The Daily Wire: Optional Preferential Voting - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Optional Preferential Voting

#1 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:24 AM

Bronwyn Bishop has called for an end to compulsory preferential voting for Federal elections.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#2 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:27 AM

View PostBam, on 10 January 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:


Bronwyn making the call automatically rings the alarm bells
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#3 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:33 AM

I don't see the need to change the voting for the House of Representatives, but I think it might be a very useful change for Senate above-the-line voting.

At present, the Senate above-the-line vote is a single number 1 placed in the box above the line. All the votes are then allocated according to the preferences on the party tickets that are lodged by that party with the AEC.

I think it would work better if Senate voting had optional preferential voting above the line. Here's my idea for how it would work. The voter votes above the line filling as many boxes with consecutive numbers as they want. The default votes would be allocated according to the choice of party in the "1" box, but the other preferences above the line override the preferences on the party tickets.

The only other change that would be needed would be requiring all candidates to lodge party tickets, so there are no longer ungrouped candidates on the Senate ballot paper.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#4 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 10 January 2013 - 10:43 AM

View PostBam, on 10 January 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I don't see the need to change the voting for the House of Representatives, but I think it might be a very useful change for Senate above-the-line voting.

At present, the Senate above-the-line vote is a single number 1 placed in the box above the line. All the votes are then allocated according to the preferences on the party tickets that are lodged by that party with the AEC.

I think it would work better if Senate voting had optional preferential voting above the line. Here's my idea for how it would work. The voter votes above the line filling as many boxes with consecutive numbers as they want. The default votes would be allocated according to the choice of party in the "1" box, but the other preferences above the line override the preferences on the party tickets.

The only other change that would be needed would be requiring all candidates to lodge party tickets, so there are no longer ungrouped candidates on the Senate ballot paper.

I'd do away with party allocation of votes and bring it back to what it was, but require only 5 boxes to be numbered for a valid vote.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#5 User is offline   RightSaidFred 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 29-December 12

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:21 PM

View PostBam, on 10 January 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I don't see the need to change the voting for the House of Representatives, but I think it might be a very useful change for Senate above-the-line voting.

At present, the Senate above-the-line vote is a single number 1 placed in the box above the line. All the votes are then allocated according to the preferences on the party tickets that are lodged by that party with the AEC.

I think it would work better if Senate voting had optional preferential voting above the line. Here's my idea for how it would work. The voter votes above the line filling as many boxes with consecutive numbers as they want. The default votes would be allocated according to the choice of party in the "1" box, but the other preferences above the line override the preferences on the party tickets.

The only other change that would be needed would be requiring all candidates to lodge party tickets, so there are no longer ungrouped candidates on the Senate ballot paper.


I prefer they abolish the senate as all parties have abused the real purpose of the senate, its to give equal representation for all states, can you recall when all the senators voted on a state basis ? Very very few have ever done that especially when they are part of a political party.

I still don't see what all the fuss is about, I know its hard for lazy people, especially those on welfare who seem less inclined to vote if its non-compulsory .... but we are not asking for you to ride a uni-cycle juggle a chain saw, piano and a feral cat ....... its just asking you to walk down to a polling booth and get your named signed off.

One change I would like to make is ban party reps handing out how to vote crap at a polling booths or 100m near one.

I actually knocked one over who stepped in front of me, I am an ex rugby player, when someone gets in front of you, you can side step them, swerve and deflect them or do what I prefer.... go through them. I did not even know what party he was from. Who the fuck needs instruction on how to vote ..... especially in a particular way ? If your that dumb then you should not vote.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#6 User is offline   RightSaidFred 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 29-December 12

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:26 PM

View PostRoderick, on 10 January 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

I'd do away with party allocation of votes and bring it back to what it was, but require only 5 boxes to be numbered for a valid vote.


The preferential system (as opposed to first past the post) is a convenience, but I think they should only accept two preferences your first and second ...... if they can't get a 50+% after that then they should have a re-election for that electorate with only the number 1 and 2 candidates, that will be first past the post.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#7 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:53 PM

View PostRightSaidFred, on 10 January 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

I prefer they abolish the senate as all parties have abused the real purpose of the senate, its to give equal representation for all states, can you recall when all the senators voted on a state basis ? Very very few have ever done that especially when they are part of a political party.

Won't happen. 8 out of 44 is a poor record for referenda, and the chances of smaller states giving up their influence is nonexistent.

Quote

I still don't see what all the fuss is about, I know its hard for lazy people, especially those on welfare who seem less inclined to vote if its non-compulsory ....

I see that you couldn't help yourself.

Quote

but we are not asking for you to ride a uni-cycle juggle a chain saw, piano and a feral cat ....... its just asking you to walk down to a polling booth and get your named signed off.

More than that, it's casting a vote as well. Maybe people want to have their say by voting on the order of the parties themselves but not having to number every box in a ballot paper the size of a tablecloth.

Quote

One change I would like to make is ban party reps handing out how to vote crap at a polling booths or 100m near one.

By law there's a minimum distance to the entrance of the polling place that they cannot enter to canvass for votes. I think that distance is 10 metres. Anyone who is closer than that can be removed.

Quote

I actually knocked one over who stepped in front of me, I am an ex rugby player, when someone gets in front of you, you can side step them, swerve and deflect them or do what I prefer.... go through them. I did not even know what party he was from.

I hope your personal liability insurance is well paid up. A better approach is to mention any transgression to the officers manning the booth, they will keep the more egregious behaviours in check.

Quote

Who the fuck needs instruction on how to vote ..... especially in a particular way ? If your that dumb then you should not vote.

I just take one of all the HTV cards, even the ones that are nothing more than a pile of papers weighted down with a house brick. It's a secret ballot, so I see no point in revealing my voting intentions by being selective with the HTV cards that I receive. Though it doesn't hurt to flirt with any attractive, young and buxom Sex Party women. :)
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#8 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 10 January 2013 - 02:56 PM

View PostBam, on 10 January 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

I just take one of all the HTV cards, even the ones that are nothing more than a pile of papers weighted down with a house brick. It's a secret ballot, so I see no point in revealing my voting intentions by being selective with the HTV cards that I receive. Though it doesn't hurt to flirt with any attractive, young and buxom Sex Party women. :)

I'm definitely with you on the Sex Party. :emot-love:
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#9 User is offline   GoddyofAus 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 17-December 12
  • LocationQueensland

Posted 10 January 2013 - 08:15 PM

View Postscotto, on 10 January 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

I'm definitely with you on the Sex Party. :emot-love:


Not just their women either. Their policies are perfectly sensible.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#10 User is offline   RightSaidFred 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 29-December 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:03 AM

View PostRoderick, on 10 January 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

Bronwyn making the call automatically rings the alarm bells


Actually the liberal party is far more inclusive of opinions than the ALP which tends to have a factional abuse system.

So an MP has an opinion whoo hoo !
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#11 User is offline   RightSaidFred 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 138
  • Joined: 29-December 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 06:20 AM

View PostBam, on 10 January 2013 - 02:53 PM, said:

Won't happen. 8 out of 44 is a poor record for referenda, and the chances of smaller states giving up their influence is nonexistent.


I see that you couldn't help yourself.

More than that, it's casting a vote as well. Maybe people want to have their say by voting on the order of the parties themselves but not having to number every box in a ballot paper the size of a tablecloth.


By law there's a minimum distance to the entrance of the polling place that they cannot enter to canvass for votes. I think that distance is 10 metres. Anyone who is closer than that can be removed.


I hope your personal liability insurance is well paid up. A better approach is to mention any transgression to the officers manning the booth, they will keep the more egregious behaviours in check.


I just take one of all the HTV cards, even the ones that are nothing more than a pile of papers weighted down with a house brick. It's a secret ballot, so I see no point in revealing my voting intentions by being selective with the HTV cards that I receive. Though it doesn't hurt to flirt with any attractive, young and buxom Sex Party women. :)


Bam

So why is it that lower income people and people on welfare who are more likely to vote ALP but less likely to vote if it was voluntary ? instead of being a snippy little troll, you could address why your kind finds voting so hard.

In years past they have even proven the libs do better at elections when it rains, not sure if its still true, back then the theory was that lower income people often did not have a car ....... I guess you would get wet in the Vespa so you would miss out on voting and the Latte if it rains.

I find it amusing the ALP oppose changing something from compulsory to voluntary and the libs the opposite ..... based on the rabid ideological based comments you think it would be the other way round.

You could be right, they seem to camp near the entrance so they must just be banned from the designated property at least. I don't mind knocking them over, especially the weedy grennies who don't eat meat, you hardly notice those ones.

You don't understand the law at all, if someone steps in front of you I could sue them .... they need the liability. I don't run around looking for people to knock over, that is your inaccurate assumption, do you practise this all the time ? The run around looking for people to step in front of. They want to ban smokers from the entrance to buildings this would be a similar law.

So how many polling booth chicks have you nailed with this strategy ?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#12 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:57 AM

View PostRightSaidFred, on 11 January 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

So why is it that lower income people and people on welfare who are more likely to vote ALP but less likely to vote if it was voluntary ? instead of being a snippy little troll, you could address why your kind finds voting so hard.

I reject the assumption in the question, I reject your personal smear and I reject your psychological projection.

Quote

In years past they have even proven the libs do better at elections when it rains, not sure if its still true, back then the theory was that lower income people often did not have a car ....... I guess you would get wet in the Vespa so you would miss out on voting and the Latte if it rains.

An interesting analysis if it actually exists, but you would do better by letting us see it for ourselves rather than assuming that we will accept your word for it.

Quote

You could be right, they seem to camp near the entrance so they must just be banned from the designated property at least. I don't mind knocking them over, especially the weedy grennies who don't eat meat, you hardly notice those ones.

Instead of resorting to physical violence to make your point, you would do better to mention the behaviour to the AEC officers at the polling place. They have the power to take action anyone that is breaking the rules.

Quote

You don't understand the law at all, if someone steps in front of you I could sue them .... they need the liability.

Any such case could well go either way, but given that someone knocking someone over is far less likely to be injured than someone who falls to the ground, the amounts of any hypothetical payout would be greater for the person suffering the injury. We are both making assumptions here over what is essentially a hypothetical situation. Different cases would have different circumstances and different outcomes.

Quote

I don't run around looking for people to knock over, that is your inaccurate assumption, do you practise this all the time ? The run around looking for people to step in front of. They want to ban smokers from the entrance to buildings this would be a similar law.

I never said you did.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#13 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:01 PM

View PostRightSaidFred, on 11 January 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

Actually the liberal party is far more inclusive of opinions than the ALP which tends to have a factional abuse system.

So an MP has an opinion whoo hoo !

Given the numerous occasions in which backbenchers speak out against established policy in the ALP as well, I doubt this is true. It may happen for the minor parties too but their pronouncements tend to get less coverage in the media.

Both sides of politics will sometimes use backbenchers or minor officials as a stalking horse to put forth an opinion or policy proposal for discussion, and if the proposal is seen as favourable the leaders may then come out in support for the proposal. Once you know what's going on it can be quite interesting to watch.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#14 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:06 PM

View PostGoddyofAus, on 10 January 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

Not just their women either. Their policies are perfectly sensible.

Not a lot wrong with what they say, I agree.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#15 User is offline   NotFrogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:23 PM

View Postscotto, on 10 January 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

I'm definitely with you on the Sex Party. :emot-love:

Heard it got taken over by whack job libertarians and that its a front for the industry, and has no real interest in the individual workers, but im having a problem tracking down anything concrete to base this on.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#16 User is offline   GoddyofAus 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 17-December 12
  • LocationQueensland

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:15 AM

View PostNotFrogman, on 11 January 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Heard it got taken over by whack job libertarians and that its a front for the industry, and has no real interest in the individual workers, but im having a problem tracking down anything concrete to base this on.


I doubt it was ever just a political mouthpiece for the sex industry. It was always overtly Libertarian. That's what their appeal is. No more of this "our way or the highway" bullshit on social issues from the 2 major parties.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#17 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:12 AM

View PostNotFrogman, on 11 January 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

Heard it got taken over by whack job libertarians and that its a front for the industry, and has no real interest in the individual workers, but im having a problem tracking down anything concrete to base this on.

I think this is the propaganda put out by the major parties and various other cranks who are afraid of sex.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#18 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:14 AM

Antony Green has published an analysis on his blog which suggests that the adoption of optional preferential voting for State elections in Victoria is likely to favour the Coalition quite heavily. He asks the question: Would Optional Preferential Voting have Changed the 2010 Victorian Election result?

Quote

As with the Federal Liberal Party, the Victorian Liberal Party is arguing from a principled position in supporting optional preferential voting. But it is also a principled position that aligns nicely with party self-interest.

He shows that in ten electorates where preferences changed the result, the preferences flowed to the ALP in a ratio of roughly 70 to 30, giving the ALP all ten seats.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#19 User is offline   GeorgeParsons 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:17 PM

Green is ,of course,correct. The Victorian Libs are in dire straits and will do anything to improve their position.They pretend that self-interest is community-interest.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#20 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:34 PM

View PostGeorgeParsons, on 15 January 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

Green is ,of course,correct. The Victorian Libs are in dire straits and will do anything to improve their position.They pretend that self-interest is community-interest.


What about the ALP?
See what former ALP MP Gary Johns wrote about this today in a piece entitled "Labor has a bet each way on optional preferential voting"

Quote

The proposal by some Liberals to incorporate optional preferential voting at federal elections mimics that of the Labor Party in NSW and Queensland. Several elections ago those parties in government introduced optional preferential voting purely for their electoral advantage.


http://www.theaustra...k-1226553881817
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


Fast Reply