-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
If it’s a senior Lib MP, then I doubt that the “media” will spend too much time on it.
Instead : “Albo didn’t know the unemployment rate three weeks ago!”
Not sure ol' Rupert has the ability to shift things like he once did. Sure there will always be those with the blinkers on but many people see through the manipulation now.
And Scomo's gaffe highlighted how much respect the press pack get. Zilch.
"HEY look the boss doesn't even know our names" doesn't make a story you want to write
I have a friend who is a psychologist specialising in trauma who has worked all over the world with MSF. Believe me she has seen it all. She did a 6 month stint out there a couple of years ago and is still getting over it. I think the fact that it was us doing it made it far harder to handle. I haven't spoken to her too much about the details but I reckon it's worse than any of us can imagine. She's cooked-and she has worked in Sudan, Gaza and Iraq just to name a few places-mainly focusing on torture survivors.
Interesting one Liberal leader gets it while the other doesn’t.
Morrison will be voted out based not establishing a corruption body.
While Guy’s best chance to become leader is for Morrison to be voted out and having the focus put on Government’s across the boards corruption.
www.abc.net.au
Morrison will be voted out based not establishing a corruption body.
While Guy’s best chance to become leader is for Morrison to be voted out and having the focus put on Government’s across the boards corruption.
Victorian state opposition unveils election promise for 'strong' IBAC and Ombudsman
Opposition Leader Matthew Guy says under the pledge, the Coalition will pump an extra $10 million into IBAC's budget per year and increase the Victorian Ombudsman's funding by $2 million per year.
www.abc.net.au
Astounding.
They need a shake up and . . . I'm going to make them do that by, voting them back in. Shoe size IQ.
Can't remember where I saw it but I saw an interview with some stall holder at a market in Brisbane. They were asked what their main concerns were and answered environment, climate change. Then, when asked who they were going to vote for, they said they would vote Liberal. WTF? I do despair.
Not sure how the government can spin the interest rate rise. They spent the whole first week claiming credit for the unemployment rate, and the following weeks claiming the inflation rate and interest rates have nothing to do with them. This from the mob who keep saying interest rates are lower under the coalition. To be honest the government has limited control over a lot of this - unemployment is down mainly because of a lack of immigration, inflation is up everywhere and interest rates were always going only one way from the 0.1% cash rate. Still, if you want to claim credit when things go well . . .
DS
I've mentioned a couple of times over the years that a good way to keep the bastards honest would be to vote independent. I have never seriously considered it, and I'm not going to this time, but I can see a time when I will.
Fred Chaney makes a good case for it, especially for disenfranchised Liberal voters.
www.abc.net.au
Fred Chaney makes a good case for it, especially for disenfranchised Liberal voters.
Liberal veteran accuses the Government of losing their way - ABC listen
Former Deputy Liberal Leader Fred Chaney has lashed out at Liberal moderates for failing to stand up to their Government over issues such as the robodebt scandal and climate change. He says modern politics is a dreadful and cruel business and will only change with the election of centrist...
www.abc.net.au
A ‘cancer on our democracy’: How to fix Australia’s pork-barrelling crisis
How galling it is to watch politicians merrily traipsing around the country maxing out the national credit card as Australian families are battening down the hatches on their household budgets.
I've mentioned a couple of times over the years that a good way to keep the bastards honest would be to vote independent. I have never seriously considered it, and I'm not going to this time, but I can see a time when I will.
Fred Chaney makes a good case for it, especially for disenfranchised Liberal voters.
Liberal veteran accuses the Government of losing their way - ABC listen
Former Deputy Liberal Leader Fred Chaney has lashed out at Liberal moderates for failing to stand up to their Government over issues such as the robodebt scandal and climate change. He says modern politics is a dreadful and cruel business and will only change with the election of centrist...
yeah this is not the election to vote independent. (ive voted green and independent before)
the best way to kick out Morrison and his corrupt cabinet,
is vote Labor.
keep it simple and narrow the margin for error
tell anyone who will listen
If you hate LNP, want them out, and maybe held accountable for 10 years of corruption,
Vote Labor.
the independents are a minefield of preferences and lower house support. enough of them could keep LNP in Govt.
Vote Labor in both houses, 1/1
and worry about keeping the bastards honest in 2025/6
shout it at dinner parties, the footy, cafes, at work.
the best way to send LNP into irrelevance,
is to vote for Labor.
im hearing lots of smart people say 'they're all the same, im sick of the major parties, im going to vote independent etc etc'
I scream 'don't - if you want LNP out, vote Labor'
Last edited:
I have to say, the voting advice above is not correct.
What happens if you vote independent on May 21?
Ok, there are effectively 2 situations:
1: You vote independent in a safe seat where there is an independent candidate who has a chance of victory (eg: Kooyong, Goldstein etc)
So you vote independent in one of these seats, there are a few outcomes:
Possibly the best way to illustrate this is with 2 examples:
We have an electorate with 3 candidates, here are 2 ways it could work out:
Scenario 1
ALP - 2100 votes
LNP - 2900 votes
Ind - 1000 votes
So, a total of 6,000 votes and no-one has 3001 votes so no winner. The independent drops out and their preferences are allocated. Now, if the second choice of the people who voted for the independent went mainly to the ALP (901 or more of the preferences) then the ALP candidate is elected. But, if 101 or more of the people who voted independent preference the LNP then they win. As you can see it really depends how far behind the ALP was when the independent dropped out and how the voters who voted for the independent allocated their preferences.
Scenario 2
ALP - 1500
LNP - 2500
Ind - 2000
What you will notice here is that I made it closer - the second ranked candidate is only 500 behind the LNP and the LNP need 501 preferences to get in. In this scenario, since no candidate received 3001 votes the preferences of the lowest ranked candidate are allocated. So, ALP preferences are allocated. If the independent gains 1001 or more of the ALP preferences they win, if the LNP gain 501 or more of the ALP preferences they win.
So, with preferential voting you are not wasting a vote when you vote for a candidate who is no chance of winning, or a candidate who receives very few votes. The reason for this is that your vote goes through as a preference at full value.
Now, if you are in a safe LNP seat with a competitive independent you likely have more chance that the independent will be elected than the ALP. For example, I live in Goldstein. Unless the independent can get votes from those who normally vote LNP then she is no chance. Plus, if the independent drops out before the ALP then it is highly unlikely that those who normally vote LNP, but this time voted independent, will give their preferences to the ALP - they will most likely preference the LNP. In my seat voting ALP first and independent second is helping the LNP get back in.
In a seat such as Goldstein or Kooyong you should vote strategically (it's good statecraft
), because it is critical that, when the count gets down to 3 candidates, that the independent is ahead of the ALP since the ALP are absolutely no chance of winning.
2: You vote independent in an electorate where the independent is no chance, even if the seat is marginal and both major parties are a chance of winning:
Ok, so you vote independent, and here it really is much simpler, and irrelevant as to whether the seat is marginal or safe.
If you vote independent, and your candidate is knocked out, and the last 2 candidates competing for the seat are the 2 major parties, your preference (ie: the major party candidate you place a lower number next to and it can be that you placed a 7 next to the ALP and an 8 next to the LNP, doesn't matter how high the numbers are) will be allocated at full value, as 1 full vote, to the major party you preferenced first.
I have been a poll clerk at elections, I have counted votes, I fully understand preferential voting. Normally the advice is to just vote according to your preference, if you favour the ALP ahead of the independent then put them higher in your preferences. This is sound advice. But with the prospect of independents who could win in safe seats (this applies to both ALP and LNP safe seats) and especially where one major party is running dead (eg: the ALP in the Teal Independent seats, I have seen nothing from the ALP and have no idea who their candidate is) then voting for the independent first means more chance that the major party candidate from the party which would normally win the seat will lose.
Just don't ask me about the Senate (Proportional Representation with a multi-member electorate), I understand how that works very well, but it is incredibly complex and votes do go through as partial votes. Always remember though, votes only go through as partial votes if your vote had a successful candidate higher in the preferences. So, if you vote ALP and they get 2 senators from their votes, but the number of people who voted for the ALP added up to 2.5 quotas (a quota is the number of votes required to elect a candidate - so in the Senate where we vote for 6 Senators it is the number of votes divided by six plus 1 - in an electorate with 1.2m votes that is 200,001 votes). Now if the ALP got 2.5 quotas, they have used 80% of their votes getting the first 2 senators elected so all the preferences go through at 20% value. If you voted for a candidate who is not elected it goes through at 100% value as none of that vote was used to elect a candidate. You want to count these bloody things!
DS
What happens if you vote independent on May 21?
Ok, there are effectively 2 situations:
1: You vote independent in a safe seat where there is an independent candidate who has a chance of victory (eg: Kooyong, Goldstein etc)
So you vote independent in one of these seats, there are a few outcomes:
- The incumbent standing for the major party gains 50% of the primary vote - there are no preference flows but your vote did try and get the independent in.
- The incumbent standing for the major party gains less than 50% of the primary vote but your independent does badly and is no chance of winning - your vote goes to preferences so, if for example, you voted independent (LNP safe seat) and gave a higher preference to the ALP then the ALP gets your preference vote and it counts as a full vote. Let me make this very very plain - your vote counts as if you gave your first preference to the ALP, it is not diluted or devalued in any way.
- The incumbent does not do well and they are relying on preferences to get back in - so you voted independent and the independent is one of the last 2 candidates standing at the count (the other major party got less votes than the independent after earlier preferences are allocated, so their preferences are allocated). The winner is the candidate with 50%+1 votes or the candidate with the highest number of votes, since the independent you voted for survived to the last 2 candidates your preferences are not allocated.
Possibly the best way to illustrate this is with 2 examples:
We have an electorate with 3 candidates, here are 2 ways it could work out:
Scenario 1
ALP - 2100 votes
LNP - 2900 votes
Ind - 1000 votes
So, a total of 6,000 votes and no-one has 3001 votes so no winner. The independent drops out and their preferences are allocated. Now, if the second choice of the people who voted for the independent went mainly to the ALP (901 or more of the preferences) then the ALP candidate is elected. But, if 101 or more of the people who voted independent preference the LNP then they win. As you can see it really depends how far behind the ALP was when the independent dropped out and how the voters who voted for the independent allocated their preferences.
Scenario 2
ALP - 1500
LNP - 2500
Ind - 2000
What you will notice here is that I made it closer - the second ranked candidate is only 500 behind the LNP and the LNP need 501 preferences to get in. In this scenario, since no candidate received 3001 votes the preferences of the lowest ranked candidate are allocated. So, ALP preferences are allocated. If the independent gains 1001 or more of the ALP preferences they win, if the LNP gain 501 or more of the ALP preferences they win.
So, with preferential voting you are not wasting a vote when you vote for a candidate who is no chance of winning, or a candidate who receives very few votes. The reason for this is that your vote goes through as a preference at full value.
Now, if you are in a safe LNP seat with a competitive independent you likely have more chance that the independent will be elected than the ALP. For example, I live in Goldstein. Unless the independent can get votes from those who normally vote LNP then she is no chance. Plus, if the independent drops out before the ALP then it is highly unlikely that those who normally vote LNP, but this time voted independent, will give their preferences to the ALP - they will most likely preference the LNP. In my seat voting ALP first and independent second is helping the LNP get back in.
In a seat such as Goldstein or Kooyong you should vote strategically (it's good statecraft
), because it is critical that, when the count gets down to 3 candidates, that the independent is ahead of the ALP since the ALP are absolutely no chance of winning.2: You vote independent in an electorate where the independent is no chance, even if the seat is marginal and both major parties are a chance of winning:
Ok, so you vote independent, and here it really is much simpler, and irrelevant as to whether the seat is marginal or safe.
If you vote independent, and your candidate is knocked out, and the last 2 candidates competing for the seat are the 2 major parties, your preference (ie: the major party candidate you place a lower number next to and it can be that you placed a 7 next to the ALP and an 8 next to the LNP, doesn't matter how high the numbers are) will be allocated at full value, as 1 full vote, to the major party you preferenced first.
I have been a poll clerk at elections, I have counted votes, I fully understand preferential voting. Normally the advice is to just vote according to your preference, if you favour the ALP ahead of the independent then put them higher in your preferences. This is sound advice. But with the prospect of independents who could win in safe seats (this applies to both ALP and LNP safe seats) and especially where one major party is running dead (eg: the ALP in the Teal Independent seats, I have seen nothing from the ALP and have no idea who their candidate is) then voting for the independent first means more chance that the major party candidate from the party which would normally win the seat will lose.
Just don't ask me about the Senate (Proportional Representation with a multi-member electorate), I understand how that works very well, but it is incredibly complex and votes do go through as partial votes. Always remember though, votes only go through as partial votes if your vote had a successful candidate higher in the preferences. So, if you vote ALP and they get 2 senators from their votes, but the number of people who voted for the ALP added up to 2.5 quotas (a quota is the number of votes required to elect a candidate - so in the Senate where we vote for 6 Senators it is the number of votes divided by six plus 1 - in an electorate with 1.2m votes that is 200,001 votes). Now if the ALP got 2.5 quotas, they have used 80% of their votes getting the first 2 senators elected so all the preferences go through at 20% value. If you voted for a candidate who is not elected it goes through at 100% value as none of that vote was used to elect a candidate. You want to count these bloody things!
DS
And it's out..... Implicated in the Trudge 500k payout affair where it was mentioned the 500k wasn't *just* because of Tudge. A name has dropped as to who the other minister is.
There's a bit of Schadenfreude about the name...
