Australian Politics Forum - Government to change Senate voting laws

Kat

Gold Member

Offline

Socialism IS the answer.

Posts: 17709
Everywhere and no-where
Gender: female

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #135 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:28pm

mariacostel wrote on 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?

Drop off yer fekkin twig, that'd make me happy.

With the bonus that it'd make the rest of us pretty fekkin chuffed as well.

Troll-tard.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #136 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:38pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:41am:

You have not addressed the point that with a group commanding 24% of the vote, SOMEONE from that group has every right to be elected in a system of proportional representation with a 14% quota.

Why? It isnt a 24% bloc of votes but rather a group of 53 different parties all with very widely differing policies. Representation goes to the candidate that can rise above the clamour, not simply be yet another voice. Why should ANYONE be elected who hasnt gotten the votes?

I guess you don't have much idea on how Senate voting works.

24% > 14%, therefore there are enough votes to elect someone. That someone could be one of the dregs on a major party ticket, a Greens candidate who is just short of a quota or a minor party candidate. Rather than making hysterical proposals to exclude minor parties from the count on specious grounds, isn't it more sensible to see how the new system works? It may elect minor party candidates anyway. If that's the will of the people, so be it.

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:	Re: Government to change Senate voting laws Reply #137 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 2:55pm flip
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

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Government to change Senate voting laws Reply #138 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:05pm Kat wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:28pm: Drop off yer fekkin twig, that'd make me happy. With the bonus that it'd make the rest of us pretty fekkin chuffed as well. Troll-tard. you just can't argue with Kats logic.
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Government to change Senate voting laws Reply #139 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:22pm The arguments being used by the labor party against this are pretty cringe-worthy. Particularly in view of the fact they were advocating the same reform just over a year ago. There simply is no logical or rational defense of the current system.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39685
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #140 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:24pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:22pm:

The arguments being used by the labor party against this are pretty cringe-worthy. Particularly in view of the fact they were advocating the same reform just over a year ago.

There simply is no logical or rational defense of the current system.

Anyone know how long we've had the current system?

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #141 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:40pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:09pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:27pm:

Dnarever wrote on 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.

It doesnt give any party an advantage, nor has any commentator suggested such. It does however seek to remove the advantage that preference-whisperers obtain. It is in fact, essentially fair and even-handed. It will help your beloved ALP just as much - if not more - than the Libs.

It removes the ability of the smallest parties and independents to cross preference, this will wipe them out while in all probability giving who ever wins the election a stronger position in the senate.

It doesnt give any party an advantage

It gives all the larger parties an advantage over the smaller and independents.

It will help your beloved the ALP just as much - if not more - than the Libs

Yes it would but I would prefer the senate to remain the house of review and not a rubber stamp to anyone.

It doesnt give them an advantage at all. It does however REMOVE and advantage and loophole that the minor parties have been exploiting to gain them UNFAIR advantage.

Anyhow, the most likely outcome is simply that the minor party senators will come from parties that actually earned it, instead of big vote getters being tipped out my minnows.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #142 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:43pm

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:41am:

You have not addressed the point that with a group commanding 24% of the vote, SOMEONE from that group has every right to be elected in a system of proportional representation with a 14% quota.

Why? It isnt a 24% bloc of votes but rather a group of 53 different parties all with very widely differing policies. Representation goes to the candidate that can rise above the clamour, not simply be yet another voice. Why should ANYONE be elected who hasnt gotten the votes?

I guess you don't have much idea on how Senate voting works.

24% > 14%, therefore there are enough votes to elect someone. That someone could be one of the dregs on a major party ticket, a Greens candidate who is just short of a quota or a minor party candidate. Rather than making hysterical proposals to exclude minor parties from the count on specious grounds, isn't it more sensible to see how the new system works? It may elect minor party candidates anyway. If that's the will of the people, so be it.

I am fully aware of how it works. Being the arrogant tool that you are, you cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly disagree with you. It is quite simple: win the seat by getting the most votes. If you can't do that, go away.

And on the subject of 'specious grounds', forget the exclusion of parties that you get your frilly panties in such a twist over and suddenly.... NOTHING CHANGES, you retard.

You would die in a competitive environment. You keep expecting a leg-up to counter for your disadvantage (of which there are many)

Here are your Bambi Panties all straightened out for you.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:58pm by mariacostel »

bambipantiesil_570xN_647355737_n71c.jpg (61 KB | 36 )

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #143 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:14pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:41am:

You have not addressed the point that with a group commanding 24% of the vote, SOMEONE from that group has every right to be elected in a system of proportional representation with a 14% quota.

Why? It isnt a 24% bloc of votes but rather a group of 53 different parties all with very widely differing policies. Representation goes to the candidate that can rise above the clamour, not simply be yet another voice. Why should ANYONE be elected who hasnt gotten the votes?

I guess you don't have much idea on how Senate voting works.

24% > 14%, therefore there are enough votes to elect someone. That someone could be one of the dregs on a major party ticket, a Greens candidate who is just short of a quota or a minor party candidate. Rather than making hysterical proposals to exclude minor parties from the count on specious grounds, isn't it more sensible to see how the new system works? It may elect minor party candidates anyway. If that's the will of the people, so be it.

I am fully aware of how it works. Being the arrogant tool that you are, you cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly disagree with you. It is quite simple: win the seat by getting the most votes. If you can't do that, go away.

And on the subject of 'specious grounds', forget the exclusion of parties that you get your frilly panties in such a twist over and suddenly.... NOTHING CHANGES, you retard.

You would die in a competitive environment. You keep expecting a leg-up to counter for your disadvantage (of which there are many)

Here are your Bambi Panties all straightened out for you.

True to form when losing a discussion, you start with the personal attacks.

Reported.

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 #144 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:19pm

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:41am:

You have not addressed the point that with a group commanding 24% of the vote, SOMEONE from that group has every right to be elected in a system of proportional representation with a 14% quota.

Why? It isnt a 24% bloc of votes but rather a group of 53 different parties all with very widely differing policies. Representation goes to the candidate that can rise above the clamour, not simply be yet another voice. Why should ANYONE be elected who hasnt gotten the votes?

I guess you don't have much idea on how Senate voting works.

24% > 14%, therefore there are enough votes to elect someone. That someone could be one of the dregs on a major party ticket, a Greens candidate who is just short of a quota or a minor party candidate. Rather than making hysterical proposals to exclude minor parties from the count on specious grounds, isn't it more sensible to see how the new system works? It may elect minor party candidates anyway. If that's the will of the people, so be it.

I am fully aware of how it works. Being the arrogant tool that you are, you cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly disagree with you. It is quite simple: win the seat by getting the most votes. If you can't do that, go away.

And on the subject of 'specious grounds', forget the exclusion of parties that you get your frilly panties in such a twist over and suddenly.... NOTHING CHANGES, you retard.

You would die in a competitive environment. You keep expecting a leg-up to counter for your disadvantage (of which there are many)

Here are your Bambi Panties all straightened out for you.

True to form when losing a discussion, you start with the personal attacks.

Reported.

And true to form, out come the baby tears.

You are a pitiful example of a man.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 78311 Gender:	Re: Government to change Senate voting laws Reply #145 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 5:12pm mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:19pm: You are a pitiful example of a man. so are you!
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #146 - Feb 24^th, 2016 at 5:34pm

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:41am:

You have not addressed the point that with a group commanding 24% of the vote, SOMEONE from that group has every right to be elected in a system of proportional representation with a 14% quota.

Why? It isnt a 24% bloc of votes but rather a group of 53 different parties all with very widely differing policies. Representation goes to the candidate that can rise above the clamour, not simply be yet another voice. Why should ANYONE be elected who hasnt gotten the votes?

I guess you don't have much idea on how Senate voting works.

24% > 14%, therefore there are enough votes to elect someone. That someone could be one of the dregs on a major party ticket, a Greens candidate who is just short of a quota or a minor party candidate. Rather than making hysterical proposals to exclude minor parties from the count on specious grounds, isn't it more sensible to see how the new system works? It may elect minor party candidates anyway. If that's the will of the people, so be it.

I am fully aware of how it works. Being the arrogant tool that you are, you cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly disagree with you. It is quite simple: win the seat by getting the most votes. If you can't do that, go away.

And on the subject of 'specious grounds', forget the exclusion of parties that you get your frilly panties in such a twist over and suddenly.... NOTHING CHANGES, you retard.

You would die in a competitive environment. You keep expecting a leg-up to counter for your disadvantage (of which there are many)

Here are your Bambi Panties all straightened out for you.

True to form when losing a discussion, you start with the personal attacks.

Reported.

And true to form, out come the baby tears.

You are a pitiful example of a man.

I will keep reporting your filth until you clean yourself up or you are banned. Which happens first is up to you.

Reported.

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 #147 - Feb 25^th, 2016 at 7:48am

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 5:34pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 11:41am:

You have not addressed the point that with a group commanding 24% of the vote, SOMEONE from that group has every right to be elected in a system of proportional representation with a 14% quota.

Why? It isnt a 24% bloc of votes but rather a group of 53 different parties all with very widely differing policies. Representation goes to the candidate that can rise above the clamour, not simply be yet another voice. Why should ANYONE be elected who hasnt gotten the votes?

I guess you don't have much idea on how Senate voting works.

24% > 14%, therefore there are enough votes to elect someone. That someone could be one of the dregs on a major party ticket, a Greens candidate who is just short of a quota or a minor party candidate. Rather than making hysterical proposals to exclude minor parties from the count on specious grounds, isn't it more sensible to see how the new system works? It may elect minor party candidates anyway. If that's the will of the people, so be it.

I am fully aware of how it works. Being the arrogant tool that you are, you cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly disagree with you. It is quite simple: win the seat by getting the most votes. If you can't do that, go away.

And on the subject of 'specious grounds', forget the exclusion of parties that you get your frilly panties in such a twist over and suddenly.... NOTHING CHANGES, you retard.

You would die in a competitive environment. You keep expecting a leg-up to counter for your disadvantage (of which there are many)

Here are your Bambi Panties all straightened out for you.

True to form when losing a discussion, you start with the personal attacks.

Reported.

And true to form, out come the baby tears.

You are a pitiful example of a man.

I will keep reporting your filth until you clean yourself up or you are banned. Which happens first is up to you.

Reported.

You are a whiny little girl who cannot take the heat of battle. Pitiful. Pathetic. Childish.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #148 - Feb 25^th, 2016 at 7:53am

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 1:09pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 24^th, 2016 at 12:27pm:

Dnarever wrote on 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.

It doesnt give any party an advantage, nor has any commentator suggested such. It does however seek to remove the advantage that preference-whisperers obtain. It is in fact, essentially fair and even-handed. It will help your beloved ALP just as much - if not more - than the Libs.

It removes the ability of the smallest parties and independents to cross preference, this will wipe them out while in all probability giving who ever wins the election a stronger position in the senate.

It doesnt give any party an advantage

It gives all the larger parties an advantage over the smaller and independents.

It will help your beloved the ALP just as much - if not more - than the Libs

Yes it would but I would prefer the senate to remain the house of review and not a rubber stamp to anyone.

sadly thats just what it isnt anymore..

it a house of DEALS...and or spite...like the PUP mob.. just there to attack the Libs....even his own people couldnt stand him...

we have lost our way......we are giving to much control to minorities...

lets be honest we even have people in the senate that were just as amazed to get there as as the rest of us...

if your unemployed start a party and get yourself elected... simple really.

Back to top

IP Logged

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #149 - Feb 25^th, 2016 at 8:01am

mariacostel wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 7:48am:

You are a whiny little girl who cannot take the heat of battle. Pitiful. Pathetic. Childish.

dont you ever get just a little bit tired of the personal attacks on here???....

its a constant case of pot calling kettle.....

why cant you have a debate without the usual nasty bitching.....

Bam usually sticks to the topic.....why dont you try it. Angry

Back to top

IP Logged