Apparently the libs want to do away with by elections. Instead, if an MP resigns or is sacked, they want the party to nominate his replacement. So when an MP gets sacked for corruption, his electorate don't get to decide who will represent them .. scomo will.



What is it with the libs trying to do away with democracy? If scomo doesn't go soon he'll try to turn this country into a fascist state.

No link, did you just make that up?

bugger off stupid

John Smith wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 1:42pm:

bugger off stupid

So no link?

John Smith wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 1:38pm:

Apparently the libs want to do away with by elections. Instead, if an MP resigns or is sacked, they want the party to nominate his replacement. So when an MP gets sacked for corruption, his electorate don't get to decide who will represent them .. scomo will. What is it with the libs trying to do away with democracy? If scomo doesn't go soon he'll try to turn this country into a fascist state.

It's what conservatives do.

They support authoritarian dictatorships, not representative democracy.

It's always been that way.

No link.  :D

John Smith wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 1:38pm:

Apparently the libs want to do away with by elections. Instead, if an MP resigns or is sacked, they want the party to nominate his replacement. So when an MP gets sacked for corruption, his electorate don't get to decide who will represent them .. scomo will. What is it with the libs trying to do away with democracy? If scomo doesn't go soon he'll try to turn this country into a fascist state.

It's what we've come to expect from the corrupt Libs/LNP.

"The report suggests looking at the viability of replacing by-elections with alternative methods of selecting the new MP, and declaring a seat “vacant when the sitting MP resigns from or leaves the party under which they were elected”.

"In his forward to the report, Queensland Liberal National Party senator James McGrath says replacing compulsory preferential voting with optional preferential would maximise voter choice."

Parliamentary electoral committee floats bigger parliament, longer terms and no byelections

No by-elections with the replacement appointed by the party? A very stupid idea. Apparently the Libs forget that independent MPs exist. Who replaces them?

Four-year terms is an idea that requires a change to the Constitution. Good luck with that. They last tried that in 1988. It failed with only 32.9% of the vote.

Doing away with full preferential voting? Another Liberal brainfart. They only want to change the system to give themselves maximum advantage. The progressive vote is currently split between the ALP and Greens while the Libs and Nats have a détente where they don't run against each other in seats with a sitting Coalition MP. They think the ALP and Greens will continue to take votes off each other, but that can change.

Do you know how you destroy the Coalition with optional preferential voting? Create a new conservative party that is a sensible choice on the surface (perhaps they have an anti-corruption platform to have the maximum chance of taking votes off the Libs), and they run a campaign with "just vote 1". If they take 5% of the Libs vote, they could knock their vote down enough to cause the Libs to lose 10 to 15 seats. This is the spoiler effect.

Bam wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 2:40pm:

No by-elections with the replacement appointed by the party? A very stupid idea. Apparently the Libs forget that independent MPs exist. Who replaces them? Four-year terms is an idea that requires a change to the Constitution. Good luck with that. They last tried that in 1988. It failed with only 32.9% of the vote. Doing away with full preferential voting? Another Liberal brainfart. They only want to change the system to give themselves maximum advantage. The progressive vote is currently split between the ALP and Greens while the Libs and Nats have a détente where they don't run against each other in seats with a sitting Coalition MP. They think the ALP and Greens will continue to take votes off each other, but that can change. Do you know how you destroy the Coalition with optional preferential voting? Create a new conservative party that is a sensible choice on the surface (perhaps they have an anti-corruption platform to have the maximum chance of taking votes off the Libs), and they run a campaign with "just vote 1". If they take 5% of the Libs vote, they could knock their vote down enough to cause the Libs to lose 10 to 15 seats. This is the spoiler effect.

Tell em Fvvvvck em!

>:(

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 2:06pm:

It's what we've come to expect from the corrupt Libs/LNP. "The report suggests looking at the viability of replacing by-elections with alternative methods of selecting the new MP, and declaring a seat “vacant when the sitting MP resigns from or leaves the party under which they were elected”. "In his forward to the report, Queensland Liberal National Party senator James McGrath says replacing compulsory preferential voting with optional preferential would maximise voter choice." Parliamentary electoral committee floats bigger parliament, longer terms and no byelections

lets not forget that the parliamentary committee is made up mostly of liberal party stooges

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 1:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 1:38pm: Apparently the libs want to do away with by elections. Instead, if an MP resigns or is sacked, they want the party to nominate his replacement. So when an MP gets sacked for corruption, his electorate don't get to decide who will represent them .. scomo will. What is it with the libs trying to do away with democracy? If scomo doesn't go soon he'll try to turn this country into a fascist state. It's what conservatives do. They support authoritarian dictatorships, not representative democracy. It's always been that way.

of course it has...... ::)

a bit like Dan the man who has cancelled Australia Day... because shock horror covids.. however its ok if you like cricket or tennis...want to attend a blm protest march...... is this dan sticking his big finger up at Australia Day to appease his radical lefty mates. :-/ :-/ :-/...or maybe he is a real communist as bobby suggests...after dealing with China and now no AUstralia Day parade... I am beginning to agree.



but you guys look with dismay  ::)at saving money...

when if a member should die in office   they are replaced by a member of the same party without any hue or cry... >:(


Who is Adem Somyurek?
Mr Somyurek was first elected to Victorian Parliament in 2002 and was sworn in as minister for small business, innovation and trade in the Andrews Government in December 2014.

He was suspended and later sacked from Cabinet in 2015, after bullying allegations were made against him by a female member of his staff.

He was brought back into the Cabinet in 2018 after the Andrews Government won its second term in office.

At the time, Premier Andrews welcomed his "good friend" back, saying "he's going to do a fantastic job"


he was done for branch stacking I believe.....he lost his portfolio but what about his job?...

I think he was also sacked from the ALP... :-/

I dont recall any by elections in Vic this year.so he must still be there. :D

;D ;D ;D

cods thinks Australia day is democracy


;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 2:52pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 2:40pm: No by-elections with the replacement appointed by the party? A very stupid idea. Apparently the Libs forget that independent MPs exist. Who replaces them? Four-year terms is an idea that requires a change to the Constitution. Good luck with that. They last tried that in 1988. It failed with only 32.9% of the vote. Doing away with full preferential voting? Another Liberal brainfart. They only want to change the system to give themselves maximum advantage. The progressive vote is currently split between the ALP and Greens while the Libs and Nats have a détente where they don't run against each other in seats with a sitting Coalition MP. They think the ALP and Greens will continue to take votes off each other, but that can change. Do you know how you destroy the Coalition with optional preferential voting? Create a new conservative party that is a sensible choice on the surface (perhaps they have an anti-corruption platform to have the maximum chance of taking votes off the Libs), and they run a campaign with "just vote 1". If they take 5% of the Libs vote, they could knock their vote down enough to cause the Libs to lose 10 to 15 seats. This is the spoiler effect. Tell em Fvvvvck em! >:(

lets make it a communistic one party country and be done with it.....its the only way to put poor bam out of her misery.  same for you red....your anger isnt good for your bp

John Smith wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 3:24pm:

;D ;D ;D cods thinks Australia day is democracy ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

having lived abroad   YES I ABSOLUTELY DO>.

cods wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 3:23pm:

when if a member should die in office   they are replaced by a member of the same party without any hue or cry... >:(

Mmmmm so what happens to independents that die in office cods?

I can understand it in the Senate where all people standing are in a state wide vote so next in line is offered the job,

but not in individual electorates like in the HOR

Had you thought of that?  ::) ::)

Mmmm doesnt see like you have!! ;D

The OP is strangely quiet on the retrospective legislation the QLD Labor government is introducing to prevent the second choice from taking over as mayor of Rockhampton.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld-govt-prioritise-pineapple-bill-012056805--spt.html

Not just the Libs who play this game.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 4:22pm:

The OP is strangely quiet on the retrospective legislation the QLD Labor government is introducing to prevent the second choice from taking over as mayor of Rockhampton. https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld-govt-prioritise-pineapple-bill-012056805--spt.html Not just the Libs who play this game.

Keep on topic dickhead this topic is about federal parliament!  ::) ::)

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 4:12pm:

cods wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 3:23pm: when if a member should die in office   they are replaced by a member of the same party without any hue or cry... >:( Mmmmm so what happens to independents that die in office cods? I can understand it in the Senate where all people standing are in a state wide vote so next in line is offered the job, but not in individual electorates like in the HOR Had you thought of that?  ::) ::) Mmmm doesnt see like you have!! ;D

TOUGH...

;D ;D ;D

I dont know do you??.. I am sure an independent has resigned or died whilst in parliament.....I mean it does mean the votes go down...if they are not replaced doesnt it?.....

so what is so disturbing about no bye elections I mean they cost a fortune  can we afford that any more.....I am sure it works for you if it means getting rid of a Lib....but is that DECOCRACY? ::) ::)

better ask js or bam.

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 4:43pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 4:22pm: The OP is strangely quiet on the retrospective legislation the QLD Labor government is introducing to prevent the second choice from taking over as mayor of Rockhampton. https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld-govt-prioritise-pineapple-bill-012056805--spt.html Not just the Libs who play this game. Keep on topic dickhead this topic is about federal parliament!  ::) ::)

so you dont think this is appalling red?..


Quote:

Deputy Premier Steven Miles is racing to pass retrospective laws that will prevent Mr Hooper from becoming mayor.

come on sunshine...you that so rusted on are you?... :-/ :-/

So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections.

If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea.

Gordon wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 5:12pm:

So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea.

any idea how much the average bye election costs  US THE TAXPAYERS

cods wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 5:10pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 4:43pm: Belgarion wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 4:22pm: The OP is strangely quiet on the retrospective legislation the QLD Labor government is introducing to prevent the second choice from taking over as mayor of Rockhampton. https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld-govt-prioritise-pineapple-bill-012056805--spt.html Not just the Libs who play this game. Keep on topic dickhead this topic is about federal parliament!  ::) ::) so you dont think this is appalling red?.. Quote: Deputy Premier Steven Miles is racing to pass retrospective laws that will prevent Mr Hooper from becoming mayor. come on sunshine...you that so rusted on are you?... :-/ :-/

I was just pointing out this topic related to federal parliament not QLD

Gordon wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 5:12pm:

So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea.

A safe seat is the point!

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 5:35pm:

Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. A safe seat is the point!

Example. There's safe Greens seat and the member karks it a year before the election, just plonk the next lesbian, homo, tranny, abo    ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 3:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 3:24pm: ;D ;D ;D cods thinks Australia day is democracy ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D having lived abroad   YES I ABSOLUTELY DO>.

thats because you're a fool.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 4:22pm:

The OP is strangely quiet on the retrospective legislation the QLD Labor government is introducing to prevent the second choice from taking over as mayor of Rockhampton. https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld-govt-prioritise-pineapple-bill-012056805--spt.html Not just the Libs who play this game.

Actually, on that case I think the Qld govt. should butt out. Sure, according to what i read he said he only ran as a joke, but still he won. She doesn't have to like the result. She just has to abide by the result

Actually thinking about it , its a dogs breakfast of an idea!

1 Firstly what is a safe seat?  if it only applied to that!

And safe for which side? Both sides ?

2 If the seat was held by an independent what rules would apply?

Nah sounds like nonsense despite the cost!

Gordon wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 5:41pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:35pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. A safe seat is the point! Example. There's safe Greens seat and the member karks it a year before the election, just plonk the next lesbian, homo, tranny, abo    ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D ;D

Gordon wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 5:41pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:35pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. A safe seat is the point! Example. There's safe Greens seat and the member karks it a year before the election, just plonk the next lesbian, homo, tranny, abo    ;D ;D ;D

But Bobby doesn't vote Green, why should he get the seat?

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 5:45pm:

Actually thinking about it , its a dogs breakfast of an idea! 1 Firstly what is a safe seat?  if it only applied to that! And safe for which side? Both sides ? 2 If the seat was held by an independent what rules would apply? Nah sounds like nonsense despite the cost!

An equation of margin vs time to election.

Gordon wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 6:03pm:

An equation of margin vs time to election.

bullshit. With just about every election you have 'safe seats' that are lost by the govt. of the day. What would you formula do for those seats?

Only the people can decide who will replace a retiring MP, not the govt of the day.

John Smith wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 5:46pm:

Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:41pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:35pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. A safe seat is the point! Example. There's safe Greens seat and the member karks it a year before the election, just plonk the next lesbian, homo, tranny, abo    ;D ;D ;D But Bobby doesn't vote Green, why should he get the seat?

How would you know how Bobby votes?

Neferti wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 6:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:46pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:41pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:35pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. A safe seat is the point! Example. There's safe Greens seat and the member karks it a year before the election, just plonk the next lesbian, homo, tranny, abo    ;D ;D ;D But Bobby doesn't vote Green, why should he get the seat? How would you know how Bobby votes?

Thats none of your business.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 2:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 1:38pm: Apparently the libs want to do away with by elections. Instead, if an MP resigns or is sacked, they want the party to nominate his replacement. So when an MP gets sacked for corruption, his electorate don't get to decide who will represent them .. scomo will. What is it with the libs trying to do away with democracy? If scomo doesn't go soon he'll try to turn this country into a fascist state. It's what we've come to expect from the corrupt Libs/LNP. "The report suggests looking at the viability of replacing by-elections with alternative methods of selecting the new MP, and declaring a seat “vacant when the sitting MP resigns from or leaves the party under which they were elected”. "In his forward to the report, Queensland Liberal National Party senator James McGrath says replacing compulsory preferential voting with optional preferential would maximise voter choice." Parliamentary electoral committee floats bigger parliament, longer terms and no byelections

Im all for optional preferential voting and am very surprised to see that its being proposed by someone from one of the major parties. Last time it was seriously debated Bob Hawke killed it because he immediately saw it for the danger it is to the party duopoly. Currently if we want to cast a valid vote in the H of R we MUST ultimately vote for either Labour or the LNP (in 99% of cases). Appearance counts for a lot, so although most people understand how the preference system works, when they're told after each election that the Govt won 51% of the 2 party preferred vote, they still process that in their minds as the Govt has majority support when in truth its support is often as low as 30%. With optional preferential voting we will be able to cast a valid vote without being forced to vote for one of the 2 major parties. Consequently not only will their grip on power be threatened we will also begin to see what a lie it is to characterise this system as democracy.

Gordon wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 5:12pm:

So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea.

Our system already waters down the value of our vote at every opportunity and you want to water it down even more. The 2 political parties dont own this political system. Its supposed to belong to us. We dont make decisions about anything in this so called democracy and now you even want to reduce our power to choose who "represents" us. What about the people who didnt vote for the party but for the candidate. Why do they have to have a party person forced on them as their representative.

Jest wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 7:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 2:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 1:38pm: Apparently the libs want to do away with by elections. Instead, if an MP resigns or is sacked, they want the party to nominate his replacement. So when an MP gets sacked for corruption, his electorate don't get to decide who will represent them .. scomo will. What is it with the libs trying to do away with democracy? If scomo doesn't go soon he'll try to turn this country into a fascist state. It's what we've come to expect from the corrupt Libs/LNP. "The report suggests looking at the viability of replacing by-elections with alternative methods of selecting the new MP, and declaring a seat “vacant when the sitting MP resigns from or leaves the party under which they were elected”. "In his forward to the report, Queensland Liberal National Party senator James McGrath says replacing compulsory preferential voting with optional preferential would maximise voter choice." Parliamentary electoral committee floats bigger parliament, longer terms and no byelections Im all for optional preferential voting and am very surprised to see that its being proposed by someone from one of the major parties. Last time it was seriously debated Bob Hawke killed it because he immediately saw it for the danger it is to the party duopoly. Currently if we want to cast a valid vote in the H of R we MUST ultimately vote for either Labour or the LNP (in 99% of cases). Appearance counts for a lot, so although most people understand how the preference system works, when they're told after each election that the Govt won 51% of the 2 party preferred vote, they still process that in their minds as the Govt has majority support when in truth its support is often as low as 30%. With optional preferential voting we will be able to cast a valid vote without being forced to vote for one of the 2 major parties. Consequently not only will their grip on power be broken we will also begin to see what a lie it is to characterise this system as democracy.

I'm not a fan of getting rid of preferential voting altogether,  but reform is a good idea.  A start would be to ban 'how to vote' cards and hopefully each voter will allocate preferences as they wish, not how the party wishes.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 7:38pm:

A start would be to ban 'how to vote' cards and hopefully each voter will allocate preferences as they wis

i agree with that

John Smith wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 7:55pm:

Belgarion wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 7:38pm: A start would be to ban 'how to vote' cards and hopefully each voter will allocate preferences as they wis i agree with that

100% agree.

How-to-vote cards should be banned.

Never trust any move by any government....... their interest is only in themselves and cementing their own position.... starts from being paid far too much for their paltry real work.

Belgarion wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 7:38pm:

Jest wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 7:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 2:06pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 1:38pm: Apparently the libs want to do away with by elections. Instead, if an MP resigns or is sacked, they want the party to nominate his replacement. So when an MP gets sacked for corruption, his electorate don't get to decide who will represent them .. scomo will. What is it with the libs trying to do away with democracy? If scomo doesn't go soon he'll try to turn this country into a fascist state. It's what we've come to expect from the corrupt Libs/LNP. "The report suggests looking at the viability of replacing by-elections with alternative methods of selecting the new MP, and declaring a seat “vacant when the sitting MP resigns from or leaves the party under which they were elected”. "In his forward to the report, Queensland Liberal National Party senator James McGrath says replacing compulsory preferential voting with optional preferential would maximise voter choice." Parliamentary electoral committee floats bigger parliament, longer terms and no byelections Im all for optional preferential voting and am very surprised to see that its being proposed by someone from one of the major parties. Last time it was seriously debated Bob Hawke killed it because he immediately saw it for the danger it is to the party duopoly. Currently if we want to cast a valid vote in the H of R we MUST ultimately vote for either Labour or the LNP (in 99% of cases). Appearance counts for a lot, so although most people understand how the preference system works, when they're told after each election that the Govt won 51% of the 2 party preferred vote, they still process that in their minds as the Govt has majority support when in truth its support is often as low as 30%. With optional preferential voting we will be able to cast a valid vote without being forced to vote for one of the 2 major parties. Consequently not only will their grip on power be broken we will also begin to see what a lie it is to characterise this system as democracy. I'm not a fan of getting rid of preferential voting altogether,  but reform is a good idea.  A start would be to ban 'how to vote' cards and hopefully each voter will allocate preferences as they wish, not how the party wishes.

But no one is proposing to get rid of preferential voting. Instead they're saying lets give people the option to choose whether to cast a preference vote or not. And when you think of it this is more consistent with your reason for banning How To Vote Cards because it leans in favour of giving maximum effect to what the voter wishes rather than what the party or the system wants.   

Gordon wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 5:12pm:

So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea.

Another foolish person who forgot that independent MPs exist.

Just hold a by-election. Why fix it if it isn't broken?

It might pay for people to actually read ALL of the proposals, to get an idea of what they represent in totality.

It isn't "just" about By Elections.

They (the LNP) want voting to be voluntary, because they think that -  just as in the U.S - voluntary voting will favour them.

We normally vote in advance, to avoid large crowds on the Saturday.

The LNP now want to "force" people to provide a valid "excuse" as to why they should exercise their mandatory Democratic right to vote early. Since when is it any of their business?

Ah, so they can "force" more people to wait in long lines on a Saturday. Couple that with voluntary voting and "voila"...smaller turnouts.

And so on it goes.

I wonder if (hopefully "when") the LNP is next removed from Office, will we see a raft of spurious legal actions, designed to retain power? Maybe an "election defence" fund?

"Just 'cos it works in the U.S..."

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2019Federalelection/Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024439%2F73880

Bam wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 10:16pm:

Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. Another foolish person who forgot that independent MPs exist. Just hold a by-election. Why fix it if it isn't broken?

And what is a safe seat?

Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second.

So who would be appointed in that case?

Mix_Master wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 1:52pm:

It might pay for people to actually read ALL of the proposals, to get an idea of what they represent in totality. It isn't "just" about By Elections. They (the LNP) want voting to be voluntary, because they think that -  just as in the U.S - voluntary voting will favour them. We normally vote in advance, to avoid large crowds on the Saturday. The LNP now want to "force" people to provide a valid "excuse" as to why they should exercise their mandatory Democratic right to vote early. Since when is it any of their business? Ah, so they can "force" more people to wait in long lines on a Saturday. Couple that with voluntary voting and "voila"...smaller turnouts. And so on it goes. I wonder if (hopefully "when") the LNP is next removed from Office, will we see a raft of spurious legal actions, designed to retain power? Maybe an "election defence" fund? "Just 'cos it works in the U.S..." https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2019Federalelection/Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024439%2F73880

I personally think it means  MODERNISING  bring it into to 21st century....why are socialists always looking  for sinister reasons   always favouring the other side of course... ::) ::)   its so annoying  it takes away the real reason for debate on a topic like this....

I dont know who makes up the committees....but they have been chosen to make a list of things that should make life a little less cumbersome ..just a list mate nothing else....it isnt set in concrete

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 1:57pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 10:16pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. Another foolish person who forgot that independent MPs exist. Just hold a by-election. Why fix it if it isn't broken? And what is a safe seat? Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case?

in the past I am sure I have seen where the second runner up is given the task......I think it happened in WA or SA   

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 1:57pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 10:16pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. Another foolish person who forgot that independent MPs exist. Just hold a by-election. Why fix it if it isn't broken? And what is a safe seat? Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case?

Taking into account what I said above!

How would you decide who replaced the dead member cods?


:D

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 2:19pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 1:57pm: Bam wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 10:16pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. Another foolish person who forgot that independent MPs exist. Just hold a by-election. Why fix it if it isn't broken? And what is a safe seat? Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case? in the past I am sure I have seen where the second runner up is given the task......I think it happened in WA or SA

I think you are referring to a Senate seat where the major parties have at least a person who has run second or third.

dont understand your question red.....

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 2:30pm:

cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:19pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 1:57pm: Bam wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 10:16pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. Another foolish person who forgot that independent MPs exist. Just hold a by-election. Why fix it if it isn't broken? And what is a safe seat? Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case? in the past I am sure I have seen where the second runner up is given the task......I think it happened in WA or SA    I think you are referring to a Senate seat where the major parties have at least a person who has run second or third.

yeah I think you may be right....maybe we havent had an Independent die in office.

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 1:57pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 10:16pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. Another foolish person who forgot that independent MPs exist. Just hold a by-election. Why fix it if it isn't broken? And what is a safe seat? Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case?

Appointing people is a stupid idea, even in "safe" seats.

If the MP was resigning due to corruption, misconduct in public office or any other serious matter where they are leaving the Parliament in disgrace, why should they be replaced by an appointed member of the same party? All this is doing is ensuring that the government cannot be held to account in this way. Like this one: Orange by-election, 2016 (Nationals lost a previously-safe seat that previously had a margin of 21.7%.)

By-elections are not broken, so there's no need to change anything. If a vacancy exists in the HoR, just hold a by-election. Only a bad government would want to do away with this way of keeping a government accountable.

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 2:36pm:

dont understand your question red.....

I said

Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second.

So who would be appointed in that case?


Taking into account what I said above!

How would you decide who replaced the dead member cods?

Bam wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 2:55pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 1:57pm: Bam wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 10:16pm: Gordon wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 5:12pm: So they're exploring ways to avoid by-elections. If they could come up with a formula like when it's a safe seat and how much time before the next election, maybe be a good idea. Another foolish person who forgot that independent MPs exist. Just hold a by-election. Why fix it if it isn't broken? And what is a safe seat? Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case? Appointing people is a stupid idea, even in "safe" seats. If the MP was resigning due to corruption, misconduct in public office or any other serious matter where they are leaving the Parliament in disgrace, why should they be replaced by an appointed member of the same party? All this is doing is ensuring that the government cannot be held to account in this way. Like this one: Orange by-election, 2016 (Nationals lost a previously-safe seat that previously had a margin of 21.7%.) By-elections are not broken, so there's no need to change anything. If a vacancy exists in the HoR, just hold a by-election. Only a bad government would want to do away with this way of keeping a government accountable.

Totally agree...Its a nonsense!

:)

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 2:57pm:

cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:36pm: dont understand your question red..... I said Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case? Taking into account what I said above! How would you decide who replaced the dead member cods?

well we also have a few mad parties run as well.....didnt someone end up in parliament with only 19 votes???....   did you ever watch RAKE when he was in the senate  he got elected because his name was Greene    lol.....its sounds so orstralian

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 3:01pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:57pm: cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:36pm: dont understand your question red..... I said Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case? Taking into account what I said above! How would you decide who replaced the dead member cods? well we also have a few mad parties run as well.....didnt someone end up in parliament with only 19 votes???....   did you ever watch RAKE when he was in the senate  he got elected because his name was Greene    lol.....its sounds so orstralian

You didnt even answer my question!

And the example you used above even makes the idea more stupid!

A bi-election is the way to go, despite costing!

ok if you say so......read the list is more than one you know.. ::) ::) ::)b

I GIVE UP!! ::)

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 3:10pm:

cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 3:01pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:57pm: cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:36pm: dont understand your question red..... I said Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case? Taking into account what I said above! How would you decide who replaced the dead member cods? well we also have a few mad parties run as well.....didnt someone end up in parliament with only 19 votes???....   did you ever watch RAKE when he was in the senate  he got elected because his name was Greene    lol.....its sounds so orstralian You didnt even answer my question! And the example you used above even makes the idea more stupid! A bi-election is the way to go, despite costing!

Are you bi?  ;D ;D ;D

any idea what he wants me to say gordy????...

I am lost for words. ::) :-/

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 3:01pm:

Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:57pm: cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:36pm: dont understand your question red..... I said Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case? Taking into account what I said above! How would you decide who replaced the dead member cods? well we also have a few mad parties run as well.....didnt someone end up in parliament with only 19 votes???....   did you ever watch RAKE when he was in the senate  he got elected because his name was Greene    lol.....its sounds so orstralian

Scenarios involving the Senate are irrelevant, whether they are fictional or not. By-elections are used to replace a member in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

Bam wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 4:23pm:

cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 3:01pm: Redmond Neck wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:57pm: cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:36pm: dont understand your question red..... I said Most HOR election seats are won by one party, but the other main party usually runs second. So who would be appointed in that case? Taking into account what I said above! How would you decide who replaced the dead member cods? well we also have a few mad parties run as well.....didnt someone end up in parliament with only 19 votes???....   did you ever watch RAKE when he was in the senate  he got elected because his name was Greene    lol.....its sounds so orstralian Scenarios involving the Senate are irrelevant, whether they are fictional or not. By-elections are used to replace a member in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

yes pet  so I have been told... ::) ::) ::)

they still cost a fortune..ask krudd.

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 2:17pm:

Mix_Master wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 1:52pm: It might pay for people to actually read ALL of the proposals, to get an idea of what they represent in totality. It isn't "just" about By Elections. They (the LNP) want voting to be voluntary, because they think that -  just as in the U.S - voluntary voting will favour them. We normally vote in advance, to avoid large crowds on the Saturday. The LNP now want to "force" people to provide a valid "excuse" as to why they should exercise their mandatory Democratic right to vote early. Since when is it any of their business? Ah, so they can "force" more people to wait in long lines on a Saturday. Couple that with voluntary voting and "voila"...smaller turnouts. And so on it goes. I wonder if (hopefully "when") the LNP is next removed from Office, will we see a raft of spurious legal actions, designed to retain power? Maybe an "election defence" fund? "Just 'cos it works in the U.S..." https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2019Federalelection/Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024439%2F73880 I personally think it means  MODERNISING  bring it into to 21st century....why are socialists always looking  for sinister reasons   always favouring the other side of course... ::) ::)   its so annoying  it takes away the real reason for debate on a topic like this.... [highight]I dont know who makes up the committees...[/highlight].but they have been chosen to make a list of things that should make life a little less cumbersome ..just a list mate nothing else....it isnt set in concrete

That's right. You don't.

But don't let that stop you weighing in, regardless.  ::)

The committee is LNP dominated.

Nothing they are proposing will "make life less cumbersome". In fact, in many respects (and deliberately so) the opposite.

Which is why I suggested people read all of the recommendations on the APH link I provided...so they could assess them individually and collectively.

Did you bother to read and understand what they are proposing?

But no...it's a "lefty whinge". ::)

No, it is not.

The system works as is.

So, why are they seeking to change it?

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 2:17pm:

Mix_Master wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 1:52pm: It might pay for people to actually read ALL of the proposals, to get an idea of what they represent in totality. It isn't "just" about By Elections. They (the LNP) want voting to be voluntary, because they think that -  just as in the U.S - voluntary voting will favour them. We normally vote in advance, to avoid large crowds on the Saturday. The LNP now want to "force" people to provide a valid "excuse" as to why they should exercise their mandatory Democratic right to vote early. Since when is it any of their business? Ah, so they can "force" more people to wait in long lines on a Saturday. Couple that with voluntary voting and "voila"...smaller turnouts. And so on it goes. I wonder if (hopefully "when") the LNP is next removed from Office, will we see a raft of spurious legal actions, designed to retain power? Maybe an "election defence" fund? "Just 'cos it works in the U.S..." https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2019Federalelection/Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024439%2F73880 I personally think it means  MODERNISING  bring it into to 21st century....why are socialists always looking  for sinister reasons   always favouring the other side of course... ::) ::)   its so annoying  it takes away the real reason for debate on a topic like this.... I dont know who makes up the committees....but they have been chosen to make a list of things that should make life a little less cumbersome ..just a list mate nothing else....it isnt set in concrete

What a load of rubbish ... if you want to modernise it, then bring on online voting for bills by the public and do away with Mp's altogether .. we'd save a fortune and woud never need another by election again

ohh wait, it's not about modernising is it. It's about trying to diminish labors base. The committee in this case was mostly Liberal and national party members. There were ALP members but they were in the minority.

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 3:13pm:

ok if you say so......read the list is more than one you know.. ::) ::) ::)b

i only listed one proposal because I didn't want you to struggle with it. But it seems even one was beyond your comprehension.

You can start threads on the other proposals and discuss them anytime you like

Mix_Master wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 5:18pm:

cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:17pm: Mix_Master wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 1:52pm: It might pay for people to actually read ALL of the proposals, to get an idea of what they represent in totality. It isn't "just" about By Elections. They (the LNP) want voting to be voluntary, because they think that -  just as in the U.S - voluntary voting will favour them. We normally vote in advance, to avoid large crowds on the Saturday. The LNP now want to "force" people to provide a valid "excuse" as to why they should exercise their mandatory Democratic right to vote early. Since when is it any of their business? Ah, so they can "force" more people to wait in long lines on a Saturday. Couple that with voluntary voting and "voila"...smaller turnouts. And so on it goes. I wonder if (hopefully "when") the LNP is next removed from Office, will we see a raft of spurious legal actions, designed to retain power? Maybe an "election defence" fund? "Just 'cos it works in the U.S..." https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2019Federalelection/Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024439%2F73880 I personally think it means  MODERNISING  bring it into to 21st century....why are socialists always looking  for sinister reasons   always favouring the other side of course... ::) ::)   its so annoying  it takes away the real reason for debate on a topic like this.... [highight]I dont know who makes up the committees...[/highlight].but they have been chosen to make a list of things that should make life a little less cumbersome ..just a list mate nothing else....it isnt set in concrete That's right. You don't. But don't let that stop you weighing in, regardless.  ::) The committee is LNP dominated. Nothing they are proposing will "make life less cumbersome". In fact, in many respects (and deliberately so) the opposite. Which is why I suggested people read all of the recommendations on the APH link I provided...so they could assess them individually and collectively. Did you bother to read and understand what they are proposing? But no...it's a "lefty whinge". ::) No, it is not. The system works as is. So, why are they seeking to change it?

yeah so I guess if a mong like you had your way  we would still have LAWS burning witches.... ::) ::)


wouldnt want to update our Law system by any chance.......would you?.... ok stay in the dark ages if thats what makes you happy.... when it comes back to bite you dont say you didnt know..

John Smith wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 5:32pm:

cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 3:13pm: ok if you say so......read the list is more than one you know.. ::) ::) ::)b i only listed one proposal because I didn't want you to struggle with it. But it seems even one was beyond your comprehension. You can start threads on the other proposals and discuss them anytime you like

ooops  my mistake I didnt read who made the thread another mong anti every bloody thing thread.. no thanks..keep on moaning benito.

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 7:26pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 5:32pm: cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 3:13pm: ok if you say so......read the list is more than one you know.. ::) ::) ::)b i only listed one proposal because I didn't want you to struggle with it. But it seems even one was beyond your comprehension. You can start threads on the other proposals and discuss them anytime you like ooops  my mistake I didnt read who made the thread another mong anti every bloody thing thread.. no thanks..keep on moaning benito.

you're so stupid you defend it without even knowing what it is ... ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 7:24pm:

Mix_Master wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 5:18pm: cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:17pm: Mix_Master wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 1:52pm: It might pay for people to actually read ALL of the proposals, to get an idea of what they represent in totality. It isn't "just" about By Elections. They (the LNP) want voting to be voluntary, because they think that -  just as in the U.S - voluntary voting will favour them. We normally vote in advance, to avoid large crowds on the Saturday. The LNP now want to "force" people to provide a valid "excuse" as to why they should exercise their mandatory Democratic right to vote early. Since when is it any of their business? Ah, so they can "force" more people to wait in long lines on a Saturday. Couple that with voluntary voting and "voila"...smaller turnouts. And so on it goes. I wonder if (hopefully "when") the LNP is next removed from Office, will we see a raft of spurious legal actions, designed to retain power? Maybe an "election defence" fund? "Just 'cos it works in the U.S..." https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2019Federalelection/Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024439%2F73880 I personally think it means  MODERNISING  bring it into to 21st century....why are socialists always looking  for sinister reasons   always favouring the other side of course... ::) ::)   its so annoying  it takes away the real reason for debate on a topic like this.... [highight]I dont know who makes up the committees...[/highlight].but they have been chosen to make a list of things that should make life a little less cumbersome ..just a list mate nothing else....it isnt set in concrete That's right. You don't. But don't let that stop you weighing in, regardless.  ::) The committee is LNP dominated. Nothing they are proposing will "make life less cumbersome". In fact, in many respects (and deliberately so) the opposite. Which is why I suggested people read all of the recommendations on the APH link I provided...so they could assess them individually and collectively. Did you bother to read and understand what they are proposing? But no...it's a "lefty whinge". ::) No, it is not. The system works as is. So, why are they seeking to change it? yeah so I guess if a mong like you had your way  we would still have LAWS burning witches.... ::) ::) wouldnt want to update our Law system by any chance.......would you?.... ok stay in the dark ages if thats what makes you happy.... when it comes back to bite you dont say you didnt know..

As usual, you have failed to address the substance of the question.

If the best you've got is
Quote:

wouldn't want to update our Law system by any chance.......would you?

, then there would appear to be little point engaging with you.

Again, have you read through the link I provided, in its entirety?

If so, can you provide something resembling a coherent summation of what it seeks to achieve (holistically, preferably)?

Having done that, would you then go on to say that - on balance - I am "resisting" the proposed changes, simply because I am resistant to "any" change whatsoever?

Or would you concede that, on balance, there may actually be merit in the "charge" that these changes are being sought on partisan political grounds, rather than being sought for the sake of "modernising" the electoral system?

John Smith wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 7:55pm:

cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 7:26pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 5:32pm: cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 3:13pm: ok if you say so......read the list is more than one you know.. ::) ::) ::)b i only listed one proposal because I didn't want you to struggle with it. But it seems even one was beyond your comprehension. You can start threads on the other proposals and discuss them anytime you like ooops  my mistake I didnt read who made the thread another mong anti every bloody thing thread.. no thanks..keep on moaning benito. you're so stupid you defend it without even knowing what it is ... ;D ;D ;D

Jesus - it's near Christmas - why don't you hug and make up?  I'll hold your knives and guns in trust for you...

Never trust anything a government wants to do - it is invariably to favour them or their personal mates - and the 'side' of politics makes no difference.

It is almost always never to do good for the majority population, as their position requires them to do.... they don't see their position as service to the nation and people - they see it as control over that nation and its people to suit themselves and their party and ensure they are overfed forever.

Voluntary preferential voting is good - I would expect most to say No Preference From MY Vote - if they don't they are so dumb I give up on them...

I vote for Independents these days and I don't want my vote to end up with anyone that I oppose - and I oppose all parties these days for reasons both personal and of principle.

Betray me once - fool me.
Betray me twice - far greater fool you.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 11:24pm:

Never trust anything a government wants to do - it is invariably to favour them or their personal mates - and the 'side' of politics makes no difference. It is almost always never to do good for the majority population, as their position requires them to do.... they don't see their position as service to the nation and people - they see it as control over that nation and its people to suit themselves and their party and ensure they are overfed forever. Voluntary preferential voting is good - I would expect most to say No Preference From MY Vote - if they don't they are so dumb I give up on them... I vote for Independents these days and I don't want my vote to end up with anyone that I oppose - and I oppose all parties these days for reasons both personal and of principle. Betray me once - fool me. Betray me twice - far greater fool you.

For who, exactly?

I'll admit, I mistook "voluntary preferential" for "non-compulsory", so I stuffed up there.

That said, the idea of "voluntary preferential" voting is to "encourage" people to tick as few boxes as possible, and let "preference deals" ensure certain outcomes are met.

From a discussion on the S.A Government's push to introduce voluntary preferential voting...


Quote:

"Optional preferential voting would mean that votes would be counted as long as there was a single ‘1’, even if there were no further preferences. Voters would still be able to mark preferences, but they would not be necessary for their vote to count. OPV is used to elect the New South Wales lower house, and has been used until recently in Queensland and the Northern Territory. There are principled arguments in favour of OPV, but you can’t look past the political self-interest that motivates the Liberals to propose this change. Under OPV, preferences are less likely to flow, and this tends to favour the candidate who is leading on primary votes. It’s harder to overtake a leading candidate when some preferences exhaust, and reduce the pool of preferences. Labor tends to do better under CPV, primarily because of Greens preferences. Most Greens preferences flow to Labor when they are required to mark preferences, but a lot of Greens voters instead choose to exhaust when that’s an option. Antony Green also points out that, in the South Australian context, compulsory preferences have helped independents win seats off the Liberals, usually with the benefit of Labor preferences. Of the 26 contests in South Australia since 1982 where a candidate trailing on primary votes went on to win, 14 were won by Labor, 11 were won by independents or minor parties, and just one was won by the Liberal Party. A number of those independents went on to support minority Labor governments after the 2002 and 2014 elections."

Voluntary preferential voting wouldn't make a difference to the Mrs and I: We always number each and every box, working backwards from worst to "least worst"...

But plenty of other will just tick the least required number of boxes (probably just the one), and let the preference "machinery" do its work...likely against their best interests.

https://www.tallyroom.com.au/39663

Abolishing by-elections will not happen. That requires a referendum to amend section 33 of the Constitution.

That won't happen. Only eight referendums out of 44 have succeeded, and none have succeeded without bipartisan support. Labor and the Greens oppose this. Without a compelling case for change and bipartisan support, a referendum is doomed. By-elections are not broken, so there is nothing that needs fixing.

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 4:44pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 4:23pm: Scenarios involving the Senate are irrelevant, whether they are fictional or not. By-elections are used to replace a member in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. yes pet  so I have been told... ::) ::) ::) they still cost a fortune..ask krudd.

A by-election doesn't cost anywhere near as much as the profligate waste of money each year by the current government ... just saying.

Bam wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 8:34am:

cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 4:44pm: Bam wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 4:23pm: Scenarios involving the Senate are irrelevant, whether they are fictional or not. By-elections are used to replace a member in the House of Representatives, not the Senate. yes pet  so I have been told... ::) ::) ::) they still cost a fortune..ask krudd. A by-election doesn't cost anywhere near as much as the profligate waste of money each year by the current government ... just saying.

oh dear what waste is that pet???....I am sure you have been keep track...

btw krudds  bye election cost $1.270.000...


they cost more now.
its not chicken feed......maybe waste though. :-/...at least it could have a been avoided if he was a true patriot..

Mix_Master wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 7:36am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 11:24pm: Never trust anything a government wants to do - it is invariably to favour them or their personal mates - and the 'side' of politics makes no difference. It is almost always never to do good for the majority population, as their position requires them to do.... they don't see their position as service to the nation and people - they see it as control over that nation and its people to suit themselves and their party and ensure they are overfed forever. Voluntary preferential voting is good - I would expect most to say No Preference From MY Vote - if they don't they are so dumb I give up on them... I vote for Independents these days and I don't want my vote to end up with anyone that I oppose - and I oppose all parties these days for reasons both personal and of principle. Betray me once - fool me. Betray me twice - far greater fool you. For who, exactly? I'll admit, I mistook "voluntary preferential" for "non-compulsory", so I stuffed up there. That said, the idea of "voluntary preferential" voting is to "encourage" people to tick as few boxes as possible, and let "preference deals" ensure certain outcomes are met. From a discussion on the S.A Government's push to introduce voluntary preferential voting... Quote: "Optional preferential voting would mean that votes would be counted as long as there was a single ‘1’, even if there were no further preferences. Voters would still be able to mark preferences, but they would not be necessary for their vote to count. OPV is used to elect the New South Wales lower house, and has been used until recently in Queensland and the Northern Territory. There are principled arguments in favour of OPV, but you can’t look past the political self-interest that motivates the Liberals to propose this change. Under OPV, preferences are less likely to flow, and this tends to favour the candidate who is leading on primary votes. It’s harder to overtake a leading candidate when some preferences exhaust, and reduce the pool of preferences. Labor tends to do better under CPV, primarily because of Greens preferences. Most Greens preferences flow to Labor when they are required to mark preferences, but a lot of Greens voters instead choose to exhaust when that’s an option. Antony Green also points out that, in the South Australian context, compulsory preferences have helped independents win seats off the Liberals, usually with the benefit of Labor preferences. Of the 26 contests in South Australia since 1982 where a candidate trailing on primary votes went on to win, 14 were won by Labor, 11 were won by independents or minor parties, and just one was won by the Liberal Party. A number of those independents went on to support minority Labor governments after the 2002 and 2014 elections." Voluntary preferential voting wouldn't make a difference to the Mrs and I: We always number each and every box, working backwards from worst to "least worst"... But plenty of other will just tick the least required number of boxes (probably just the one), and let the preference "machinery" do its work...likely against their best interests. https://www.tallyroom.com.au/39663

I thought what is being proposed is that after your first choice you can choose to cast a 2nd preference (or as many preferences as there are candidates) or choose not to cast any preference votes at all. That is, if you only insert a number in 1 box it means that you dont want anyone else to represent you but that candidate. It doesnt mean that you want some party mechanism to kick in to allocate preference votes to other candidates.    

Jest wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 11:17am:

Mix_Master wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 7:36am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 11:24pm: Never trust anything a government wants to do - it is invariably to favour them or their personal mates - and the 'side' of politics makes no difference. It is almost always never to do good for the majority population, as their position requires them to do.... they don't see their position as service to the nation and people - they see it as control over that nation and its people to suit themselves and their party and ensure they are overfed forever. Voluntary preferential voting is good - I would expect most to say No Preference From MY Vote - if they don't they are so dumb I give up on them... I vote for Independents these days and I don't want my vote to end up with anyone that I oppose - and I oppose all parties these days for reasons both personal and of principle. Betray me once - fool me. Betray me twice - far greater fool you. For who, exactly? I'll admit, I mistook "voluntary preferential" for "non-compulsory", so I stuffed up there. That said, the idea of "voluntary preferential" voting is to "encourage" people to tick as few boxes as possible, and let "preference deals" ensure certain outcomes are met. From a discussion on the S.A Government's push to introduce voluntary preferential voting... Quote: "Optional preferential voting would mean that votes would be counted as long as there was a single ‘1’, even if there were no further preferences. Voters would still be able to mark preferences, but they would not be necessary for their vote to count. OPV is used to elect the New South Wales lower house, and has been used until recently in Queensland and the Northern Territory. There are principled arguments in favour of OPV, but you can’t look past the political self-interest that motivates the Liberals to propose this change. Under OPV, preferences are less likely to flow, and this tends to favour the candidate who is leading on primary votes. It’s harder to overtake a leading candidate when some preferences exhaust, and reduce the pool of preferences. Labor tends to do better under CPV, primarily because of Greens preferences. Most Greens preferences flow to Labor when they are required to mark preferences, but a lot of Greens voters instead choose to exhaust when that’s an option. Antony Green also points out that, in the South Australian context, compulsory preferences have helped independents win seats off the Liberals, usually with the benefit of Labor preferences. Of the 26 contests in South Australia since 1982 where a candidate trailing on primary votes went on to win, 14 were won by Labor, 11 were won by independents or minor parties, and just one was won by the Liberal Party. A number of those independents went on to support minority Labor governments after the 2002 and 2014 elections." <snip> https://www.tallyroom.com.au/39663 I thought what is being proposed is that after your first choice you can choose to cast a 2nd preference (or as many preferences as there are candidates) or choose not to cast any preference votes at all. That is, if you only insert a number in 1 box it means that you dont want anyone else to represent you but that candidate. It doesnt mean that you want some party mechanism to kick in to allocate preference votes to other candidates.

I believe that that is essentially correct. But how does that work in practice?


Quote:

Under OPV, preferences are less likely to flow, and this tends to favour the candidate who is leading on primary votes. It’s harder to overtake a leading candidate when some preferences exhaust, and reduce the pool of preferences. Labor tends to do better under CPV, primarily because of Greens preferences. Most Greens preferences flow to Labor when they are required to mark preferences, but a lot of Greens voters instead choose to exhaust when that’s an option.

So under the current system, it would "appear" that Labor might do better (in S.A, at least). Under the proposed optional system, the LNP might do better. Hence an LNP Government there requesting the change.

I can't imagine the LNP Federally agitating for such a change for, shall we say, "altruistic reasons"...(That isn't to say that the ALP wouldn't advocate for a system which helps their electoral chances, BTW).      

I vote the same at the moment - lowest number for the majors, then I work my way up..... until I find a #1 - who I may never have heard of...

What I do not like is for my vote against to go to someone I don't want on preference.

John Smith wrote on Dec 13^th, 2020 at 1:38pm:

Apparently the libs want to do away with by elections. Instead, if an MP resigns or is sacked, they want the party to nominate his replacement. So when an MP gets sacked for corruption, his electorate don't get to decide who will represent them .. scomo will. What is it with the libs trying to do away with democracy? If scomo doesn't go soon he'll try to turn this country into a fascist state.

So in reality if it is a Labor member Labor would nominate a replacement. If it were Libs or Nats they would nominate a replacement. And it would be until the next general election.

Labor members do resign or die don't they?

Talk about much ado about nothing. ;)

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 1:36pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 13th, 2020 at 1:38pm: Apparently the libs want to do away with by elections. Instead, if an MP resigns or is sacked, they want the party to nominate his replacement. So when an MP gets sacked for corruption, his electorate don't get to decide who will represent them .. scomo will. What is it with the libs trying to do away with democracy? If scomo doesn't go soon he'll try to turn this country into a fascist state. So in reality if it is a Labor member Labor would nominate a replacement. If it were Libs or Nats they would nominate a replacement. And it would be until the next general election. Labor members do resign or die don't they? Talk about much ado about nothing. ;)

What about independents?

Mix_Master wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 11:28am:

Jest wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 11:17am: Mix_Master wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 7:36am: Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 11:24pm: Never trust anything a government wants to do - it is invariably to favour them or their personal mates - and the 'side' of politics makes no difference. It is almost always never to do good for the majority population, as their position requires them to do.... they don't see their position as service to the nation and people - they see it as control over that nation and its people to suit themselves and their party and ensure they are overfed forever. Voluntary preferential voting is good - I would expect most to say No Preference From MY Vote - if they don't they are so dumb I give up on them... I vote for Independents these days and I don't want my vote to end up with anyone that I oppose - and I oppose all parties these days for reasons both personal and of principle. Betray me once - fool me. Betray me twice - far greater fool you. For who, exactly? I'll admit, I mistook "voluntary preferential" for "non-compulsory", so I stuffed up there. That said, the idea of "voluntary preferential" voting is to "encourage" people to tick as few boxes as possible, and let "preference deals" ensure certain outcomes are met. From a discussion on the S.A Government's push to introduce voluntary preferential voting... Quote: "Optional preferential voting would mean that votes would be counted as long as there was a single ‘1’, even if there were no further preferences. Voters would still be able to mark preferences, but they would not be necessary for their vote to count. OPV is used to elect the New South Wales lower house, and has been used until recently in Queensland and the Northern Territory. There are principled arguments in favour of OPV, but you can’t look past the political self-interest that motivates the Liberals to propose this change. Under OPV, preferences are less likely to flow, and this tends to favour the candidate who is leading on primary votes. It’s harder to overtake a leading candidate when some preferences exhaust, and reduce the pool of preferences. Labor tends to do better under CPV, primarily because of Greens preferences. Most Greens preferences flow to Labor when they are required to mark preferences, but a lot of Greens voters instead choose to exhaust when that’s an option. Antony Green also points out that, in the South Australian context, compulsory preferences have helped independents win seats off the Liberals, usually with the benefit of Labor preferences. Of the 26 contests in South Australia since 1982 where a candidate trailing on primary votes went on to win, 14 were won by Labor, 11 were won by independents or minor parties, and just one was won by the Liberal Party. A number of those independents went on to support minority Labor governments after the 2002 and 2014 elections." <snip> https://www.tallyroom.com.au/39663 I thought what is being proposed is that after your first choice you can choose to cast a 2nd preference (or as many preferences as there are candidates) or choose not to cast any preference votes at all. That is, if you only insert a number in 1 box it means that you dont want anyone else to represent you but that candidate. It doesnt mean that you want some party mechanism to kick in to allocate preference votes to other candidates.     I believe that that is essentially correct. But how does that work in practice? [quote]Under OPV, preferences are less likely to flow, and this tends to favour the candidate who is leading on primary votes. It’s harder to overtake a leading candidate when some preferences exhaust, and reduce the pool of preferences. Labor tends to do better under CPV, primarily because of Greens preferences. Most Greens preferences flow to Labor when they are required to mark preferences, but a lot of Greens voters instead choose to exhaust when that’s an option.

So under the current system, it would "appear" that Labor might do better (in S.A, at least). Under the proposed optional system, the LNP might do better. Hence an LNP Government there requesting the change.

I can't imagine the LNP Federally agitating for such a change for, shall we say, "altruistic reasons"...(That isn't to say that the ALP wouldn't advocate for a system which helps their electoral chances, BTW).      [/quote]

I have no doubt the LNP only proposed this because they see some advantage to them but Im more interested in putting more value in the vote for voters. Whatever advantage the LNP sees Im betting its short term. In the long run optional preferential voting is likely to breakup the duopoly and we desperatly need that if we're going to get a political system that is even remotely responsive to what the people want as opposed to the system we have now that essentially serves what the power elite wants. 

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 2:01pm:

What about independents?

Seeing as the retiring member is an independent he can nominate his successor. In the case of death perhaps a person agreed upon by members. who reflects the values of the deceased.

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 3:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 2:01pm: What about independents? Seeing as the retiring member is an independent he can nominate his successor. In the case of death perhaps a person agreed upon by members. who reflects the values of the deceased.

Why not replace the MP in a by-election according to section 33 of the Constitution?

Mix_Master wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 8:45pm:

cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 7:24pm: Mix_Master wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 5:18pm: cods wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 2:17pm: Mix_Master wrote on Dec 14th, 2020 at 1:52pm: It might pay for people to actually read ALL of the proposals, to get an idea of what they represent in totality. It isn't "just" about By Elections. They (the LNP) want voting to be voluntary, because they think that -  just as in the U.S - voluntary voting will favour them. We normally vote in advance, to avoid large crowds on the Saturday. The LNP now want to "force" people to provide a valid "excuse" as to why they should exercise their mandatory Democratic right to vote early. Since when is it any of their business? Ah, so they can "force" more people to wait in long lines on a Saturday. Couple that with voluntary voting and "voila"...smaller turnouts. And so on it goes. I wonder if (hopefully "when") the LNP is next removed from Office, will we see a raft of spurious legal actions, designed to retain power? Maybe an "election defence" fund? "Just 'cos it works in the U.S..." https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2019Federalelection/Report/section?id=committees%2Freportjnt%2F024439%2F73880 I personally think it means  MODERNISING  bring it into to 21st century....why are socialists always looking  for sinister reasons   always favouring the other side of course... ::) ::)   its so annoying  it takes away the real reason for debate on a topic like this.... [highight]I dont know who makes up the committees...[/highlight].but they have been chosen to make a list of things that should make life a little less cumbersome ..just a list mate nothing else....it isnt set in concrete That's right. You don't. But don't let that stop you weighing in, regardless.  ::) The committee is LNP dominated. Nothing they are proposing will "make life less cumbersome". In fact, in many respects (and deliberately so) the opposite. Which is why I suggested people read all of the recommendations on the APH link I provided...so they could assess them individually and collectively. Did you bother to read and understand what they are proposing? But no...it's a "lefty whinge". ::) No, it is not. The system works as is. So, why are they seeking to change it? yeah so I guess if a mong like you had your way  we would still have LAWS burning witches.... ::) ::) wouldnt want to update our Law system by any chance.......would you?.... ok stay in the dark ages if thats what makes you happy.... when it comes back to bite you dont say you didnt know.. As usual, you have failed to address the substance of the question. If the best you've got is Quote: wouldn't want to update our Law system by any chance.......would you? , then there would appear to be little point engaging with you. Again, have you read through the link I provided, in its entirety? If so, can you provide something resembling a coherent summation of what it seeks to achieve (holistically, preferably)? Having done that, would you then go on to say that - on balance - I am "resisting" the proposed changes, simply because I am resistant to "any" change whatsoever? Or would you concede that, on balance, there may actually be merit in the "charge" that these changes are being sought on partisan political grounds, rather than being sought for the sake of "modernising" the electoral system?

sorry I didnt realise this was an INQUISITION   I seriously thought it was just a DEBATE..

I am not questioning YOUR reasoning....but all you have done is question me...you want explanations.. guess what   I dont think like main stream thinks....i dont go along with the masses...or the bullies....

perhaps you havent noticed but I usually have a completely different take on things than the seriously rusted on on here have...the rusted on all play follow the leader.... ::) ::) like the sheep they are...

Bam wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 4:25pm:

Why not replace the MP in a by-election according to section 33 of the Constitution?

Cost? Time?

Are you saying that the Constitution should never be changed?

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 4:48pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 4:25pm: Why not replace the MP in a by-election according to section 33 of the Constitution? Cost? Time? Are you saying that the Constitution should never be changed?

bam on the one hand complains THIS GOVT wastes money   but this would save money and she doesnt want to know..

:( :(

cods wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 5:14pm:

lee wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 4:48pm: Bam wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 4:25pm: Why not replace the MP in a by-election according to section 33 of the Constitution? Cost? Time? Are you saying that the Constitution should never be changed? bam on the one hand complains THIS GOVT wastes money   but this would save money and she doesnt want to know.. :( :(

Some of us value democracy over dollars.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 5:15pm:

cods wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 5:14pm: lee wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 4:48pm: Bam wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 4:25pm: Why not replace the MP in a by-election according to section 33 of the Constitution? Cost? Time? Are you saying that the Constitution should never be changed? bam on the one hand complains THIS GOVT wastes money   but this would save money and she doesnt want to know.. :( :( Some of us value democracy over dollars.

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 5:15pm:

cods wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 5:14pm: lee wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 4:48pm: Bam wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 4:25pm: Why not replace the MP in a by-election according to section 33 of the Constitution? Cost? Time? Are you saying that the Constitution should never be changed? bam on the one hand complains THIS GOVT wastes money   but this would save money and she doesnt want to know.. :( :( Some of us value democracy over dollars.

and then again  some of YOU   wish others to die in a not nice way..

thankfully we are not all like you greg.

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 4:48pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 4:25pm: Why not replace the MP in a by-election according to section 33 of the Constitution? Cost? Time?

One by-election a year is about 0.01% of the Federal Budget. It's lost in the noise really.


lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 4:48pm:

Are you saying that the Constitution should never be changed?

There's no need to fix anything that isn't broken.

cods wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 5:14pm:

lee wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 4:48pm: Bam wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 4:25pm: Why not replace the MP in a by-election according to section 33 of the Constitution? Cost? Time? Are you saying that the Constitution should never be changed? bam on the one hand complains THIS GOVT wastes money   but this would save money and she doesnt want to know.. :( :(

Cost of one by-election: $10 million, approximately. Call this 1 by election unit (BEU).
Annual bribes to Foxtel: $10 million (1 BEU per year)
Dubious grant to GBR Foundation: $444 million (44.4 BEU)
Indue CDCs: $10,000 per person (1 BEU per 1000 people per year, 12 BEU per year total)
Sports rorts: $100 million (10 BEU)
NBN wasteful spending: $20,800 million (2,080 BEU)
Visa tender waste: $96 million (9.6 BEU)
Robodebt: $1,200 million (120 BEU)
Cost of a referendum to abolish by elections: $150 million (15 BEU).

But whine all you like about how I'm calling out the government's profligate waste. Maybe you should be complaining about their wasteful spending, hmm?

Bam wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 5:33pm:

There's no need to fix anything that isn't broken.

I quite agree. The Constitution is not broken so there is nothing to do. Like changing the preamble to fix imagined slights.

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 3:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 2:01pm: What about independents? Seeing as the retiring member is an independent he can nominate his successor. In the case of death perhaps a person agreed upon by members. who reflects the values of the deceased.

Sounds like a problem to me.... I think we'd best stick with by-elections... that way if the people are disgusted with the incumbent, they can vote for someone else... remember that Labor Senator who was replaced by a 'Labor' bloke who was far to the right of Genghis Khan?  The LNP had the say over who it was - NOT the party.

"By convention, senators appointed by the state legislature to fill casual vacancies were from the same political party as the former senator. The New South Wales premier, Tom Lewis, a member of the Liberal Party, felt that this convention only applied to vacancies caused by deaths or ill-health, and arranged for the legislature to elect Cleaver Bunton, former mayor of Albury and an independent."

" At the time of Cairns' dismissal, one Senate seat was vacant, following the death on 30 June of Queensland ALP Senator Bertie Milliner. The state Labor party nominated Mal Colston, who was the highest unelected candidate on the party's Queensland list in 1974. This resulted in deadlock in Brisbane; the unicameral Queensland legislature twice voted against Colston, and the party refused to submit any alternative candidates.[37] Queensland Country Party Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen had evidence that Colston, a schoolteacher by trade, had set a school on fire during a labour dispute, though the police had refused to prosecute.[38] After the legislature voted Colston down a second time, Bjelke-Petersen instructed his majority in the legislature to elect a low-level union official, Albert Field, who had contacted his office and expressed a willingness to serve. In interviews, Field made it clear he would not support Whitlam. Field was expelled from the ALP for standing against Colston, and Labor senators boycotted his swearing-in.[37] Whitlam argued that because of the vacancies being filled as they were, the Senate was "corrupted" and "tainted", with the Opposition enjoying a majority they did not win at the ballot box"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis#Controversy_and_vacancies

lee wrote on Dec 15^th, 2020 at 6:30pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 5:33pm: There's no need to fix anything that isn't broken. I quite agree. The Constitution is not broken so there is nothing to do. Like changing the preamble to fix imagined slights.

No separate Voice then?  Oh, well .. them's the breaks... one man - one vote...

Wouldn't mind a Voice in Parliament meself...... along with a host of others.......

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 16^th, 2020 at 12:31am:

lee wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 3:32pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Dec 15th, 2020 at 2:01pm: What about independents? Seeing as the retiring member is an independent he can nominate his successor. In the case of death perhaps a person agreed upon by members. who reflects the values of the deceased. Sounds like a problem to me.... I think we'd best stick with by-elections... that way if the people are disgusted with the incumbent, they can vote for someone else... remember that Labor Senator who was replaced by a 'Labor' bloke who was far to the right of Genghis Khan?  The LNP had the say over who it was - NOT the party. "By convention, senators appointed by the state legislature to fill casual vacancies were from the same political party as the former senator. The New South Wales premier, Tom Lewis, a member of the Liberal Party, felt that this convention only applied to vacancies caused by deaths or ill-health, and arranged for the legislature to elect Cleaver Bunton, former mayor of Albury and an independent." " At the time of Cairns' dismissal, one Senate seat was vacant, following the death on 30 June of Queensland ALP Senator Bertie Milliner. The state Labor party nominated Mal Colston, who was the highest unelected candidate on the party's Queensland list in 1974. This resulted in deadlock in Brisbane; the unicameral Queensland legislature twice voted against Colston, and the party refused to submit any alternative candidates.[37] Queensland Country Party Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen had evidence that Colston, a schoolteacher by trade, had set a school on fire during a labour dispute, though the police had refused to prosecute.[38] After the legislature voted Colston down a second time, Bjelke-Petersen instructed his majority in the legislature to elect a low-level union official, Albert Field, who had contacted his office and expressed a willingness to serve. In interviews, Field made it clear he would not support Whitlam. Field was expelled from the ALP for standing against Colston, and Labor senators boycotted his swearing-in.[37] Whitlam argued that because of the vacancies being filled as they were, the Senate was "corrupted" and "tainted", with the Opposition enjoying a majority they did not win at the ballot box" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis#Controversy_and_vacancies

This problem was fixed in a 1977 Referendum.