Australian Politics Forum - Government to change Senate voting laws

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #120 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:00am

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:06am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:42am:

As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984"

So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them

You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it

I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense.

Yet oddly, you support these changes in general. And why? Because it merely seeks to eradicate the undemocratic way in which some senators are elected. The LDP senator got in my being confused for the Liberals. Ricky Muir was elected by Preference-whispering. Neither has any business being in the Senate elected by such undemocratic means. I am a supporter of the democratic process way before a supporter of the Liberals. Let parliament reflect the will of the people and I am happy. Let someone be elected as one party, change sides and put in another party and I am not. Nor am I happy about people elected by less votes than most people have facebook friends.

Here's why I do not support minimum quotas. What happens when you've got a 4% minimum to be elected, one seat to be filled and none of the remaining candidates have 4% of the vote?

And I don't care that it is unlikely. It's NOT impossible. The Senate elects too few people in each state to make it workable.

I don't have a problem with a few crossbench Senators being elected on relatively low votes. Sometimes, they turn out to be very good candidates - that's how Xenophon got started with his political career in SA.

What I have a problem with is the ticket voting system that games the system to make it more likely.

I said 1% not 4%. It is about eliminating the irrelevancies, not the minors.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #121 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:04am

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:25am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:57am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:42am:

As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984"

So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them

You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it

I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense.

I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose.

Another backyard Fascist..... let the people decide who they want to vote for..... you don't get to 'extinguish' anything...... not on my watch.

Well put.

More than 23% of the votes cast in the Senate at the last election went to "other" candidates - not ALP, Coalition or Green. Why should these 23% of voters not be represented in Parliament?

84% of AFL supporters are members of clubs that got nothing from the Premiership. Why should they not be represented in the premiership? BECAUSE IT IS A COMPETITION, just like politics. Winners get elected while losers go home to try again later. 23% is a minority. You dont get a seat in parliament the same way a kindergarten kid gets a sticker for trying. You get one for WINNING.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #122 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:06am

Kat wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:35am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:05am:

stunspore wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 6:33am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 5:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:40am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2016 at 7:35am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2016 at 5:52pm:

Cods, I don't care which Party has Government whether that be the Coalition, Labor, Greens or even PUP. I do not want that Party to have control of the Senate. I like what we have......some people from left field.....ordinary Australians.......in a position that the Government has to convince them (unless the other major Party supports a Government proposal in the Senate) that what they propose is good for the Country.

Why dont we just have people elected fairly and democratically and let the results speak for themselves.

what is unfair and undemocratic about the minors doing deals? the libs do it all the time and you don't whinge.

Over 50% of the population voted against the GST when it was introduced, yet you didn't call it undemocratic when Howard bought it in anyway, did you?. The public voted to bring in an ETS and you supported the libs when they refused to back it didn't you? What happened to democracy then?

It's funny how you use the undemocratic excuse when it suits but forget all about it when push comes to shove

99.5% of the population voted against Ricky Muir yet he is a senator.

Prob jealous that another lib didn't get the seat.
When people voted just '1' above line, either they accept the convenience of it, or they trust the party (minor or otherwise) to make good 2nd, 3rd, etc choices if that team didn't get in. Simple.

As pointed out earlier by someone, not voting for someone 1st choice doesn't necessarily mean voting against them.

A tad naive to say the least. In a system that requires EVERY candidate receive a preference, you analysis means no one votes against anyone, despite the fact that most voters very specifically choose a party to support and the rest to reject.

If you can support Muir's election as democratic then you have some serious issues to work out.

I do.

It was.

And I haven't.

But you mob pushing to let this pack of scum have control of the Senate most definitely have

And they go far beyond merely which side of politics you support.

You are a fool. Most people here agree. Perhaps the Liberals ought to start up a swag of minor parties and get a few senators elected the way Muir did and then conveniently support the Libs in every vote? Would you be happy then? Or better still....

HAVE YOU EVER BEEN HAPPY?

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #123 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:10am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:00am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:06am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:42am:

As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984"

So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them

You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it

I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense.

Yet oddly, you support these changes in general. And why? Because it merely seeks to eradicate the undemocratic way in which some senators are elected. The LDP senator got in my being confused for the Liberals. Ricky Muir was elected by Preference-whispering. Neither has any business being in the Senate elected by such undemocratic means. I am a supporter of the democratic process way before a supporter of the Liberals. Let parliament reflect the will of the people and I am happy. Let someone be elected as one party, change sides and put in another party and I am not. Nor am I happy about people elected by less votes than most people have facebook friends.

Here's why I do not support minimum quotas. What happens when you've got a 4% minimum to be elected, one seat to be filled and none of the remaining candidates have 4% of the vote?

And I don't care that it is unlikely. It's NOT impossible. The Senate elects too few people in each state to make it workable.

I don't have a problem with a few crossbench Senators being elected on relatively low votes. Sometimes, they turn out to be very good candidates - that's how Xenophon got started with his political career in SA.

What I have a problem with is the ticket voting system that games the system to make it more likely.

I said 1% not 4%. It is about eliminating the irrelevancies, not the minors.

What you said is irrelevant. Any time there's a minimum quota, it creates the possibility of nobody reaching that quota.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #124 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:14am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:04am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:25am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:57am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:42am:

As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984"

So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them

You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it

I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense.

I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose.

Another backyard Fascist..... let the people decide who they want to vote for..... you don't get to 'extinguish' anything...... not on my watch.

Well put.

More than 23% of the votes cast in the Senate at the last election went to "other" candidates - not ALP, Coalition or Green. Why should these 23% of voters not be represented in Parliament?

84% of AFL supporters are members of clubs that got nothing from the Premiership. Why should they not be represented in the premiership? BECAUSE IT IS A COMPETITION, just like politics. Winners get elected while losers go home to try again later. 23% is a minority. You dont get a seat in parliament the same way a kindergarten kid gets a sticker for trying. You get one for WINNING.

You don't understand the basics of representative democracy with proportional representation, and the history of Senate voting systems.

We had winner-take-all Senate voting prior to 1949. It was thrown out because it was undemocratic.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #125 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:17am

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:10am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:00am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:06am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:42am:

As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984"

So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them

You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it

I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense.

Yet oddly, you support these changes in general. And why? Because it merely seeks to eradicate the undemocratic way in which some senators are elected. The LDP senator got in my being confused for the Liberals. Ricky Muir was elected by Preference-whispering. Neither has any business being in the Senate elected by such undemocratic means. I am a supporter of the democratic process way before a supporter of the Liberals. Let parliament reflect the will of the people and I am happy. Let someone be elected as one party, change sides and put in another party and I am not. Nor am I happy about people elected by less votes than most people have facebook friends.

Here's why I do not support minimum quotas. What happens when you've got a 4% minimum to be elected, one seat to be filled and none of the remaining candidates have 4% of the vote?

And I don't care that it is unlikely. It's NOT impossible. The Senate elects too few people in each state to make it workable.

I don't have a problem with a few crossbench Senators being elected on relatively low votes. Sometimes, they turn out to be very good candidates - that's how Xenophon got started with his political career in SA.

What I have a problem with is the ticket voting system that games the system to make it more likely.

I said 1% not 4%. It is about eliminating the irrelevancies, not the minors.

What you said is irrelevant. Any time there's a minimum quota, it creates the possibility of nobody reaching that quota.

Technically true but at 1% it would require at least 101 equal vote candidates - a virtual impossibility. Even at 4% you would need 26 equal vote candidates.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #126 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:20am

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:14am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:04am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:25am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:57am:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 8:29am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:42am:

As David Leyonhjelm said, "The minor parties were only doing what the major parties were doing themselves since 1984"

So how long will it be before the major parties rig the system even more so as to prevent any minor party from getting any seats at all ... probably not long, and after that they're find a reason to justify banning minor parties altogether. The justification will likely be something ridiculous like they never get enough votes to deliver, to win government, so why do they even try, they can lobby us and we'll do it for them

You past your use-by date Libs and Labs are going to get yours, and I reckon I'll still be around to see it

I expect in the future they will probably try to enforce a minimum percentage of votes or other such nonsense.

I am not averse to perhaps extinguishing the votes of parties or single candidates that receive less than 1% of the vote. It would have to be done fairly of course and have a viable purpose.

Another backyard Fascist..... let the people decide who they want to vote for..... you don't get to 'extinguish' anything...... not on my watch.

Well put.

More than 23% of the votes cast in the Senate at the last election went to "other" candidates - not ALP, Coalition or Green. Why should these 23% of voters not be represented in Parliament?

84% of AFL supporters are members of clubs that got nothing from the Premiership. Why should they not be represented in the premiership? BECAUSE IT IS A COMPETITION, just like politics. Winners get elected while losers go home to try again later. 23% is a minority. You dont get a seat in parliament the same way a kindergarten kid gets a sticker for trying. You get one for WINNING.

You don't understand the basics of representative democracy with proportional representation, and the history of Senate voting systems.

We had winner-take-all Senate voting prior to 1949. It was thrown out because it was undemocratic.

And replaced it with a system where someone gets .8 of a quota and fails while someone with .4 of a quota gets the gig instead. Or worse, a Ricky Muir so got a handful of votes only. Representative democracy must mean something different to you. IN my dictionary it means being representative of the voters wishes, not the the vagaries of valueless preferences.

I think your real problem is that you agree with the senate changes, but struggle because the Libs put it up and your primitive ALP will probably vote against it - for the same reason.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61230
Here
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #127 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:40am

I am not in favour of any party pushing through legislation that they see will give them an advantage in an election year.

This type of change should be debated looking for consensus and implemented with a cool hand between elections.

Here we see a government who have been holding a war against independent's trying to damage their electoral chances in order to provide them with a more compliant senate.

In my view the absolute wrong motive.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #128 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:41am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:20am: