Australian Politics Forum - Government to change Senate voting laws

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61235
Here
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #150 - Feb 25^th, 2016 at 8:03am

mariacostel wrote on 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.

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.

It removes preference swapping which the major party's have been exploiting for decades.

Allowing the 6th or 7 th party selection on the ballot to prevail at 0.5% of the vote is no different to what currently happens.

instead of big vote getters being tipped out my minnows

We seem to argue strongly for removing the preferential system, well just the parts where we have less control over the result.

I do think that the voting system should be looked at - just not in the lead up to an election where the desired election outcome is more relevant than the changes.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #151 - Feb 25^th, 2016 at 8:37am

cods wrote on 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...

Why is that? Pretty obvious, actually - the voters are not as trusting of the major parties as they were 40 years ago. We get a diverse Senate because the voters choose it. At the last election, about 24% of voters chose candidates not from the Coalition, ALP or Greens - is it any wonder that some of these candidates got elected?

Senate 2013 (top 11)

Party	Vote %	Seats
Liberal/National Coalition	37.70	17
Australian Labor Party	30.11	12
Australian Greens	8.65	4
Palmer United Party	4.91	3
Liberal Democratic Party	3.91	1
Xenophon Group	1.93	1
Australian Sex Party	1.37	0
Family First Party	1.11	1
Shooters and Fishers Party	0.95	0
Katter's Australian Party	0.89	0
Democratic Labour Party	0.84	0

The only party outside this list that won a seat is Muir's party (17th).

Even with the abolition of group voting tickets, I expect that votes for minor parties will still be likely to exceed 20% at the next election. I expect about three to be elected: Xenophon's group could elect as many as two in SA, and the other five states will elect one or two between them, with NSW and Victoria to be the states most likely to elect a candidate from a minor party. I do not expect PUP to be among them, but any of the others on this list are a chance.

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 #152 - Feb 25^th, 2016 at 8:39am

mariacostel wrote on 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.

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

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #153 - Feb 25^th, 2016 at 8:47am

cods wrote on 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

Thanks, cods. What is it with manners these days?

Anyone who makes a personal attack is conceding an argument. They just haven't any grace at all.

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 #154 - Feb 25^th, 2016 at 8:51am

cods wrote on 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

This from the person who called me a pedo sympathiser.

Back to your knitting, grandma.

Back to top

IP Logged

Vic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 8554
Melbourne Victoria
Gender: male

Re: Government to change Senate voting laws
Reply #155 - Feb 25^th, 2016 at 8:52am

Bam wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 8:39am: