http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html

There are thieves in the Senate. Scott Ryan, Liberal Senator for Victoria and Deborah O'Neill, Labor Senator for NSW will continue to hold their Senate seats after June 2019, while roughly half of their colleagues will face re-election. They will continue to serve from 2019 until 2022, at the expense of Derryn Hinch and Lee Rhiannon. Their seats were stolen on their behalf by the Labor Party and the Coalition. The two major parties have broken promises they made twice to the Australian public in order to secure these seats. These promises took the form of Senate resolutions on 22 June 2010 and 29 June 1998. Both resolutions passed with bipartisan support and stated that the Senate will use the new, fairer method to determine which senators get full (6 year) terms in the event of a double dissolution election. Had they kept this promise, senate thieves Scott Ryan and Deborah O'Neill would be facing re-election in 2019 and Hinch and Rhiannon would have the six year terms that the Australian public voted for. Unfortunately these resolutions are not binding and the Australian constitution permits the Senate to allocate the seats as it pleases, meaning Labor and the Coalition are not bound to keep their promise and can literally get away with anything.

In addition to these two promises, the Labor party passed the relevant legislation (again, non-binding) in 1984. After the 1987 double dissolution election, Coalition Senators voted in favour of using the new method to allocate senate seats, while the Labor party chose to keep the old method - again, because it gave them a bigger share of the seats. It was this 1987 disagreement that prompted the two major parties to pass the 1998 and 2010 resolutions to use the fairer method in the future. They no doubt had every intention of holding each other to this promise, up until the current situation arose in which both stood to benefit from sticking with the unfair method.

This coup has been permitted by a mainstream media that is asleep at the wheel. No major outlet reported on the Senate decision of August 31. They did report on Labor and the Coalition reaching an agreement to do this several weeks earlier. However, the reporting on this agreement simply quoted the insipid justifications given by the major parties and lacked any critical analysis or hard questions. Neither Labor nor the Coalition have been forced by the media to comment on the fact that they both broke promises that they made clearly and repeatedly to the Australian public. They have not been forced to even acknowledge that they made these promises. Neither party has been forced to acknowledge the transparent self-interest behind the decision. Instead, The ABC, The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald etc all let the major parties get away with simply pointing out that their agreement was "in keeping with the constitution and precedent", as if the new legislation and the repeated promises to use it never happened. The media has been publishing these insipid justifications and excuses on behalf of the major parties, while leaving out relevant facts and failing in their duty to ask the important questions.

Please contact your federal MP and senators using the links below (scroll down to "please support democracy in the senate") and let them know that you intend to punish them at the next election if they do not give back the stolen senate seats. Please also write to your newspaper and let them know of your disapproval at their failure to report on this coup and your scepticism at their ability to do their job. Please also write to Senators Ryan and O'Neill and let them know that you consider them to be thieves in the Senate and that their ongoing presence after 2019 undermines the legitimacy of the Senate.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html

The Australian saw fit to publish this lie by Liberal Senator Mathias Cormann from WA, who is the Coalition's deputy leader in the upper house. The senator insists that the method chosen to allocated six year senate terms reflects the flow of preferences. It does not. The Australian has still not made any effort to correct their misleading reporting of the August 12 announcement. As far as I know they are still yet to inform their readers that the decision goes against two senate resolutions supported by the Liberal party. They are still yet to report on the Senate vote of August 31.

Cormann raises ‘first elected’ plan to halve Senate terms for crossbenchers

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/cormann-backs-first-elected-plan-to-halve-senate-terms-for-crossbenchers/news-story/78b2d3837377ddf078c61a3ffd6d412f

The Australian 12:39PM August 12, 2016


Quote:

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has articulated a plan that would disproportionately relegate crossbench senators to three-year terms, while ensuring six-year terms for more than half of the Coalition’s upper-house MPs. Following a double-dissolution election, half of the states’ senators will be forced to recontest their seats in three years’ time. How that is determined is left up to the chamber itself. Senator Cormann, the Coalition’s deputy leader in the upper house, today said the “first-elected method” - under which the first six senators elected in each state receive longer terms - would recognise that those senators’ tickets attracted more primary votes and a stronger flow of preferences. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong, threw the ALP’s weight behind the idea. Under that formula there would be six-year terms for 13 of Labor’s 26 senators, 16 of the Coalition’s 30 senators, three of the Greens’ nine senators, two of the Nick Xenophon Team’s three senators and populist crossbenchers Jacqui Lambie and Pauline Hanson. Senators who received less popular support - such as Derryn Hinch of Victoria, David Leyonhjelm of NSW and Bob Day of South Australia - would all risk losing their seats at the election due in 2019, as would the NXT’s Skye Kakoschke-Moore and three One Nation senators. Major party senators facing re-election would include International Development Minister Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Labor frontbenchers Lisa Singh, Pat Dodson, Doug Cameron, Jacinta Collins and Claire Moore. Senator Cormann, the first-elected senator in Western Australia, told Sky News: “This has happened on seven occasions before since federation and on each occasion the way this has been settled is on the basis of the order in which individual senators were elected to the Senate in their respective states. “The important point is obviously this is a function of how many votes and how many preferences you are able to attract. If you are elected in the first six out of 12 then it stands to reason that you were elected earlier and as such you qualify for the longer period.” Senator Wong said in a statement to The Australian: “Labor will support the Government’s proposal to allocate Senators’ terms of office according to the order in which Senators were elected in each State. “This is consistent with the Senate’s previous practice following double dissolution elections and reflects the will of the voters.” An alternate formula, known as the “recount method”, would see the Australian Electoral Commission recount the ballots as though it were a regular half-Senate election and award seats depending on those duly elected. The AEC is required to conduct such a recount, although it will be up to the Senate to decide which method is used. Mr Hinch, who has raised the spectre of legal action if he is handed a three-year term, has proposed an entirely new method in which each elected party would receive at least one six-year term for its team regardless of how well it did relative to larger parties. This would safeguard minor party candidates, such as himself.

To suggest that the order elected method reflects the flow of preferences in any way is a lie. Under this method, six year terms go to the first six senators elected in each state. As this article demonstrates:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/who-did-your-senate-vote-go-to.html

in each state, either eight, nine or ten senators were elected before a single candidate was eliminated.


... continued below ...

---

That is, not a single one of the 36 senators allocated six year terms did so with the help of preference flows from eliminated candidates. The only preference flows supporting the first six senators were within the major parties (parties with enough first preference votes to get two senators elected among the first 6 from the state), after their first-listed candidates were elected. The only votes that contributed to their election were from people who gave a major party candidate their first preference (either above or below the line). For the vast majority of voters who voted above the line, this means that the votes remained with the party given their first preference before any senators were elected to three year terms. This is also true for people who gave one major party candidate their first below-the-line preference then gave their second preference to a minor party that had to rely on preferences from eliminated candidates.

The only senators given six year terms were senators from parties that got one or several quotas of first preference votes and who did not need to rely on the flow of preferences from eliminated minor party candidates.

I am not aware of any journalists asking Senator Cormann to explain why he made this claim.

---

Another article in The Australian. In this article, The Australian saw fit to point out that there are "no rules" governing how six year terms are allocated, but did not think it was important to qualify this by mentioning two bipartisan senate resolutions that effectively established such a rule. It describes the alternative method as non-binding and 'never been adopted' despite the two senate resolutions. In both articles The Australian reminded its readers that the deal was consistent with convention.

ALP-LNP deal to force senators back to poll in three years

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/alplnp-deal-to-force-senators-back-to-poll-in-three-years/news-story/f04dae3cfa3f26ae8b28e5c13c232b60

The Australian 12:00AM August 13, 2016


Quote:

Derryn Hinch and Lee Rhiannon have missed out on a six-year Senate term after a controversial countback method was rejected by the Coalition and Labor to ­decide term limits. Under a deal between Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and Labor’s Senate leader Penny Wong, just four of the 11 ­crossbenchers will get a six-year term and only three of the nine Greens. It means seven crossbenchers and six Greens will face re-election within three years at a half-Senate poll, where they will be required to effectively double their vote to retain their seats. But Pauline Hanson, Jacqui Lambie, Nick Xenophon and his first running mate Stirling Griff will take six-year terms because of the high vote they received at last month’s election. The constitution requires the Senate to award a six-year term to six of the 12 members from each state elected following a double dissolution. Their terms expire on June 30, 2022. The other six receive a three-year term, which will expire on June 30, 2019. There are no rules about how this should be done after a double dissolution. The deal struck yesterday means six-year terms will be given to 16 of the Coalition’s 30 senators and 13 of Labor’s 26. Senator Cormann told The Weekend Australian the government believed the first six senators elected in each state should be given the six-year term, which was the practice used after previous double-dissolution elections. “It is the fairest way and reflects the will of the people expressed at the election,” he said. Senator Wong said Labor supported the government’s proposal to allocate senators’ terms to the order in which they were elected in each state. “This is consistent with the Senate’s previous practice following double-dissolution elections and reflects the will of the voters,” she said. In 1984 Labor introduced a countback method known as a section 282 count, under which the electoral commission recalculates the result for six winners but it is based only on the votes for the 12 elected senators and ignores the preferences of people who voted for other candidates. It is non-binding and has never been adopted but The Weekend Australian has learned that under this method, Mr Hinch would have won a six-year term in Victoria instead of Liberal Scott Ryan, and in NSW Senator Rhiannon would have knocked out Labor’s Deborah O’Neil. However, based on the order of election method, Mr Hinch was elected 10th in Victoria and Senator Rhiannon came ninth. In all other states the same six senators would have received six-year terms. Mr Hinch was unavailable yesterday, but has proposed a method where each elected party would be guaranteed at least one six-year term, regardless of how many votes it received compared with other parties. The three Greens senators who will receive six-year terms are leader Richard Di Natale, who was elected third overall in Vic­toria, and Peter Whish-Wilson in Tasmania and Scott Ludlam in Western Australia, both also elected third. The crossbench members who, like Mr Hinch, will be fighting to keep their seats in three years are Family First’s Bob Day, who was elected 12th, Liberal Democrat David Leyonhjelm, (12th), the Xenophon party’s Skye Kako­schke-Moore, (10th), and One Nation’s Brian Burston (11th), Malcolm Roberts (12th) and Rodney Culleton (11th).

Here is a link to an earlier thread on this topic.

Senate: Who gets the 6-year terms?

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 10:37am:

Here is a link to an earlier thread on this topic. Senate: Who gets the 6-year terms?

hilarious...



www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 33115
I like fish
Re: Forum Rules etc.
Reply #4 - Sep 5th, 2016 at 6:34pm   If someone floods a board with duplicates so that it pushes the other threads off the first page, they will get deleted and the account will be disabled for spamming. If people respond to a thread, it is not spam



its ok for fd to do it though...... ::) ::) ::)

dont do as I say! sort of thingy.

cods wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 11:29am:

Bam wrote on Sep 24th, 2016 at 10:37am: Here is a link to an earlier thread on this topic. Senate: Who gets the 6-year terms? hilarious... www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 33115 I like fish Re: Forum Rules etc. Reply #4 - Sep 5th, 2016 at 6:34pm   If someone floods a board with duplicates so that it pushes the other threads off the first page, they will get deleted and the account will be disabled for spamming. If people respond to a thread, it is not spam its ok for fd to do it though...... ::) ::) ::) dont do as I say! sort of thingy.

Ryan and O'Neill - senate thieves

Ryan and O'Neill  are not senate thieves, they benefited from the Labor /Liberal theft.

It is more that they are in possession of stolen goods. (2 stolen seats)

They helped to steal them.

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 12:22pm:

They helped to steal them.

I suspect the decisions and agreements were made well above them and most likely without their knowledge.

Accessories after the fact, minor players at best.

Disgraceful by those responsible though.

With both sides supporting it they could have crossed the floor and still been supporting it.

I have written to them about this. They have three years to give back what they stole. I suggest you write to them too. Invite them to respond to the accusations. Hopefully by 2019 they are more widely known as the Senate thieves.

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 12:22pm:

They helped to steal them.

This is likely to continue in future DD elections as long as the Senate retains the power to determine the split of seats as specified in the Constitution. This is why Section 282 of the Electoral Act is not binding on the Senate.

The Section 282 method is very fair mathematically. I posted an analysis showing this in the other thread. The order of election method is demonstrably inferior yet that continues to be used.

It would be ironic though if Hinch ends up getting re-elected in three years and ends up serving in the Senate for nine years instead of six.

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

I have written to them about this. They have three years to give back what they stole. I suggest you write to them too. Invite them to respond to the accusations. Hopefully by 2019 they are more widely known as the Senate thieves.

I think it would be better if Hinch and Rhiannon encouraged a protest vote at the next election. I do not have any particular voting fidelity in the Senate and I will vote tactically. I have already decided to give Hinch my first preference at the next Senate election as a protest. Other Victorians should do the same.

Quote:

It would be ironic though if Hinch ends up getting re-elected in three years and ends up serving in the Senate for nine years instead of six.

That may well be his plan. However unless the public punish Labor and the Coalition for this at the next election, it will still mean they get an extra Senate seat each between 2019 and 2022. Maybe Hinch will take a few more votes from them than whoever would otherwise stand in his place in 2019. Maybe not. I doubt it will make much difference to how many votes the Greens get, unless the media pull their thumb out of their arse and report the relevant facts to the Australian public.


Quote:

I think it would be better if Hinch and Rhiannon encouraged a protest vote at the next election

.

The media has screwed them over so far. They look like sore losers, because the media only reported that Labor and the Coalition acted consistent with convention. They left out the two Senate resolutions to use the new, fairer method that would have given the six year seats to Hinch and Rhiannon.


Quote:

I do not have any particular voting fidelity in the Senate and I will vote tactically. I have already decided to give Hinch my first preference at the next Senate election as a protest. Other Victorians should do the same.

Good for you. Is that in response to this theft of Senate seats, or did you already like him?

THIS IS A DUPLICATE..

its alright though your the boss you can break any rules..

This is the only thread dedicated to the thievery of Scott Ryan and Deborah O'Neill

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

I have written to them about this. They have three years to give back what they stole. I suggest you write to them too. Invite them to respond to the accusations. Hopefully by 2019 they are more widely known as the Senate thieves.

did you give back to Eddie  MABO what you stole from him

bet you didnt.

how can anyone steal something if they are elected????..

unless of course they smashed someones shins with a baseball bat.

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 12:48pm:

This is the only thread dedicated to the thievery of Scott Ryan and Deborah O'Neill

are they senators or not!..otherwise you are doing what aussie does...

splitting hairs when it suits him.

Quote:

did you give back to Eddie  MABO what you stole from him

I stole nothing from Eddie. Scott Ryan and Deborah O'Neill stole Senate seats from Lee Rhiannon and Derryn Hinch, with the help of Labor and the Coalition.


Quote:

how can anyone steal something if they are elected????

They have no leigitimate claim to the 6 year Senate terms they were "elected" to.


Quote:

unless of course they smashed someones shins with a baseball bat

There are other ways to steal Cods.


Quote:

are they senators or not!

They are Senators.


Quote:

otherwise you are doing what aussie does... splitting hairs when it suits him

You will have to explain this one cods. The difference is the outcome of the election. The difference will probably have legislative consequences. That means different laws because Ryan and O'Neill took what does not belong to them. The difference is the abandonment of an important electoral reform that previously had the full support of Labor and the Coalition.

Bam wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 24th, 2016 at 12:30pm: I have written to them about this. They have three years to give back what they stole. I suggest you write to them too. Invite them to respond to the accusations. Hopefully by 2019 they are more widely known as the Senate thieves. I think it would be better if Hinch and Rhiannon encouraged a protest vote at the next election. I do not have any particular voting fidelity in the Senate and I will vote tactically. I have already decided to give Hinch my first preference at the next Senate election as a protest. Other Victorians should do the same.

So your intention is to vote against what is best, but so it serves your political tactics?  it is people like you that make people want First past the post.

FD seems to have this massive problem with senate election rules. Withe the possible exception of Hanson, I cannot think of two LESS WORTHY senators than Hinch and Rhiannon. Neither should even be in the house.

FD... WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM? the previous system of basically first 6 elected gets 6 year terms seems quite fair to me. Besides, Hinch will either be dead from alcoholism or in jail by 2019.

Quote:

FD seems to have this massive problem with senate election rules.

I support them. Especially the rules established in 1998 and 2010.


Quote:

I cannot think of two LESS WORTHY senators than Hinch and Rhiannon. Neither should even be in the house.

I keep asking you the same question Longy. You keep ignoring it. Do you think there is a bit more to this than which candidates you personally prefer?


Quote:

FD... WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?

Broken promises, stolen senate seats, and a media asleep at the wheel. Have I not been clear on this Longy? Would you like me to explain it again?


Quote:

the previous system of basically first 6 elected gets 6 year terms seems quite fair to me

It is not the worst possible option. Were it not for the recount method, I would go so far as to say it is the fairest method available.

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 1:29pm:

Quote: FD seems to have this massive problem with senate election rules. I support them. Especially the rules established in 1998 and 2010. [quote]I cannot think of two LESS WORTHY senators than Hinch and Rhiannon. Neither should even be in the house.

I keep asking you the same question Longy. You keep ignoring it. Do you think there is a bit more to this than which candidates you personally prefer?


Quote:

FD... WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM?

Broken promises, stolen senate seats, and a media asleep at the wheel. Have I not been clear on this Longy? Would you like me to explain it again?


Quote:

the previous system of basically first 6 elected gets 6 year terms seems quite fair to me

It is not the worst possible option. Were it not for the recount method, I would go so far as to say it is the fairest method available.[/quote]


No, you support the rule options that YOU like. I see nothing at all wrong with the first 6 elected getting 6 year terms. It seems quite fair and reasonable. You dont see other senators having a hissy fit about it. If they are at all good at their jobs they will be re-elected. If not, we simply hasten their departure.

Your 'media asleep' claim has been slaughtered by Gandalf so I wont  repeat his excellent work.

You have but ONE problem. YOU think it is a massive issue, but absolutely no one else in the entire country agrees. In a DD half the senators will end up with 3 year terms. They all stood for election knowing that.

NO ONE CARES - except you.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 1:13pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 24th, 2016 at 12:42pm: freediver wrote on Sep 24th, 2016 at 12:30pm: I have written to them about this. They have three years to give back what they stole. I suggest you write to them too. Invite them to respond to the accusations. Hopefully by 2019 they are more widely known as the Senate thieves. I think it would be better if Hinch and Rhiannon encouraged a protest vote at the next election. I do not have any particular voting fidelity in the Senate and I will vote tactically. I have already decided to give Hinch my first preference at the next Senate election as a protest. Other Victorians should do the same. So your intention is to vote against what is best, but so it serves your political tactics?  it is people like you that make people want First past the post. FD seems to have this massive problem with senate election rules. Withe the possible exception of Hanson, I cannot think of two LESS WORTHY senators than Hinch and Rhiannon. Neither should even be in the house. FD... WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM? the previous system of basically first 6 elected gets 6 year terms seems quite fair to me. Besides, Hinch will either be dead from alcoholism or in jail by 2019.

I think that Rhiannon has been pretty good, will probably end up agreeing about Hinch but we will see over the next 3 years, it isn't really about the individuals but about the honesty and integrity of the process.

I never supported Hanson either but I hated what they done to her.

Quote:

No, you support the rule options that YOU like.

Great insight there Longy. Got any other litle gems for us?


Quote:

I see nothing at all wrong with the first 6 elected getting 6 year terms.

What about broken promises? What about the two senate resolutions? What about knowing what rules are going to apply?


Quote:

It seems quite fair and reasonable.

Did you read my previous response to this? If you did, you do not appear to have comprehended.


Quote:

You dont see other senators having a hissy fit about it.

You mean all those Labor and Liberal Senators who voted to break their promise? You are right. They are being remarkably tight-lipped about it, wouldn't you say Longy?


Quote:

Your 'media asleep' claim has been slaughtered by Gandalf so I wont  repeat his excellent work.

No it hasn't. You are as confused as he is. You always are on issues of electoral reform.


Quote:

You have but ONE problem. YOU think it is a massive issue, but absolutely no one else in the entire country agrees.

Ah, I see you have decided to share in Aussie's confusion. First Gandalf. Then Aussie. What next, you will post Unforgiven's dead horse?

Would you like me to point out the people who disagree, one by one? Or will you concede upfront that your tongue was a few steps ahead of your brain?


Quote:

In a DD half the senators will end up with 3 year terms. They all stood for election knowing that.

They all stood for election knowing that the recount method would be used to allocate six year terms. Labor and the Coalition changed the rules after people voted. Do you think that is fair Longy?

Quote:

Ah, I see you have decided to share in Aussie's confusion. First Gandalf. Then Aussie. What next, you will post Unforgiven's dead horse?

Far cough!  Credit where it is due, Elde Fruit.  I was first Cab off that rank!

[quote]Would you like me to point out the people who disagree, one by one? Or will you concede upfront that your tongue was a few steps ahead of your brain?[/quote]

You go right ahead and do that.  Name names.

im


You will have to explain this one cods. The difference is the outcome of the election. The difference will probably have legislative consequences. That means different laws because Ryan and O'Neill took what does not belong to them. The difference is the abandonment of an important electoral reform that previously had the full support of Labor and the Coalition.



aussie manages to put a twist into something when he is accused of breaking his own rules..

just like you have.... I guess they are not senators then.. ::) ::)





as for you being upset about a broken promise... what a hoot that one is...

the senate is now the control room....for the country and you are worried about a greenie who is also a communist and a Jew hating racist...... go figure.. :D

btw the aborigines think all land belongs to them....especially up in Qld....so yes you did steal their land unless you have given it back of course like you expect Ryan and O'Neil to do....its symbolic after all...

you are upset ozpol members are not falling over themselves to write to these people hilarious....

I dont think they give a stuff about what seems to be top of your worry list..


as for Ms Rhiannon.    she worries me more than anyone and it will be good riddance as far as I am concerned.

Quote:

Far cough!  Credit where it is due, Elde Fruit.  I was first Cab off that rank!

I meant no disrespect Aussie. I meant that Longy followed Gandalf's lead first, before trotting out your old line that I am the only one who cares. I am anticipating him following unforgiven's lead soon. Who knows, maybe he will come up with something original.

This is an aweful lot of discussion for a topic that no-one cares about, don't you think? I'm sure it will all be over by 2019, so long as I get my way.


Quote:

You go right ahead and do that.  Name names.

We already went down this path in another thread Aussie. Have you forgotten already? Here is one: Derryn Hinch. Do I need to lead you by the nose now?


Quote:

just like you have.... I guess they are not senators then..

Like I said cods, they are senators.


Quote:

as for you being upset about a broken promise... what a hoot that one is...

Broken promises, stolen senate seats, altered legislation, and destroyed electoral reform. Plus all the consequences we cannot forsee. Maybe we will have a referendum we never needed to have.


Quote:

the senate is now the control room....for the country and you are worried about a greenie who is also a communist and a Jew hating racist...... go figure..

I am worried about democracy. As I keep telling Longy, there is more to this than your opinion of the candidates involved.

Quote:

Here is one: Derryn Hinch.

You were going to name names, not a name.  Cat got your keyboard?


Quote:

This is an aweful lot of discussion for a topic that no-one cares about, don't you think?

The discussion seems more about 'who cares' than anything else.

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 5:41pm:

I am worried about democracy. As I keep telling Longy, there is more to this than your opinion of the candidates involved

is that the same DEMOCRACY we have in feedback fd??

just makin sure.. ::)

Quote:

You were going to name names, not a name.  Cat got your keyboard?

Freediver and Derrying Hinch. We got a lot further a lot faster last time we played this game Aussie. Have you really forgotten already?


Quote:

is that the same DEMOCRACY we have in feedback fd??

Feedback is not a democracy cods.

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

Quote: You were going to name names, not a name.  Cat got your keyboard? Freediver and Derrying Hinch. We got a lot further a lot faster last time we played this game Aussie. Have you really forgotten already? [quote]is that the same DEMOCRACY we have in feedback fd??

Feedback is not a democracy cods.[/quote]

No, I haven't.  What you have here is people telling you that no-one cares.  Implicitly, you were going to rip out a torrent of names who supported you, and you whimped up with two.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 1:35pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 24th, 2016 at 1:29pm: Quote: the previous system of basically first 6 elected gets 6 year terms seems quite fair to me It is not the worst possible option. Were it not for the recount method, I would go so far as to say it is the fairest method available. No, you support the rule options that YOU like. I see nothing at all wrong with the first 6 elected getting 6 year terms. It seems quite fair and reasonable.

I'm not surprised you support a method that splits the Coalition senators 16-12 when a mathematically fairer division splits them 15-13. You've got a strong history of supporting anything that advantages your beloved Liberals and denouncing anything that doesn't. You're very predictable in this way.

The recount method is the fairest method. It will produce a more even split of Senators, whereas the order of election method has a clear advantage for the major parties with larger amounts of support because their larger blocs will tend to elect Senators early in the count. It is unlikely that the recount method would allocate more major party Senators to long terms. That's why both major parties support it - self interest.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 1:35pm:

You have but ONE problem. YOU think it is a massive issue, but absolutely no one else in the entire country agrees. In a DD half the senators will end up with 3 year terms. They all stood for election knowing that. NO ONE CARES - except you.

;D Not even Hinch and Rhiannon? ::)

You post the most outrageous crap. That is the reason why nobody takes your posts seriously.

Quote:

The recount method is the fairest method.

So much fairer that the Liberal Party has supported it in the Senate on 3 occasions in the past. Longy do you support the Liberal party's support for the recount method?


Quote:

You post the most outrageous crap. That is the reason why nobody takes your posts seriously.

To be fair Longy didn't think of that himself. Aussie did. Now Aussie is one step ahead of me and has named three people who care. This is going to be long and tedious, but we have only done it once before.

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 12:45pm:

Quote: I do not have any particular voting fidelity in the Senate and I will vote tactically. I have already decided to give Hinch my first preference at the next Senate election as a protest. Other Victorians should do the same. Good for you. Is that in response to this theft of Senate seats, or did you already like him?

A bit of both.

I can not think of another example of an election where the people vote and then the major contestants in the vote get to do the math to work out and then choose the vote counting method will sway the vote to their best advantage.

In this case they have effectively changed the election in terms of the length of term to a first past the post election. In other words an election type that isn't supported in Australia or allowable in the same election.

This is cheating by any measure.

Longy supports first past the post voting. He is not sure why.

freediver wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 7:39pm:

Longy supports first past the post voting. He is not sure why.

You really can be stupid FD. And now you tend to do it without even bothering to try. You well know my opinion on voting methods, so misrepresenting them rally makes you look like a fool.

This entire 'problem' is yours and yours alone. no one else cares.

Of course Longy. You are never reluctant to give us the details are you?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2016 at 6:18pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 24th, 2016 at 7:39pm: Longy supports first past the post voting. He is not sure why. You really can be stupid FD. And now you tend to do it without even bothering to try. You well know my opinion on voting methods, so misrepresenting them rally makes you look like a fool. This entire 'problem' is yours and yours alone. no one else cares.

Would you be so kind as to not speak for me please?

You well know my opinion on voting methods


Irrespective of what you have said in the past the determination was done on a first past the post basis and you seem to be supporting it, yes it is at odds with what you have professed to be your position in the past.

What has he professed in the past?

A more detailed explanation on why what Senator Cormann was a lie:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/broken-promises-stolen-senate-seats.html#the-australian-senator-mathias-cormann-promote-lie-preference-flows

How Long and Short Senate Terms are Allocated After a Double Dissolution (Antony Green's Election blog, 25/4/16; excerpt quoted)

Quote:

The question I've been asked more than any other in recent weeks is how the Senators elected at a double dissolution election are allocated to either long or short terms. I wrote a post on the subject two years ago, but given the topic's relevance with a looming double dissolution, I thought I should re-post it with some minor changes. The short answer is that the Constitution leaves the decision to the elected senators. A method based on order of election has always been used after past double dissolutions, but a second re-count method would produce a fairer outcome.

Thanks Bam, it certainly would, which is why both major parties support it unambiguously whenever they don't have a direct vested interest.

Interesting. Derryn Hinch in the count back mechanism falls just over 44,000 votes of actually getting a quota. He actually gets elected because he is the Last one standing. Convince me, why exactly is it fairer to give him the full six year term as opposed to someone that did reach the quota?

Then it is clear that the dumped illegible Greenie "Senators" who sneaked past the guard should pay back their salaries to the taxpayers.

Will you also be including the Liberal Senator Blaming his Italian citizenship on his mum in that Payback scheme?