JC Political Thread - For all things political Part 2

I have not visited this thread for some time, but had a quick look and decided to make a comment on the NSW Upper House election result. My apologies for bringing up old stuff.

When NSW went to optional preferential voting, they did not alter the determination of a quota for the Upper House. Thus the quota for election was set at 196,205 once the full tally of valid votes was determined.

An issue arises with that because as candidates get excluded in the preference count, many of their votes expire and no further preference is allocated. The quota stays at 196,205. Eventually, candidates are being elected with less votes that the "quota" because there are less votes available to be counted than originally.

In this case, the Animal Justice Party got elected with just 91,420 votes, and three other candidates got elected with less than a full quota. Thus 17 candidates got elected with 196,205 votes, and 4 got elected with less votes. We have Upper House members who are less equally elected, and regularly have great power even though unequally elected.

I believe that as each candidate gets excluded in the preference distribution, the quota should be revised down to take into account their expiring votes. Then all successful candidates will be equally elected.

The current system greatly favours the fringe parties because it is mainly the major parties who get the early quotas, and many of their votes are tied up in higher than equal quotas, and cannot be passed down the line.

If the quota was recalculated as candidates votes expire from excluded candidates, then the result would have been much different. Certainly the Animal Justice Party would not have got a place with less than 0.5 of a quota.

Anyone agree, or do you like the mayhem that results from irrelevant parties having power way beyond what their voting base earns?

 

Ricky Muir had less than 1% of the vote. He got in via an anomaly of the system. Same as the guy from the Liberal Democratic Party of Australia. Even he admits that the reason he won his seat was because he was first on the ballot paper and enough people were confused as to who the LDP was vs the Liberal Party of Australia.

 

I used to agree with you about having a house of review in the senate.

However, all evidence now is that these minor parties see their role as obstruction. It sort of worked with the Democrats. It hasn't worked in the countries' interest in many moons.

Now I would rather let the government govern without undue interference. Then we can actually assess how they go, and vote accordingly three years later.

IMHO, it is hard to actually assess the current government because they have not been allowed to govern.

Worst example is that the opposition now votes against its own previous plan to save, just to make it hard for the government. Absolutely disgraceful for a party that I used to vote for all the time.

 

Oh dear
and this was the policy advisor for a future would be PM?

Malcom Turnbull’s senior adviser resigns after indecency charges

 

What is your point?

 

Don't be silly Reaper. Gopher never has a point - he just likes to lob his stupid little grenades into the pool to see what ripples occur. So one of Turnbull's advisors is a suspected creep. So what. Remember Craig Thompson, gopher?

Regarding the composition of the Upper Houses in both Federal and State elections.

Federally, the Australian public gets what it deserves. The ballot system for the Senate doesn't help, but for some reason, Australians want one party or the other to govern, but want the Senate to make sure the Lower House doesn't get carried away with its own power. Howard didn't help matters in that regard after winning the 2004 election and a majority in the Senate. He thought he could push Workchoices through and look where it got him. That sort of abuse of power means that thinking people are more wary of granting any party the absolute power to devise and implement policies without proper (and balanced) consideration, as was the intent when the Senate was included in the Constitution. Unfortunately, the system of preferential voting means that we don't have responsible people being voted in via minority votes - we get a raft of idiots that confound the government and prevent just about anything being passed. We get this result because the thinkers take care to ensure that power isn't totally vested in one party, but also because a lot of uncaring idiots, who think voting is a waste of time, just scribble anything on their ballot papers and the donkey gets up.

In NSW, the system has let us down for other reasons, as per Fekason's post. Again, it's a combination of a system with too many flaws, and voters who either want to see their mates get up, regardless of whether they are fit to be members of a government, or people just don't give a stuff about the Senate as they are often faceless names on the ballot sheet.

 

[QUOTE I have to say, I've been ..... wondering how (gopher) felt about the Shorten reply that that I hope he listened to, it as I did, and read and digested it in AFR, SMH and Australian newspapers. Do you read Gopher?[/QUOTE]

In gopher's cosy little world of make believe, Bill Shorten is the Messiah. He will be elected as PM next year and everything will suddenly be wonderful again as he leads the nation to the Promised Land.

Does he read?

Yep, you bet.

Marvel comics.

 

zing!
that was great

 

It was good for laughs... What a moron BS is!

Writing off 100,000 HECS debts. Tells everyone it will cost $45 million dollars.

Conservative average of $25,000 per HECS debt = $2,500,000,000. That's $2.5 BILLION dollars!!!

How he does his maths... (this is a cut + paste)

Make a grandiose & expensive promise and bathe in the applause, then use a "pea-and-thimble trick" to push the costs of the promise outside of the 4 year forward-estimates period.
This way, not only do you never have to explain how it will be paid for, or where the money will come from - you also pass on the liability to pay for the cost upon future governments.
If a financial director of a public company used such a pea-and-thimble trick in a prospectus, he'd likely end up jail [sic].

It should be straightforward - if any organisation incurs an expense in a current year, they should correctly account for that cost in that year.
Therefore, if the government incurs the expense of paying in full for someone to study at university - with the agreement that government is never going to charge that person any HEC’s contribution to repay (in full or part) – those expenses must be accounted for in that financial year.

But the accounting trick that B.S is proposing, is that he’d engage in the fantasy of PRETENDING that the HEC’s debt STILL EXISTED – and then have future governments have to cover the costs of writing it off one year at time.

Thus a Labor give-away costing $2.5 billion is hidden from the annual budget bottom line – and a $2,500 million expense can be paid for with $45 million.
Is it any wonder the B.S’s rating as “preferred PM” is in free fall.

 

B.S. is simply telling non thinking people what they want to hear............And there are plenty of those in Australia...............Probably 1/2 the population at a guess.

 

Or more. Labor still in front though Shorten has fallen behind Abbott. The closer the election gets the more shallow and utterly unfit to lead Shorten becomes. I think the electorate has finally woken up to him. Except gopher of course.

 

*yawn* Tired old BS turning a non-political issue into a political one. Nothing to see here but vote grabbing at it's worst.

 

In other news....this China/Japan issue over the islands in the Sth China sea is a conflict of interest for Australia. Julie Bishop has just secured a free trade agreement with Japan releasing about 97% of exports from duties and discussing stronger military ties. The US are flying a P8-A over China's artificial reef building project and are being warned to stay away, and we are in the middle. Who do we support? China who are a massive trading partner for us, or Japan who we are trying broaden ties with? The Phillipines are calling for stronger US commitment if China move against them, we are allies of the US, do we step in with the US against China?

 

Nothing more than a feud for Natural Resources in the bottom of the sea; islands my foot..!

US Energy Information Administration

 

We sit back and take no sides in this one. It's almost a domestic issue between the two countries over islands which have swapped hands numerous times over many years. We can't afford to be seen taking sides and I doubt that Japan (and certainly not China) would ask us to intercede, or even seek our opinions. (Besides, what, in all honesty, would Australia add to the argument? Bugger all.)

It will be a test of our capacity and ability to remain firm trading partners with both countries. Even our allegiance to the US shouldn't be an issue here - again, I seriously doubt that the US would ask or want us to become involved.