Australian Politics Forum - optional preferential voting harms the coalition

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #45 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:11pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

suck it up now.

How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority?
Your in

OPPOSITION

, suck it up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61919
Here
Gender: male

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #46 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:15pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #47 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:19pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

suck it up now.

How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority?
Your in

OPPOSITION

, suck it up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #48 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:19pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #49 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:23pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

suck it up now.

How is an opinion poll taken what 23 months before an election anything like a majority?
Your in

OPPOSITION

, suck it up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition Reply #50 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:28pm And who knows, in such a calm and rational environment I might have the time to proofread my posts and remove the abundance of typos that I seem to have.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition Reply #51 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:33pm have a think about it. maybe we can have a trial thread for posting well-thoughtout positions that arent derived from a party website? I wil be out for the rest of the night entertaining our american presenter in computer modelling. he is mormon so the alcohol ont be a problem!
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #52 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 4:36pm

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

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

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

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53234
At my desk.

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #53 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 6:07pm

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

If the circumstances changed, I would vote accordingly.

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

Quote:

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

Do you have an alternative explanation for the merger?

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition Reply #54 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 8:12pm Quote: I was referring to formal coalitions. Obviously agreements to govern do not reduce voter choice oh i dont know about that. post election agreements that form governments that a mjority dont want seems to be the ultimate in reducing voter choice.
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #55 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 8:18pm

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #56 - Oct 9^th, 2011 at 8:32pm

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

skippy.

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20882
Gender: male

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #57 - Oct 10^th, 2011 at 6:40am

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL
Click onWWW below

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53234
At my desk.

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #58 - Oct 10^th, 2011 at 3:44pm

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #59 - Oct 10^th, 2011 at 5:40pm

Quote:

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

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

You cant complain if now everyone does the same thing.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged