topic Re: 1900 in Community Spirit

1900

catsnknots — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 21:27:57 GMT

That is how many votes one party apparently got to win a Senate seat and possibly be able to decide on yours and my future.

29% of the votes is all one sitting mp got yet he will now win his seat....

Now I really do not mind anyone winning a seat... congratulations... BUT I feel there is a major flaw in the system when not only does 1900 votes gets you a seat at the major decision making table and just over 1/4 of the votes wins you a seat when the other person gets over 40% of the votes.

Is it time we change to first past the post or is this preferential system a good thing and allows micro parties to have a say?

Re: 1900

polksaladallie — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 21:38:39 GMT

When I saw the subject, I immediately thought that the PM elect had decreed that we should all put our minds back to that era for his new government to operate effectively.

Re: 1900

*pepe — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 21:41:44 GMT

nah he's a groover and shaker - its 1950's we're headed for.

Re: 1900

debra9275 — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 21:48:51 GMT

Palmer???

oh well, you can't win them all

Re: 1900

*elizabeths-mum* — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 21:55:01 GMT

Looking at the parties that people actually voted for when counting, I thought we should make the community spirit party. It wouldn't matter that we never agree, we could just fight publicly and make dicks of ourselves and get paid for it.

Re: 1900

debra9275 — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 21:56:26 GMT

Hi Em

Re: 1900

poison_ivys_pen — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 21:56:55 GMT

Interesting point the first past the post, I'm sure the ALP would've loved that at the 2001 Election, they got the majority of the primary votes att, the Coalition gained government via the preference system.

Re: 1900

lightningdance — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 21:59:29 GMT

Full electoral reform was discussed before the election by BOTH parties. Also the computerisation of voting is being looked at to stop the labor practice of multiple voting.

Labor won't like this because the preference deals got many of their failed MP's over the line at the expense of the voters wishes. They won't like it because of the back room deals with the toxic Greens who saved many of them.

We will be bombarded with one eyed divisive comment on here because the left are bitter in defeat & have no grace in their remarks. One only has to look to the quite churlish remark Rudd made in his concession speech.

Liberal/National party has been given a stonking mandate to govern by the majority of the voters but the bitter lemons of Labor served up is what will happen.

They will get apoplectic before they can see the light on the hill again, if ever.

We will be witness to the writhing torturous bloodletting or will we? will they hide it just like they hid the chaos & dysfunction of KRudd until they could take no more? no? because they rewarded him AGAIN with a 2nd prime ministership, they foisted him on Australia AGAIN.

One wonders just what kind of moral failure, loss of ethical core beliefs drove them to do this again knowing how much they loathed him & how poisonous he was to the public the 1st time round.

Re: 1900

lurker17260 — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:02:45 GMT

I think I agree with you cat. I can't see how these micro and special interest parties can vote in the senate on issues they did not go to the electorate with. Not sure what the answer is though.

When and why did all these special interest groups suddenly sprout, does anyone have any theories? I don't recall there being this many before (except for the first ACT election after self government came in, when we had, among others, the No Self Government Party, there to elect themselves out of a job, the Sun Ripened Warm Tomato Party, and the Party, Party, Party Party)

Re: 1900

lurker17260 — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:05:42 GMT

Oh for pity's sake!

Re: 1900

azureline** — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:23:57 GMT

Lurker you have to admit it was laughable...........

Re: 1900

lightningdance — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:24:50 GMT

I agree, pity for the Labor party.

Re: 1900

izabsmiling — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:27:45 GMT

I've been referred to as Labor ...while I have never voted more than once in any election (it is a crime) ...I did have a joke when I was asked if I had voted before in that Election .I jokingly said "No .. this time it is tempting"

Re: 1900

lakeland27 — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:28:17 GMT

@lightningdance wrote:
Full electoral reform was discussed before the election by BOTH parties. Also the computerisation of voting is being looked at to stop the labor practice of multiple voting.

Labor won't like this because the preference deals got many of their failed MP's over the line at the expense of the voters wishes. They won't like it because of the back room deals with the toxic Greens who saved many of them.

We will be bombarded with one eyed divisive comment on here because the left are bitter in defeat & have no grace in their remarks. One only has to look to the quite churlish remark Rudd made in his concession speech.

Liberal/National party has been given a stonking mandate to govern by the majority of the voters but the bitter lemons of Labor served up is what will happen.

They will get apoplectic before they can see the light on the hill again, if ever.

We will be witness to the writhing torturous bloodletting or will we? will they hide it just like they hid the chaos & dysfunction of KRudd until they could take no more? no? because they rewarded him AGAIN with a 2nd prime ministership, they foisted him on Australia AGAIN.

One wonders just what kind of moral failure, loss of ethical core beliefs drove them to do this again knowing how much they loathed him & how poisonous he was to the public the 1st time round.

you make things up. or repeat things others have made up.

some examples of the porkies in your post that are verifiable would be welcome. its pretty simple, a lot of voters preferred anyone at all over abbott/rudd. its directly proportional.

Re: 1900

polksaladallie — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:37:35 GMT

@izabsmiling wrote:
I've been referred to as Labor ...while I have never voted more than once in any election (it is a crime) ...I did have a joke when I was asked if I had voted before in that Election .I jokingly said "No .. this time it is tempting"

If I am asked that question, I always say "I never answer silly questions".

Re: 1900

spotweldersfriend — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 22:50:33 GMT

Electoral fraud too eh? Conservatives-kooky one day,just plain nuts the next.

Re: 1900

freshwater-2 — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 02:21:14 GMT

Even Antony Green is disturbed by the makeup of the new Senate...."micro parties going in with their own individual egos".

Experienced members trying to deal with inexperienced total nongs is how I read this.

Re: 1900

azureline** — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 02:27:14 GMT

I was asked had I voted anyplace else, I said "no,once is enough"

"you are only entitled to one"

Re: 1900

topsidesoul — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 02:32:41 GMT

@lightningdance wrote:

We will be bombarded with one eyed divisive comment on here because the left are bitter in defeat & have no grace in their remarks. One only has to look to the quite churlish remark Rudd made in his concession speech.

As opposed to one eyed divise comments by people who are bitter in victory.

It has happened people, deal with it for four years.

Be sure to follow the leads of posters during the previous government and point out the flaws with newspaper links and cut and pastes.

Be sure to disrespect the current PM in the same way certain posters and certain people in the public eye disrespected the former two.

Re: 1900

azureline** — Mon, 09 Sep 2013 02:36:35 GMT

It takes a certain type of person to behave like that, better to take the high moral ground and behave in a more acceptable manner, imo.