Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Christian Democratic Party are no where near as big as Greens and received some 1,200,000 less votes than the Greens at the Federal election. There preferences had no impact on the outcome on any of the seats the Liberal Party won at the election.

In contrast to the Greens, who helped Labor regain around about 10 marginal seats.
 
The point is that the parties on the left will ordinarily support each other, just as the Coalition and Christian Dems will look after each other.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
 
I mean ordinarily as in they look after each other, although a CDP candidate could support Labor if they want to or vice versa with Greens/Coalition.

In any case, both sides of the political spectrum engage in it, which is why there is a real need for a Democrats MKII.
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
 
Sorry to change subjects ladies and gentleman . But am really pissed off with the way the government is handling the live export to Indoenesia . Wouldn't the idea be to take control of the whole situation and do it ourselves in Indoenesia . Not bright Julia :crazy
 
You mentioned that the CDP picked up only 1.2mil votes at the federal election. Do you know what percentage were in NSW alone? I didn't think they have such a large exposure outside this state…
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
 
@Cultured Bogan said:
You mentioned that the CDP picked up only 1.2mil votes at the federal election. Do you know what percentage were in NSW alone? I didn't think they have such a large exposure outside this state…
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED
Click to expand...

No, I said the CDP received 1.2 million LESS than the Greens.

The CDP only received 80,000 NATION WIDE in the Lower House.
 
@citizen cub said:
http://greens.org.au/howtovote

Here's the link to all the Greens HTV cards in every state at last year's federal election. BTW, they DON'T ONCE ever have the Liberal Party in front of the Labor party on preference order, which exposes your errant lie "the greens don't always preference Labor" :roll HA HA! Almost fell off my chair when I heard that one!.

The alliance is now as strong as ever considering that Melbourne Green Adam Bandt is now sitting on Labor's side of the parliament. The Greens have always favoured Labor and always will, they hold very similar views to Labor on political issues, you can't deny this.
Click to expand...

As per usual you totally misunderstand what is going on. Now pay attention - you will notice in many seats (Warringah, Riverina, Throsby, and others) that the HTV says "number all the other candidates in the order of your choice". See that's not preferencing Labor. I never said they preference the Liberals ahead of the ALP, I said they don't always preference Labor which your own post demonstrates. Take another look if you don't believe me - Cook,Blaxland, Newcastle - there are a lot of them.

Brandt sits with Labor? Well why wouldn't he? In a normal parliament he wouldn't but he has to make a choice. You don't see Jamie Parker sitting with the ALP. But Abbott would have had Katter sitting with his government if it meant getting over the line. Hold similar views on political views? That's a broad statement. On some things they agree, on a lot of things the ALP position is closer to the Green's view than the Coalition position. That's not a big surprise and you could say the same thing about Family First with the Coalition.
 
@citizen cub said:
Yossarian, the fact is Cooper received more votes than any other member or candidate in the seat meaning he has more support than Murphy. More people want him to represent the constituency than Murphy. BTW, I never mentioned anything about a majority!

How ILLITERATE are you? He receives more votes than any other member/candidate, means he has MORE support than the other member/candidates. It's not that hard to comprehend. Yes, and if their wasn't the Greens and their preferences going to Labor, I'm sure you'd be changing your view on preferential voting quickly as well.
Click to expand...

So you want a more democratic system but you're not interested in who has a majority of votes? No I wouldn't change my mind at all if the ALP benefited as they once did when the Nationals were a real party. I believe in preferential voting as a psephologist.

Illiterate? Sure if you think so. Doesn't take away from the fact that a majority of the electorate DIDN'T vote for the Liberal. If most of the electorate preferred Cooper to Murphy he would have won. Pretty simple. If the ALP took 40% against a Liberal and National getting 30% it would be crazy for Labor to win the seat but under FPTP they would. If you really think that sort of system is more democratic than ITV/Preferential voting there's not much more to say. Preferential voting stops the splitting of like minded voters, encourages pluralism, is more reflective of the electorate's true wishes, and stops spoiler candidates. It is a vastly more democratic system.
 
@Yossarian said:
@citizen cub said:
Yossarian, the fact is Cooper received more votes than any other member or candidate in the seat meaning he has more support than Murphy. More people want him to represent the constituency than Murphy. BTW, I never mentioned anything about a majority!

How ILLITERATE are you? He receives more votes than any other member/candidate, means he has MORE support than the other member/candidates. It's not that hard to comprehend. Yes, and if their wasn't the Greens and their preferences going to Labor, I'm sure you'd be changing your view on preferential voting quickly as well.

So you want a more democratic system but you're not interested in who has a majority of votes? No I wouldn't change my mind at all if the ALP benefited as they once did when the Nationals were a real party. I believe in preferential voting as a psephologist.

Illiterate? Sure if you think so. Doesn't take away from the fact that a majority of the electorate DIDN'T vote for the Liberal. If most of the electorate preferred Cooper to Murphy he would have won. Pretty simple. If the ALP took 40% against a Liberal and National getting 30% it would be crazy for Labor to win the seat but under FPTP they would. If you really think that sort of system is more democratic than ITV/Preferential voting there's not much more to say. Preferential voting stops the splitting of like minded voters, encourages pluralism, is more reflective of the electorate's true wishes, and stops spoiler candidates. It is a vastly more democratic system.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

CB, even though I like you as a Liberal man, Yoss is right. Preferential voting is the best way to go. It's just a shame that half of the population don't understand the system or read the paper. I know that a lot of people would have though that voting for their green candidate was trying to send a message to both parties and didn't understand that it was a vote for Labor.

It's usually not so bad because we won't always have such a major 3rd party. But I think Abbotts repetition of the issue should finally get it through to voters who they are actually voting for.

To be honest, it was a time that the GG should have used her power and called a new election. Using $10 Billion of tax payers money in shady backroom deals to form government, no matter who got across the line, is just disgraceful.

It's a shame that the GG's son in law is a Labor power broker otherwise an impartial person might have made the right call.
 
Fair enough HT, good response. Okay here's a solution, parties should not be allowed to cut preference deals and parties should not hand be allowed to hand out HTV cards indicating who the voter should give their preferences to.

If this was in place, I'm sure you'd find people voting for smaller parties like the Greens, preference both Labor and Liberal and Labor wouldn't be assisted in key seats i.e. Reid. If this was in place, I'd have less of an issue with preferential voting.
 
People don't have to take the HTVs - many don't. A lot of people actually want to know how the party they support would like their voters to allocate preferences. It's not like all you see if the HTV faithfully carried out - as someone who has scrutineered many times you see all sorts of voting.

I just don't think you can prevent people getting information many of them want to get.
 
Many do as take HTVs as well. I just don't think they are really required, as long as you put '1' next to your chosen party, that's all that matters.
 
Some more disgusting waste from the Labor party!! If they want to create Labor party promotional ads, they should use their own funds. Not the taxpayers! God it makes me angry.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/advertisements-worth-550000-used-to-sell-nbn/story-e6freuzr-1226075256378
 
@hammertime said:
Some more disgusting waste from the Labor party!! If they want to create Labor party promotional ads, they should use their own funds. Not the taxpayers! God it makes me angry.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/advertisements-worth-550000-used-to-sell-nbn/story-e6freuzr-1226075256378
Click to expand...

Yawn… seriously start a blog or something mate. You're starting to sound like Piers Ackerman. We're not even discussion legitimate issues, it's just an anti-ALP rant every few days. I'll look forward to your damnation of Barry O'Farrell when he runs an advertising campaign.

Anyway, for the all time champion in political advertising there is only one winner...

Howard's $2 billion ad splurge

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howards-2bn-splurge/2007/09/01/1188067438538.html

http://www.finance.gov.au/advertising/docs/Half_year_report_2010.pdf
 
hahaha, come on. At least find something comparable Yoss!

That is a total spend on information campaigns!

You are comparing years of necessary informational based advertising to an ad that is pure fluff and only promotional advertising for the labor party. All this when we are in tight economic conditions.
 
@hammertime said:
hahaha, come on. At least find something comparable Yoss!

That is a total spend on information campaigns!

You are comparing years of necessary informational based advertising to an ad that is pure fluff and only promotional advertising for the labor party. All this when we are in tight economic conditions.
Click to expand...

Don't believe me? Let's ask Tony Abbott…

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opposition-leader-admits-howard-overdid-it-on-advertising/story-fn59niix-1226021389472
 
@Yossarian said:
@hammertime said:
hahaha, come on. At least find something comparable Yoss!

That is a total spend on information campaigns!

You are comparing years of necessary informational based advertising to an ad that is pure fluff and only promotional advertising for the labor party. All this when we are in tight economic conditions.

Don't believe me? Let's ask Tony Abbott…

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opposition-leader-admits-howard-overdid-it-on-advertising/story-fn59niix-1226021389472
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

middle stump yoss.
do howards figures include the 180 mill of taxpayers money spent advertising workchoices or the cost of the farcical us/pacific leaders forum that closed down sydney. anyway yoss dont you know that the libs are the only party that dont waste taxpayers money, but lets not mention the 10 billion hole in their promises last election
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 639 (members: 48, guests: 591)
Back
Top