It might pay for people to actually read ALL of the proposals, to get an idea of what they represent in totality.

It isn't "just" about By Elections.

They (the LNP) want voting to be voluntary, because they think that -  just as in the U.S - voluntary voting will favour them.

We normally vote in advance, to avoid large crowds on the Saturday.

The LNP now want to "force" people to provide a valid "excuse" as to why they should exercise their mandatory Democratic right to vote early. Since when is it any of their business?

Ah, so they can "force" more people to wait in long lines on a Saturday. Couple that with voluntary voting and "voila"...smaller turnouts.

And so on it goes.

I wonder if (hopefully "when") the LNP is next removed from Office, will we see a raft of spurious legal actions, designed to retain power? Maybe an "election defence" fund?

"Just 'cos it works in the U.S..."

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters...

[quote author=biased99 link=1607830698/41#41 date=1607917963]It might pay for people to actually read ALL of the proposals, to get an idea of what they represent in totality.

It isn't "just" about By Elections.

They (the LNP) want voting to be voluntary, because they think that -  just as in the U.S - voluntary voting will favour them.

We normally vote in advance, to avoid large crowds on the Saturday.

The LNP now want to "force" people to provide a valid "excuse" as to why they should exercise their mandatory Democratic right to vote early. Since when is it any of their business?

Ah, so they can "force" more people to wait in long lines on a Saturday. Couple that with voluntary voting and "voila"...smaller turnouts.

And so on it goes.

I wonder if (hopefully "when") the LNP is next removed from Office, will we see a raft of spurious legal actions, designed to retain power? Maybe an "election defence" fund?

"Just 'cos it works in the U.S..."

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters...

cods wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 3:13pm:



i only listed one proposal because I didn't want you to struggle with it. But it seems even one was beyond your comprehension.

You can start threads on the other proposals and discuss them anytime you like

John Smith wrote on Dec 14^th, 2020 at 5:32pm:



ooops  my mistake I didnt read who made the thread another mong anti every bloody thing thread.. no thanks..keep on moaning benito.

Scenarios involving the Senate are irrelevant, whether they are fictional or not. By-elections are used to replace a member in the House of Representatives, not the Senate.

Never trust anything a government wants to do - it is invariably to favour them or their personal mates - and the 'side' of politics makes no difference.

It is almost always never to do good for the majority population, as their position requires them to do.... they don't see their position as service to the nation and people - they see it as control over that nation and its people to suit themselves and their party and ensure they are overfed forever.

Voluntary preferential voting is good - I would expect most to say No Preference From MY Vote - if they don't they are so dumb I give up on them...

I vote for Independents these days and I don't want my vote to end up with anyone that I oppose - and I oppose all parties these days for reasons both personal and of principle.

Betray me once - fool me.
Betray me twice - far greater fool you.

"Optional preferential voting would mean that votes would be counted as long as there was a single ‘1’, even if there were no further preferences. Voters would still be able to mark preferences, but they would not be necessary for their vote to count. OPV is used to elect the New South Wales lower house, and has been used until recently in Queensland and the Northern Territory.

There are principled arguments in favour of OPV, but you can’t look past the political self-interest that motivates the Liberals to propose this change.

Under OPV, preferences are less likely to flow, and this tends to favour the candidate who is leading on primary votes. It’s harder to overtake a leading candidate when some preferences exhaust, and reduce the pool of preferences.

Labor tends to do better under CPV, primarily because of Greens preferences. Most Greens preferences flow to Labor when they are required to mark preferences, but a lot of Greens voters instead choose to exhaust when that’s an option.

Antony Green also points out that, in the South Australian context, compulsory preferences have helped independents win seats off the Liberals, usually with the benefit of Labor preferences. Of the 26 contests in South Australia since 1982 where a candidate trailing on primary votes went on to win, 14 were won by Labor, 11 were won by independents or minor parties, and just one was won by the Liberal Party. A number of those independents went on to support minority Labor governments after the 2002 and 2014 elections."