a step in the right direction, but control of the electorates' votes by the faceless people in the political parties has not been relinquished. It is much harder to cast a valid vote below the line than above the line - and above the line is controlled by the parties' apparatchiks.

A valid vote in the new system is one of the following:
ONE box above the line.
90% of all the boxes below the line.
It will be up to 100 times harder to vote below the line.

IMO, a minimum valid vote should indicate a number of candidates equal to the number of vacancies - above the line OR below the line.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:40am:

I am not in favour of any party pushing through legislation that they see will give them an advantage in an election year. This type of change should be debated looking for consensus and implemented with a cool hand between elections. Here we see a government who have been holding a war against independent's trying to damage their electoral chances in order to provide them with a more compliant senate. In my view the absolute wrong motive.

It doesnt give any party an advantage, nor has any commentator suggested such. It does however seek to remove the advantage that preference-whisperers obtain. It is in fact, essentially fair and even-handed. It will help your beloved ALP just as much - if not more - than the Libs.

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:41am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:20am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:14am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:04am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:25am: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:10am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:57am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose. Another backyard Fascist..... let the people decide who they want to vote for..... you don't get to 'extinguish' anything...... not on my watch. Well put. More than 23% of the votes cast in the Senate at the last election went to "other" candidates - not ALP, Coalition or Green. Why should these 23% of voters not be represented in Parliament? 84% of AFL supporters are members of clubs that got nothing from the Premiership. Why should they not be represented in the premiership?  BECAUSE IT IS A COMPETITION, just like politics. Winners get elected while losers go home to try again later. 23% is a minority. You dont get a seat in parliament the same way a kindergarten kid gets a sticker for trying. You get one for WINNING. You don't understand the basics of representative democracy with proportional representation, and the history of Senate voting systems. We had winner-take-all Senate voting prior to 1949. It was thrown out because it was undemocratic. And replaced it with a system where someone gets .8 of a quota and fails while someone with .4 of a quota gets the gig instead. Or worse, a Ricky Muir so got a handful of votes only.  Representative democracy must mean something different to you. IN my dictionary it means being representative of the voters wishes, not the the vagaries of valueless preferences. I think your real problem is that you agree with the senate changes, but struggle because the Libs put it up and your primitive ALP will probably vote against it - for the same reason. I think your real problem is that you're incapable of understanding points when explained to you, so you just make up something and pretend that's the point that was made. That's why you crap on about "1%" and so on. I have never said this. You have not addressed the point that with a group commanding 24% of the vote, SOMEONE from that group has every right to be elected in a system of proportional representation with a 14% quota.

Why?  It isnt a 24% bloc of votes but rather a group of 53 different parties all with very widely differing policies. Representation goes to the candidate that can rise above the clamour, not simply be yet another voice. Why should ANYONE be elected who hasnt gotten the votes?

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:54am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:17am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:10am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 11:00am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 10:06am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:55am: Bam wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 8:29am: Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24th, 2016 at 12:42am: As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984" So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense. Yet oddly, you support these changes in general. And why? Because it merely seeks to eradicate the undemocratic way in which some senators are elected. The LDP senator got in my being confused for the Liberals. Ricky Muir was elected by Preference-whispering. Neither has any business being in the Senate elected by such undemocratic means. I am a supporter of the democratic process way before a supporter of the Liberals. Let parliament reflect the will of the people and I am happy. Let someone be elected as one party, change sides and put in another party and I am not. Nor am I happy about people elected by less votes than most people have facebook friends. Here's why I do not support minimum quotas. What happens when you've got a 4% minimum to be elected, one seat to be filled and none of the remaining candidates have 4% of the vote? And I don't care that it is unlikely. It's NOT impossible. The Senate elects too few people in each state to make it workable. I don't have a problem with a few crossbench Senators being elected on relatively low votes. Sometimes, they turn out to be very good candidates - that's how Xenophon got started with his political career in SA. What I have a problem with is the ticket voting system that games the system to make it more likely. I said 1% not 4%.  It is about eliminating the irrelevancies, not the minors. What you said is irrelevant. Any time there's a minimum quota, it creates the possibility of nobody reaching that quota. Technically true but at 1% it would require at least 101 equal vote candidates - a virtual impossibility. Even at 4% you would need 26 equal vote candidates. Another example of how you do not understand a point. If there's one seat to be filled, that means we're dealing with far less than 100% of the vote. Quotas do not work with only six seats to be filled. It's not necessary. All we need is control of preferential voting to be given back to the electors, and the candidates with the fewest votes will be more likely to be excluded early. There's not been any demonstrated need for minimum vote quotas which is why they were not implemented. The problems with the Senate voting system were caused by ticket voting, not because someone got elected with only a small percentage of the vote. That happened BECAUSE we had group ticket voting. Abolishing group tickets is a step in the right direction, but control of the electorates' votes by the faceless people in the political parties has not been relinquished. It is much harder to cast a valid vote below the line than above the line - and above the line is controlled by the parties' apparatchiks. A valid vote in the new system is one of the following: ONE box above the line. 90% of all the boxes below the line. It will be up to 100 times harder to vote below the line. IMO, a minimum valid vote should indicate a number of candidates equal to the number of vacancies - above the line OR below the line.

Ive not supported minimum quotas, merely stated that I am not adverse to them in principle if done properly and in concert with other measures.