freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 8:44pm:

Yea I do. But it always comes down to two parties being able to win the election. Look at how Labor and Liberal do deals to put the Greens last, like in Bandts case. There has to be a fairer system. I will not vote in the HORs this year, first time ever, because I refuse to preference the Nationals or Labor, so my vote would be invalid.

Grey wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 7:58pm:


I doubt the Greens will gain much more popularity than what they currently have. The majority of people look at them as a kind of joke.

Quote:


Like the National and Liberal parties?

Quote:


They are different parties with different policies and the Greens have shown that they are both able to govern effectively in coalition and able to achieve some of their own policies despite being a minor partner. It's not like the carbon tax was Labor policy. We have a different outcome than we would have had if Labor had won outright. That's how it works.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 9:28pm:


You mean the people at the uni?

Quote:


the national party has been the defacto liberal party in the bush and they (mostly) dont compete against each other. that makes them a special case. And I cant believe you use the Greens as an example given that they are following the same trajectory but have not yet finished the cycle. 2010 was their high point and every election since has seen their position erode and they are severl percent down federally from then as well. and all this in an environment where the ALP is bleeding support and the greens are picking it up. and still they are dropping.

if you want to use an example of a genuine third party remaining then you will have to make one up because they dont last.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:17pm:


Yep, Bob cacked and then Bob left, muttering "The carbon tax done 'em good" then chuckled.

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 8:44pm:


and therein lies the essence of your error. ELECTORAL SYSTEMS do not exists to facilitate or punish parties. it exists to put in power the parties people want. minor parties are called 'minor' because they dont have enough support to be counted. tough. thats what we call democracy or rule by the MAJORITY.

Quote:


I think it is actually less confusing than our current system. It is surprising how many people misunderstand how preferential voting works. Very few people understand all the implications of their Senate vote.

Quote:


In other words, they are on the up, and the only conclusion you can draw is that they will follow the democrats. Not because the evidence actually supports this. Wishful thinking trumps all in your analysis.

Quote:


I almost got you understand the concept we have been discussing, but now you are retreating to a primary school level analysis. You would not say that the Labor party is going downhill even though they show the same trend. You admit that the Greens compete against Labor, not the coalition, but you are afraid to measure their performance against that of the Labor party. So you end up mistaking the cyclic left-right swings for the demise of one of the left wing parties, but not the other. We see the same trend for two parties, yet you manage to reach the opposite conclusion for each party. Other than wishful thinking and a very selective choice of evidence, you have nothing to support your position. So go ahead and fall back to "let's finish this discussion in 6 years".

Quote:


Wow, you even acknowledge that the Greens are mainly competing against labor and gaining ground, but what you see is the opposite of what is right in front of you. Why is it so hard for you to understand these concepts?

Quote:


Yes they do. I have given plenty of examples. You just choose to ignore them because they don't fit your agenda of blind wishful thinking in the face of reality. Here are some examples:

The Labor Party
The Liberal Party
The National Party
The Greens
And the predecessors to some of these parties

Now lets watch as Longy finds some BS excuse to ignore every single one of these examples.

Quote:


Yes Longy, we noticed you trying to exclude every bit of evidence that doesn't fit your wishful thinking agenda. This is not rational Longy. It merely reveals the extent of your willful self delusion.

Quote:


There are the Greens and the national party - oh wait, you have even more BS excuses for them too.

Quote:


Why are they idiotic? Do we need to see the collapse of major parties every dozen election cycles for you to remember that it can and does happen? The only thing that is idiotic is your insistence on excluding these examples of minor parties becoming stable major parties on the grounds that they became stable major parties. You use the fact that they succeeded at what you insist is impossible to exclude them as evidence that other parties can achieve what you blindly insist is impossible.

Quote:


Longy you are the only one putting wishful thinking above reality.

Quote:


The Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens, and the predecessors to some of these parties are not made up examples. They are real. The only thing that is imaginary is your reasoning for excluding every example that disagrees with your infantile analysis. The only justification you appear to have for excluding them is directly related to the fact that these examples disprove your absurd claims.

Quote:


So the only time that you can see what is right in front of you is when labor is going down and the Greens are going up? If they are both moving in the same direction, you suddenly loose your ability at rational analysis? Can you explain why you reach opposite conclusions for Labor and the Greens, even though the Greens are still gaining relative to Labor? What does it take to make you see what is right in front of you?