Australian Politics Forum - Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #15 - Apr 12^th, 2019 at 7:01pm

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 6:56pm:

No on both counts. The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators.

I must be reading it wrong

Quote:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 9 Method of election of senators [see Note 6]

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all the States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State.

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: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #16 - Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:01pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 7:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators,

yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done?

Choosing Senators is not the same thing as dividing them into classes with long and short terms. The former is governed by Section 9 of the Constitution, the latter by Section 13.

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: male

Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #17 - Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:14pm

Bam wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 7:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators,

yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done?

Choosing Senators is not the same thing as dividing them into classes with long and short terms. The former is governed by Section 9 of the Constitution, the latter by Section 13.

ok .... Thanks.

this is what wiki says about section 13

Quote:

The Constitution does not
provide a process for the allocation of terms and it is left to the Senate to decide itself.[4] Thus if one party had a majority in the Senate, in theory the Senate could decide that members of that Party receive six-year terms, with the result that following the next half Senate election, the party would retain a significant majority, grossly distorting the intentions of the voters. The Senate is constrained from acting in this way by concerns about the potential political controversy, rather than any provision in the Constitution to prevent such an outcome.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_13_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

either way, FD is wrong

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53218 At my desk.	Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate Reply #18 - Apr 14^th, 2019 at 2:29pm About what?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53218 At my desk.	Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate Reply #19 - Apr 16^th, 2019 at 7:04pm What am I wrong about John?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61908
Here
Gender: male

Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #20 - Apr 16^th, 2019 at 7:10pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 7:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators,

yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done?

Fd's problem is that he doesn't think parliament should choose. Roll Eyes

No the point is that they should not choose retrospectively. They should not be allowed to work out which method advantages them the most before deciding.

Potentially and election could be won or lost by one side having retrospective control of how the result will be determined.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 61908
Here
Gender: male

Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #21 - Apr 16^th, 2019 at 8:01pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:14pm:

Bam wrote on Apr 12^th, 2019 at 8:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 7:33pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 6:47pm:

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators,

yeah, so the parliament makes laws prescribing the method of choosing senators .... isn't that exactly what they've done?

Choosing Senators is not the same thing as dividing them into classes with long and short terms. The former is governed by Section 9 of the Constitution, the latter by Section 13.

ok .... Thanks.

this is what wiki says about section 13

Quote:

The Constitution does not
provide a process for the allocation of terms and it is left to the Senate to decide itself.[4] Thus if one party had a majority in the Senate, in theory the Senate could decide that members of that Party receive six-year terms, with the result that following the next half Senate election, the party would retain a significant majority, grossly distorting the intentions of the voters. The Senate is constrained from acting in this way by concerns about the potential political controversy, rather than any provision in the Constitution to prevent such an outcome.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_13_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia

either way, FD is wrong

I do not see how explaining the process in more detail shows FD to be wrong. In fact it seems to support his view.

Quote:

Thus if one party had a majority in the Senate, in theory the Senate could decide that members of that Party receive six-year terms

Labor and the Liberals combined in the last election to give more their members 6 year terms thus stacking the next senate in their favour, this isn't a could happen it is what happened.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53218 At my desk.	Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate Reply #22 - Apr 18^th, 2019 at 1:34pm Don't be shy John. Now's your big chance to prove me wrong.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate Reply #23 - Apr 18^th, 2019 at 5:48pm FD you just claimed that The constitution prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators - and John just quoted part of the constitution that literally says the opposite - pretty much word for word. Or am I missing something?
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: 39827
Gender: male

Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #24 - Apr 18^th, 2019 at 7:21pm

freediver wrote on Apr 18^th, 2019 at 1:34pm:

Don't be shy John. Now's your big chance to prove me wrong.

He is banned FD. That is pretty pathetic having a go at him knowing (as you should as the Owner of this Forum,) he was banned by Setanta for doing what you have been doing as a matter of routine choice, defying the Rule for quite some time.

This invites the question of whether you have any idea what your GMods are doing. That you seemingly have no idea is not comforting to mere Members or those GMods.

Maybe you need to sort that out.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53218
At my desk.

Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #25 - Apr 19^th, 2019 at 10:18am

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 18^th, 2019 at 5:48pm:

FD you just claimed that The constitution prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators - and John just quoted part of the constitution that literally says the opposite - pretty much word for word.

Or am I missing something?

It prohibits parliament from making laws regarding the allocation of short and long term senate seats. I assumed given both the context and John's use of the word "choose" that this is what he was referring to. John is more than welcome to clarify what he thinks I was wrong about.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #26 - Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:02pm

FD claimed:

Quote:

The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators.

constitution says:

Quote:

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators

a more clear and definitive refutation of FD's claim would be difficult to find.

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: 39827
Gender: male

Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #27 - Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:04pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:

FD claimed:

Quote:

The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators.

constitution says:

Quote:

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators

a more clear and definitive refutation of FD's claim would be difficult to find.

*Ouch*

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #28 - Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:09pm

Aussie wrote on Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:04pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:

FD claimed:

Quote:

The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators.

constitution says:

Quote:

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators

a more clear and definitive refutation of FD's claim would be difficult to find.

*Ouch*

It doesn't sound good, but I take FD's point that John was probably talking about the method of deciding who is short and long term.

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

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53218
At my desk.

Re: Electoral fraud gets bipartisan support in Senate
Reply #29 - Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:35pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 19^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:

FD claimed:

Quote:

The constitution actually prohibits parliament from making laws prescribing the method of choosing senators.

constitution says:

Quote:

The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators

a more clear and definitive refutation of FD's claim would be difficult to find.

See my previous response Gandalf. Was there anything unclear in it?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged