Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Send Topic Print
optional preferential voting harms the coalition (Read 5606 times)
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17274
Here
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #15 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:22pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:11pm:
Yesterday you said that coalitions reduce voter choice. now you are saying that MERGING reduces choice. you cant have it both ways. which is it?


He is obviously right.

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

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

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

"Operation secret boarders" Some good old red neck Totalitarian policy.
 
IP Logged
 
skippy.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17707
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #16 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm
 
In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

http://ozpolitic.com/polanimal/
WWW  
IP Logged
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16605
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #17 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:26pm
 
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:20pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:14pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:44am:
progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:36am:
freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

If the circumstances changed, I would vote accordingly.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 35768
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #18 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:49pm
 
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:20pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:14pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:44am:
progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:36am:
freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

so yeah. if you want, bring in first=past-the-post voting. there might not be another labor govt for decades - if ever.
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: 35768
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #19 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:51pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:22pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:11pm:
Yesterday you said that coalitions reduce voter choice. now you are saying that MERGING reduces choice. you cant have it both ways. which is it?


He is obviously right.

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

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

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


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

and FD was silly in his two statements that bother merging AND coalitions denied choice. I rarely know what FD is syaing/thinking at the best of times but this is opaque even for him.
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: 35768
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #20 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm
 
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm:
In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. Grin Grin 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.
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
 
skippy.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17707
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #21 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:58pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:49pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:20pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:14pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:44am:
progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:36am:
freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

http://ozpolitic.com/polanimal/
WWW  
IP Logged
 
skippy.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17707
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #22 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm:
In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. Grin Grin 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???
Back to top
 

http://ozpolitic.com/polanimal/
WWW  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 35768
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #23 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:01pm
 
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:58pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:49pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:20pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:14pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:44am:
progressiveslol wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:36am:
freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

it is as lame as it sounds.
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: 35768
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #24 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm
 
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm:
In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. Grin Grin 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.
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: 35768
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #25 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:04pm
 
freediver wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 11:31am:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_%28Australia%29

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


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


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


ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 11479
Newy
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #26 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm:
In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. Grin Grin 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.
Back to top
 

That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
 
IP Logged
 
skippy.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17707
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #27 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:11pm
 
Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm:
In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. Grin Grin 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
.

Imagine the tanty if Labor get back in. Grin Grin Grin
Back to top
 

http://ozpolitic.com/polanimal/
WWW  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 35768
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #28 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:11pm
 
Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm:
In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. Grin Grin 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?
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: 35768
Gender: male
Re: optional preferential voting harms the coalition
Reply #29 - Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:13pm
 
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:11pm:
Dsmithy70 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:06pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 2:02pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:59pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:53pm:
skippy. wrote on Oct 9th, 2011 at 1:23pm:
In fact, after checking, without a coalition the Libs would never have formed gov ever in this country, Labor would have been in power since 1943. Grin Grin 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
.

Imagine the tanty if Labor get back in. Grin Grin Grin


imagine the tanty if family first got in. the chances are roughly the same and with the current direction of the polls, the votes could be at similar levels before long.
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
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Send Topic Print