Australian Politics Forum

Johnnie Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 12485 Gender:	Re: SA Election Reply #45 - Mar 18^th, 2018 at 2:15pm More of the same but different in a two horse race. The hooting and hollering that goes on in party rooms when a win is announced is like an AFL grand final winning kick, I think they all need to take it a bit more seriously and get a life.
Back to top	IP Logged

President Elect, The Mechanic Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17501 Gender:	Re: SA Election Reply #46 - Mar 18^th, 2018 at 2:17pm Xenophon crushed
Back to top	Q The STORM has arrived Every Dog Has Its Day... Dark to Light. Sheep no more. IP Logged

Johnnie Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 12485 Gender:	Re: SA Election Reply #47 - Mar 18^th, 2018 at 2:23pm President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 2:17pm: Xenophon crushed The rap advert didn't do him any favors, oh well he still has his lawyer firm to fall back on, woo hoo more pokies.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: SA Election
Reply #48 - Mar 18^th, 2018 at 5:14pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 12:44pm:

Despite your efforts to say otherwise, it is still a gerrymander. It was a gross messup of the boundaries that if they had been corrected 12 years ago, this would be a 4th Liberal term - a party that has won the 2PP all but once in the last 20 years. There is no excuse for such a gross misuse of power for this to occur and remain in place for so long. The 'swing' to the libs looks great in the number of seats but in 2PP terms is possibly LOWER than last time.

But the weirdest win was the Indie in Mt Gambier who was re-elected despite being charged with serious crimes which will see him going to jail for a number of years. Who would vote for him???

Seems you're not able to understand the difference between a gerrymander and malapportionment despite the explanation.

It was malapportionment. It was NOT a gerrymander. If you disagree, you must produce evidence that it meets the criteria.

As for the Libs not winning the 2PP, I've never seen you complain about elections where the Libs win elections with a minority of the 2PP vote. It happened to Labor in SA in 1947, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1959. In 1962 and 1968 Labor still couldn't win a majority despite having a majority on primary votes alone.

Federally, the Libs are well ahead 4 to 1 on election wins from a 2PP minority, the most recent in 1998.

You may notice that I'm not complaining particularly about the election result in SA because I consider it a fair result.

SA should consider whether it needs to take steps to improve proportionality. If nothing else works, the state may even need to consider radical reforms like introducing some form of proportional representation in the lower house. The downside is that it would advantage minor parties like SA Best and the Greens, whose proportion of votes to seats won makes Labor's share of the vote during the Playford years look positively balanced by comparison.

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

Its time

Gold Member

Offline

Boot libs out

Posts: 25639
Gender: female

Re: SA Election
Reply #49 - Mar 18^th, 2018 at 9:13pm

Bam wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 12:44pm:

Despite your efforts to say otherwise, it is still a gerrymander. It was a gross messup of the boundaries that if they had been corrected 12 years ago, this would be a 4th Liberal term - a party that has won the 2PP all but once in the last 20 years. There is no excuse for such a gross misuse of power for this to occur and remain in place for so long. The 'swing' to the libs looks great in the number of seats but in 2PP terms is possibly LOWER than last time.

But the weirdest win was the Indie in Mt Gambier who was re-elected despite being charged with serious crimes which will see him going to jail for a number of years. Who would vote for him???

Seems you're not able to understand the difference between a gerrymander and malapportionment despite the explanation.

It was malapportionment. It was NOT a gerrymander. If you disagree, you must produce evidence that it meets the criteria.

As for the Libs not winning the 2PP, I've never seen you complain about elections where the Libs win elections with a minority of the 2PP vote. It happened to Labor in SA in 1947, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1959. In 1962 and 1968 Labor still couldn't win a majority despite having a majority on primary votes alone.

Federally, the Libs are well ahead 4 to 1 on election wins from a 2PP minority, the most recent in 1998.

You may notice that I'm not complaining particularly about the election result in SA because I consider it a fair result.

SA should consider whether it needs to take steps to improve proportionality. If nothing else works, the state may even need to consider radical reforms like introducing some form of proportional representation in the lower house. The downside is that it would advantage minor parties like SA Best and the Greens, whose proportion of votes to seats won makes Labor's share of the vote during the Playford years look positively balanced by comparison.

You just got knocked the f out longy Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Johnnie Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 12485 Gender:	Re: SA Election Reply #50 - Mar 18^th, 2018 at 9:47pm The new guy will put SA on the map. There is a new Marshall in town. Bloody clowns the lot of them.
Back to top	IP Logged

issuevoter Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 9200 The Great State of Mind Gender:	Re: SA Election Reply #51 - Mar 18^th, 2018 at 9:58pm Doesn't matter what side of politics they are on, the losers always yell, "We was robbed!"
Back to top	No political allegiance. No philosophy. No religion. IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: SA Election
Reply #52 - Mar 19^th, 2018 at 7:41am

Bam wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 5:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 12:44pm:

Despite your efforts to say otherwise, it is still a gerrymander. It was a gross messup of the boundaries that if they had been corrected 12 years ago, this would be a 4th Liberal term - a party that has won the 2PP all but once in the last 20 years. There is no excuse for such a gross misuse of power for this to occur and remain in place for so long. The 'swing' to the libs looks great in the number of seats but in 2PP terms is possibly LOWER than last time.

But the weirdest win was the Indie in Mt Gambier who was re-elected despite being charged with serious crimes which will see him going to jail for a number of years. Who would vote for him???

Seems you're not able to understand the difference between a gerrymander and malapportionment despite the explanation.

It was malapportionment. It was NOT a gerrymander. If you disagree, you must produce evidence that it meets the criteria.

As for the Libs not winning the 2PP, I've never seen you complain about elections where the Libs win elections with a minority of the 2PP vote. It happened to Labor in SA in 1947, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1959. In 1962 and 1968 Labor still couldn't win a majority despite having a majority on primary votes alone.

Federally, the Libs are well ahead 4 to 1 on election wins from a 2PP minority, the most recent in 1998.

You may notice that I'm not complaining particularly about the election result in SA because I consider it a fair result.

SA should consider whether it needs to take steps to improve proportionality. If nothing else works, the state may even need to consider radical reforms like introducing some form of proportional representation in the lower house. The downside is that it would advantage minor parties like SA Best and the Greens, whose proportion of votes to seats won makes Labor's share of the vote during the Playford years look positively balanced by comparison.

I can happily exclude elections before my birth and the rest were before I could vote so... why should I have to care about that?

But what a remarkable example to us of 1998 when the libs won on 49.98%. You do get the difference between a one-off like that of the tiniest of proportions and that of 4 elections in a row with a 1-3% difference as it was in SA? In any extremely close election the 2PP may be just under 50% for a winning party. Thats not a breach of the guiding principle as a simple local issue can tip one seat. The principle is about ensuring that the 2PP and the number of seats align 'as closely as possible', not precisely - given that that is impossible anyhow.

We dont need to change our electoral system in SA. We do however need to ensure that the AEC actually does its job and ensures that re-distributions are done properly and regularly.

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

Bias_2012

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 10313
Gender: male

Re: SA Election
Reply #53 - Mar 19^th, 2018 at 9:57am

issuevoter wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Doesn't matter what side of politics they are on, the losers always yell, "We was robbed!"

13.7% of the vote is quite significant, but the votes lost all their value as votes, and just discarded

The problem with the system of having to win seats is that all the votes that don't win seats have no value and hence no representation in parliament

What if the vote had been much higher than 13.7%, say 25% or 30%? If they didn't win seats, that high percentage would also be discarded

Voting being compulsory as it is, should mean that every vote has value and never be discarded

A better idea would be to abandon the system of "seats" and allow representation in parliament according to the the percentage a party gets

Back to top

Our Lives Are Governed By The Feast & Famine Variable

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 131554 Gender:	Re: SA Election Reply #54 - Mar 19^th, 2018 at 10:14am I don't usually look at how-to-vote cards, but I see that Marshall was promoting a donkey vote. https://strongplan.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Dunstan.pdf
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: SA Election
Reply #55 - Mar 19^th, 2018 at 11:57am

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

issuevoter wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Doesn't matter what side of politics they are on, the losers always yell, "We was robbed!"

13.7% of the vote is quite significant, but the votes lost all their value as votes, and just discarded

The problem with the system of having to win seats is that all the votes that don't win seats have no value and hence no representation in parliament

What if the vote had been much higher than 13.7%, say 25% or 30%? If they didn't win seats, that high percentage would also be discarded

Voting being compulsory as it is, should mean that every vote has value and never be discarded

A better idea would be to abandon the system of "seats" and allow representation in parliament according to the the percentage a party gets

The votes arent 'lost'. Democracy is a 'competitive' institution where competing people parties and polices stand for your votes. That means that there is a winner. If you vote for a party or candidate that loses then your vote is not lost. This is not primary school where everyone is awarded a prize for participation. What makes democracy so powerful and enduring is that people and policies have to fight to be the best.

The problems with representation by percentage area many. In SA, a candidate would have to get at least 2.1% of the vote to get a seat. Do we therefore 'discard' those who voted for candidates less than that? The other one is that if your people and policies are so poor that you can only get 3% of the vote, why should you be entitled to a seat in parliament at all? As we have seen with close elections between the major parties, an independent can weild vast power despite getting 3% of the vote.

Representative democracy is about the majority of people getting their say. It is hard to do, but allowing people with 3% of the vote ANY say in parliament is a travesty.

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

tickleandrose Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3867 Gender:	Re: SA Election Reply #56 - Mar 19^th, 2018 at 12:45pm I thought the senate is % based. And in order for laws to pass, both house had to agree.
Back to top	IP Logged

Bias_2012

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 10313
Gender: male

Re: SA Election
Reply #57 - Mar 19^th, 2018 at 3:16pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2018 at 11:57am:

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

issuevoter wrote on Mar 18^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Doesn't matter what side of politics they are on, the losers always yell, "We was robbed!"

13.7% of the vote is quite significant, but the votes lost all their value as votes, and just discarded

The problem with the system of having to win seats is that all the votes that don't win seats have no value and hence no representation in parliament

What if the vote had been much higher than 13.7%, say 25% or 30%? If they didn't win seats, that high percentage would also be discarded

Voting being compulsory as it is, should mean that every vote has value and never be discarded

A better idea would be to abandon the system of "seats" and allow representation in parliament according to the the percentage a party gets

The votes arent 'lost'. Democracy is a 'competitive' institution where competing people parties and polices stand for your votes. That means that there is a winner. If you vote for a party or candidate that loses then your vote is not lost. This is not primary school where everyone is awarded a prize for participation. What makes democracy so powerful and enduring is that people and policies have to fight to be the best.

The problems with representation by percentage area many. In SA, a candidate would have to get at least 2.1% of the vote to get a seat. Do we therefore 'discard' those who voted for candidates less than that? The other one is that if your people and policies are so poor that you can only get 3% of the vote, why should you be entitled to a seat in parliament at all? As we have seen with close elections between the major parties, an independent can weild vast power despite getting 3% of the vote.

Representative democracy is about the majority of people getting their say. It is hard to do, but allowing people with 3% of the vote ANY say in parliament is a travesty.

It was 13.7% for SA Best, not 2.1 or 3%

That 13.7% could go close to 200,000 people whose votes lost their value and were discarded. That's a lot of South Australians who have no say in your powerful and enduring democracy

You want voting to be compulsory, but you don't want every vote to have equal value - bastardtry, to say the least

Back to top

Our Lives Are Governed By The Feast & Famine Variable

IP Logged