Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greenpeace Founder: ‘Climate Change Crisis’ Is a ‘Completely Made-Up Issue’

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OCD
    replied
    Originally posted by warthog View Post
    ...I don't mind if others vote. I resent be compelled to and wont accede to that demand myself...
    As much as I admire independent thinkers, your stance does explain why the 'powers that were' thought it necessary to bring in compulsory voting in the first place.

    Ps if you vote, you can at least bitch about the results with a clear conscience.

    Leave a comment:


  • warthog
    replied
    Originally posted by beensean View Post
    No condition was first stated, neither on recounts nor the House. There are three in Australia (occurring also in other countries), one Senate and two House (one State). After re-counts and disputes there were three repeats or by-elections. There are also another four with margins from 5-9 votes. Any number that low will lead to recounts and likely disputes so it is fairly pointless to say it was not "decided" by a particular vote among the thousands.

    If one elector chooses irrelevance, why would there be no others? In which case a vote becomes more powerful. Through avoidance, incompetence, or deliberation, about 10% do not effectively vote anyway.


    and putting one piece of paper in a bin guarantees you will not clean up Australia all by yourself; the same for any individual action not critical alone, but necessary for completeness.

    There is no emotive argument to make. I merely noted that not voting guarantees voting irrelevance. If you are a keen campaigner, terrific (maybe ). The question was voting, not lobbying.
    Originally posted by warthog View Post
    At the risk of opening up more controversy. I'm not enrolled.
    There has been no seat of government at any level in Aus that has been decided by 1 vote.
    Therefore it is inconsequential.
    The data says so.
    Again, show me the election results decided by one vote.

    I stand by that. I have not seen data to counter it.

    I don't mind if others vote. I resent be compelled to and wont accede to that demand myself.
    It has no bearing on what others do.

    There are more decisive actions to take, or at least a better chance than none, but it takes more effort.

    No emotive arguments here, I am going off the objective data.

    Anyway I've had the discussion before and my wife steadfastly holds the counter position.

    If you don't want to vote the simple process is not to enroll to start with, or don't re-enroll when you move to another electorate.
    Last edited by warthog; 5 May 2019, 10:21 AM. Reason: include original assertion

    Leave a comment:


  • beensean
    replied
    Originally posted by warthog View Post
    the subject of a recount.
    No condition was first stated, neither on recounts nor the House. There are three in Australia (occurring also in other countries), one Senate and two House (one State). After re-counts and disputes there were three repeats or by-elections. There are also another four with margins from 5-9 votes. Any number that low will lead to recounts and likely disputes so it is fairly pointless to say it was not "decided" by a particular vote among the thousands.

    If one elector chooses irrelevance, why would there be no others? In which case a vote becomes more powerful. Through avoidance, incompetence, or deliberation, about 10% do not effectively vote anyway.

    With respect to relevance. Just exercising one vote guarantees you wont determine the result for the reasons of margin.
    and putting one piece of paper in a bin guarantees you will not clean up Australia all by yourself; the same for any individual action not critical alone, but necessary for completeness.

    There is no emotive argument to make. I merely noted that not voting guarantees voting irrelevance. If you are a keen campaigner, terrific (maybe ). The question was voting, not lobbying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yelta
    replied
    Originally posted by Rocky View Post
    Along the same lines as the "I don't feel obligated to vote" concept, there is the issue of what you do when you lean towards Candidate X but towards Party Y.
    (which is where I often find myself)
    What do you do?
    I did the "Vote Compass" on the ABC website and found that the Party I should be voting for is not a Party I would vote for.
    It's fun, isn't it.
    Find myself in a similar position Rocky, there's a message there, it has a lot to do with age and attitude.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rocky
    replied
    Along the same lines as the "I don't feel obligated to vote" concept, there is the issue of what you do when you lean towards Candidate X but towards Party Y.
    (which is where I often find myself)
    What do you do?
    I did the "Vote Compass" on the ABC website and found that the Party I should be voting for is not a Party I would vote for.
    It's fun, isn't it.

    Leave a comment:


  • warthog
    replied
    Here is one

    Ives was elected on the casting vote of the Returning Officer, who cast her vote after drawing his name from a box. This was the first tied result in a Victorian election since 1894, and only the fourth in Victorian history. The Liberal Party took the election to the Court of Disputed Returns, which declared it void on the grounds that 44 votes had been incorrectly excluded from the count, and ordered a by-election. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countri...985council.txtThat didn't come up. So there you go it can happen. Exceedingly rare and the subject of a recount anyway

    Leave a comment:


  • warthog
    replied
    Originally posted by beensean View Post
    A brisk leap to Wikipedia shows at least three decided by one vote in Australia, many one-seat election results and other very close resuts. Not voting on grounds of irrelevance guarantees irrelevance.
    You will need to show me these references. As I said I have been through it on another forum. Multiple people searching. No confirmed seats in Australia decided by one vote.
    There was one in the 1920s I think, but was the subject of a recount.

    With respect to relevance. Just exercising one vote guarantees you wont determine the result for the reasons of margin.
    You need to influence a block of votes a la the US citizen Rupert Murdoch, who has been meddling in Australian politics for decades.
    The last 2 state elections were very important to the wages and conditions in my industry. I was active campaigning in both of those elections for my chosen candidate.
    There will be emotive arguments around hypocrisy and double standards etc. I care not. I cared about the result and looked at it objectively with the view to taking what I considered the most decisive action available to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • beensean
    replied
    Originally posted by warthog View Post
    At the risk of opening up more controversy. I'm not enrolled.
    There has been no seat of government at any level in Aus that has been decided by 1 vote.
    Therefore it is inconsequential.
    The data says so.
    A brisk leap to Wikipedia shows at least three decided by one vote in Australia, many one-seat election results and other very close resuts. Not voting on grounds of irrelevance guarantees irrelevance.

    Leave a comment:


  • beensean
    replied
    Originally posted by Rocky View Post
    Or maybe the majority of people will always lean towards one of two opposing philosophies rather than prepared to embrace a more 'centrist' common-sense mix of both.
    I'm not sure. I have read some stuff recently that in general terms people are fairly moderate. I do not mean the old "silent majority" but rather there remains a fairly good centrality in most views. Expressions though, tend to be quite partisan. I attribute this in part to the steady loss of members from both political parties so that the remainder are more partisan (and for the record, I am not and have never been a member of any party).

    Originally posted by warthog View Post
    I heard some comment on the radio the other day that resonated a bit.
    People are sick of career politicians from both sides acting in self interest or the interests of oligarchs, other narrow interest groups or financial contributors.
    They don't see their own interests and welfare being valued or addressed.
    I agree. Managing both contributions / funding, and removing the blanket exemptions politicians give themselves from privacy laws, would be starting improvements.

    Still, there are some fringe groups (left or right) I will always put at the bottom of the ballot (in my electorate or for the Senate), below both major parties. If a disfavoured candidate is to win, better a sane independent or vaguely rational and organised party than the mad fringe unable to think past their first motherhood statement or revolutionary slogan. Don't vote idiot.

    Leave a comment:


  • warthog
    replied
    At the risk of opening up more controversy. I'm not enrolled.
    There has been no seat of government at any level in Aus that has been decided by 1 vote.
    Therefore it is inconsequential.
    The data says so.
    It opens up ethical arguments of course [emoji3]
    Been there on another forum I'm on.
    What if everyone thought so?
    You don't have a right to express an opinion etc etc
    What I do has no bearing on what others do so I don't accept that.
    Rupert Murdoch can't vote. He certainly expresses an opinion.

    Anyway, if you move electorates they don't catch up with you.
    Please yourselves if you consider compulsory voting a violation of your democratic right.

    Leave a comment:


  • OCD
    replied
    Perhaps we should stop voting altogether. It only encourages them. Besides, it doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician always manages to get in.

    Leave a comment:


  • warthog
    replied
    I heard some comment on the radio the other day that resonated a bit.
    People are sick of career politicians from both sides acting in self interest or the interests of oligarchs, other narrow interest groups or financial contributors.
    They don't see their own interests and welfare being valued or addressed.
    They are switching off from the majors and switching to minors and independents.
    It falls down a bit explaining Clive Palmer [emoji38] and some of the other extreme options outside the usual majors however.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rocky
    replied
    Beensean - I do remember the Democrats and some of the personalities in the party. Cheryl Kernot has been getting a bit of TV time recently (Q&A and The Drum)
    Their mantra was "Keeping the Bastards honest" which may have been a reaction to the inability to develop sufficient support on their own to be a major force.
    I wonder if maybe the time wasn't right for a third Party at that stage when there were fewer minor Parties and a lot less disenchantment for the majors like there is today.
    Possibly a Party like the Democrats but with a full suite of policies and the 'right' leaders could tap into the widespread disenchantment we have now.
    Or maybe the majority of people will always lean towards one of two opposing philosophies rather than prepared to embrace a more 'centrist' common-sense mix of both.

    Leave a comment:


  • beensean
    replied
    CIR were considered in Australia in 2013, as discussed here.

    NZ, which also uses multi-member proportional representation (Hare-Clark, as used in Tasmania and ACT), has a CIR process which is non-binding on the parliament. It is discussed here, along with considerations if it were binding.

    Unlike the USA, Australia and NZ do not provide a bill of rights. In governance terms, what is to be avoided is a majority determining the rights of a minority where those rights are constitutionally held or implicit.

    It is a process which tends more to be favoured by those on one extreme wing or the other of politics. It is favoured, for example, by One Nation (along with climate change denial amongst other things).

    Leave a comment:


  • WarrenK
    replied
    California electoral proposition appeals to me as a democratic fix for our two party system. Quote is from Wikipedia: "In California, a ballot proposition can be a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote (or plebiscite). If passed, it can alter one or more of the articles of the Constitution of California, one or more of the 29 California Codes, or another law in the California Statutes by clarifying current or adding statute(s) or removing current statute(s).Measures can be placed on the ballot either by the California State Legislature or via a petition signed by registered voters. The state legislature can place a state constitutional amendment or a proposed law change on the ballot as a referendum to be approved by voters. Under the state constitution, certain proposed changes to state laws may require mandatory referenda, and must be approved by voters before they can take effect. A measure placed on the ballot via petition can either be a vote to veto a law that has been adopted by the legislature (an optional referendum or "people's veto") or a new proposed law (initiative)."
    In social studies back in th 1950/60 's we were taught that Oz lead the way in democratic reforms, I doubt that would be true today.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X