Jezz this fkken clown is supposed to be a lecturer at one of our more prestigious universities and his subject is politics. The cretin does even understand the laws surrounding our compulsory voting system.  ;D ;D ;D


Here is the snippet, feel free to read the rest of his horse sh1t opinion if you want, most of it is inane drivel.


"Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger




Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time


Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.

It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions:
™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107
™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13


And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D

He is more familiar with his presidency when we become a republic after the silly old bint checks out .

Its time wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:07pm:

He is more familiar with his presidency when we become a republic after the silly old bint checks out .

So you are hoping that we get someone as clueless as trump first up?


No wonder most republics are a fkken disaster.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Purveyor of the truth , thief of young christian girls hearts who willingly convert , rock and roll superstar and our first president .

Waleed "legend" Aly

Its time wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:09pm:

Purveyor of the truth , thief of young christian girls hearts who willingly convert , rock and roll superstar and our first president . Waleed "legend" Aly

You forgot, does not have a clue about the subject he lectures at Monash; nicknamed- Token Black

Its time wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:09pm:

Purveyor of the truth , thief of young christian girls hearts who willingly convert , rock and roll superstar and our first president . Waleed "legend" Aly

President Aly's inauguration day speech will be inspirational.


http://cdn.mamamia.com.au/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/11234339/Waleed-FB-.png

That's true Waleed is clueless about most things and he's been an apologist on many occasions for Muslim bad behaviour.

But he's much loved by LW Prog luvvies.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:14pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:09pm: Purveyor of the truth , thief of young christian girls hearts who willingly convert , rock and roll superstar and our first president . Waleed "legend" Aly President Aly's inauguration day speech will be inspirational.

Too bad he will have no idea about the subject matter he is supposed to to know; but if a trump like (joke) character is good enough for the POTUS then it is good enough you you lot, hey greeg?

There are much, much, smarter more professional people out there, or are you all about the Token Black to make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Its time wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:09pm:

Purveyor of the truth , thief of young christian girls hearts who willingly convert , rock and roll superstar and our first president . Waleed "legend" Aly

Indeed.

I wonder what name he'll choose for our Republic - Waleedia?

Grendel wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:14pm:

That's true Waleed is clueless about most things and he's been an apologist on many occasions for Muslim bad behaviour. But he's much loved by LW Prog luvvies.

To not have even a basic understanding about our voting system should be instant dismissal from his job as a lecturer in politics at Monash Uni.


He is a lefty wanker, logie winner and light entertainment joke, token black, none of which requires any level of professionalism or intellect, so he does very well there, but only there.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:21pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:09pm: Purveyor of the truth , thief of young christian girls hearts who willingly convert , rock and roll superstar and our first president . Waleed "legend" Aly Indeed. I wonder what name he'll choose for our Republic - Waleedia?

Hope so , I like it

Its time wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:09pm:

Purveyor of the truth , thief of young christian girls hearts who willingly convert , rock and roll superstar and our first president . Waleed "legend" Aly

Waleed Aly: the first President of The Republic of Waleedia.


http://shop.brianmayguitars.co.uk/user/gallery/Waleed%20Aly%20-%20Robot%20Child%202014.jpg

Rock on!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:26pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:09pm: Purveyor of the truth , thief of young christian girls hearts who willingly convert , rock and roll superstar and our first president . Waleed "legend" Aly Waleed Aly: the first President of The Republic of Waleedia. Rock on!

Hopefully that will be a country that he know something about, because as we have seen time and time again, he is clueless about our country.

I can see why you lefties think he is the ducks nuts, he is inspiration to you, but considered a cretin by the rest of us. He is your donald trump and that is why you want him for president.  :) :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:26pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:09pm: Purveyor of the truth , thief of young christian girls hearts who willingly convert , rock and roll superstar and our first president . Waleed "legend" Aly Waleed Aly: the first President of The Republic of Waleedia. http://shop.brianmayguitars.co.uk/user/gallery/Waleed%20Aly%20-%20Robot%20Child%202014.jpg Rock on!

l e g e n d

The good thing is there is so much archival material on Wally he will have so much to look back on and cringe about when he gets older and grows a few brains.

He will almost certainly admit he was a complete knob jocky

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:01pm:

"Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up."

Waleed, who ever he is, just identified with clueless Labor supporting suburban bus drivers and council road repairers

What else do they say without thinking? "It's easier to pay a fine than go to court"  ... that's the next thing this degenerate Waleed will probably spruik 

He looks like a typical camel shagging, little boy molesting rag head, speaks in a manner not unlike haemorrhoid. Must have the same DNA..... ::)

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:01pm:

Jezz this fkken clown is supposed to be a lecturer at one of our more prestigious universities and his subject is politics. The cretin does even understand the laws surrounding our compulsory voting system.  ;D ;D ;D Here is the snippet, feel free to read the rest of his horse sh1t opinion if you want, most of it is inane drivel. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D

You really need to get over your insane hatred of compulsory voting. Voluntary voting is what put Trump in the White House.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:41pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:01pm: "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." Waleed, who ever he is, just identified with clueless Labor supporting suburban bus drivers and council road repairers What else do they say without thinking? "It's easier to pay a fine than go to court"  ... that's next thing this degenerate Waleed will probably spruik

As a lecturer of politics at Monash University at the very least he should know the law dealing with compulsory voter in Australia.

This is not that joke of a TV show where he is fawned and fettered because he is the token black in a white apologist environment; I expect him to not be the fool when it come to his 'actual' job.

And lecturing another country about how they should run an election when he is utterly clueless about how we do it, is a bit rich.


I think getting a fkken logie has made him thing he is actually waleedia's new president.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:41pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:01pm: "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." Waleed, who ever he is, just identified with clueless Labor supporting suburban bus drivers and council road repairers

Jesus, dissing on bus drivers and road workers.

What do you do for an encore - mock the disabled?

You've certainly shown your true colours.


http://radio.foxnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SERGE.jpg

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:48pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Jezz this fkken clown is supposed to be a lecturer at one of our more prestigious universities and his subject is politics. The cretin does even understand the laws surrounding our compulsory voting system.  ;D ;D ;D Here is the snippet, feel free to read the rest of his horse sh1t opinion if you want, most of it is inane drivel. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D You really need to get over your insane hatred of compulsory voting. Voluntary voting is what put Trump in the White House.

They got exactly what they wanted, so I don't see what you think the problem is.



What I want is that the lecturer of politics at Monash University has modicum of understanding of our our compulsory voting works before lecturing another country of its virtues.


BTW, Im off the roll again and those lazy public servants have stopped hassling me; so our compulsory voting is once again, not my problem.  :) :)

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:48pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Jezz this fkken clown is supposed to be a lecturer at one of our more prestigious universities and his subject is politics. The cretin does even understand the laws surrounding our compulsory voting system.  ;D ;D ;D Here is the snippet, feel free to read the rest of his horse sh1t opinion if you want, most of it is inane drivel. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D You really need to get over your insane hatred of compulsory voting. Voluntary voting is what put Trump in the White House. They got exactly what they wanted, so I don't see what you think the problem is. What I want is that the lecturer of politics at Monash University has modicum of understanding of our our compulsory voting works before lecturing another country of its virtues. BTW, Im off the roll again and those lazy public servants have stopped hassling me; so our compulsory voting is once again, not my problem.  :) :)

I will have to have a word to my bro in law about getting you back to the polls to do your lawful duty casting a vote

You're giving him far too much cyber space bigol, Waleed will never be anymore than an ignorant loudmouth

Such behaviour is common in the halls of academia. They're preaching to mostly 18-19 year olds in lecture theatres, who don't have the ability to think critically yet and view lecturers as near gods. Lecturers are fully aware of this and that's why they often do it.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:48pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Jezz this fkken clown is supposed to be a lecturer at one of our more prestigious universities and his subject is politics. The cretin does even understand the laws surrounding our compulsory voting system.  ;D ;D ;D Here is the snippet, feel free to read the rest of his horse sh1t opinion if you want, most of it is inane drivel. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D You really need to get over your insane hatred of compulsory voting. Voluntary voting is what put Trump in the White House. They got exactly what they wanted, so I don't see what you think the problem is. What I want is that the lecturer of politics at Monash University has modicum of understanding of our our compulsory voting works before lecturing another country of its virtues. BTW, Im off the roll again and those lazy public servants have stopped hassling me; so our compulsory voting is once again, not my problem.  :) :)

no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close.

greggerypeccary
Gold Member
Re: President Donald J Trump
Reply #2897 - Sep 9th, 2016 at 8:36pm





Mark this in your diary.

Trump will never become POTUS.

To show you how sure I am, I extend a challenge to you.

If Trump becomes POTUS, I will leave this forum forever.

I will never return, under any other name or sock. Ever.

Do you have the guts to make the same declaration

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:02pm:

Such behaviour is common in the halls of academia. They're preaching to mostly 18-19 year olds in lecture theatres, who don't have the ability to think critically yet and view lecturers as near gods. Lecturers are fully aware of this and that's why they often do it.

It's good to know we have you there, Mistie, to clean up those halls.

Literally!

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:06pm:

no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close.

Just because you got the most votes does not mean you get to be in charge; even happens here.


If someone does not want to vote so be it; it what happens in first world democracies all over the planet. You should happy that they exist, even if we aren't one.  :) :)

Its time wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:59pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:52pm: BTW, Im off the roll again and those lazy public servants have stopped hassling me; so our compulsory voting is once again, not my problem.  :) :) I will have to have a word to my bro in law about getting you back to the polls to do your lawful duty casting a vote

Good luck with that; those lazy dumb as dog sh1t public servants tend to give up long before I do.  ;D ;D ;D ;D


There are over one million of us, what are you going to do, set up a web page, begging us to enroll?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:06pm:

no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close.

So do you think the US should have "First Past the Post" voting?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:10pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:02pm: Such behaviour is common in the halls of academia. They're preaching to mostly 18-19 year olds in lecture theatres, who don't have the ability to think critically yet and view lecturers as near gods. Lecturers are fully aware of this and that's why they often do it. It's good to know we have you there, Mistie, to clean up those halls. Literally!

What and knock the broom out of your hands?

The shock would kill you wouldn't it?

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:10pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:02pm: Such behaviour is common in the halls of academia. They're preaching to mostly 18-19 year olds in lecture theatres, who don't have the ability to think critically yet and view lecturers as near gods. Lecturers are fully aware of this and that's why they often do it. It's good to know we have you there, Mistie, to clean up those halls. Literally! What and knock the broom out of your hands?

Not at all.

I'm willing to give Mistie a hand.

Aren't you?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:18pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:10pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:02pm: Such behaviour is common in the halls of academia. They're preaching to mostly 18-19 year olds in lecture theatres, who don't have the ability to think critically yet and view lecturers as near gods. Lecturers are fully aware of this and that's why they often do it. It's good to know we have you there, Mistie, to clean up those halls. Literally! What and knock the broom out of your hands? Not at all. I'm willing to give Mistie a hand. Aren't you?

I think your mate token black might need to be relegated to sweeping floors at his Uni until he learns his subject matter in a little more detail.

These are the sort of errors an under-grad would be flogged for, this cretin is supposed to be the lecturer. Admit it, he got his job at the Uni because of his logie and not his degree (which is looking pretty dubious).

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:18pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:10pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:02pm: Such behaviour is common in the halls of academia. They're preaching to mostly 18-19 year olds in lecture theatres, who don't have the ability to think critically yet and view lecturers as near gods. Lecturers are fully aware of this and that's why they often do it. It's good to know we have you there, Mistie, to clean up those halls. Literally! What and knock the broom out of your hands? Not at all. I'm willing to give Mistie a hand. Aren't you? I think your mate token black might need to be relegated to sweeping floors at his Uni until he learns his subject matter in a little more detail.

Nothing wrong with mixing with the help.

It builds character.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:06pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:48pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Jezz this fkken clown is supposed to be a lecturer at one of our more prestigious universities and his subject is politics. The cretin does even understand the laws surrounding our compulsory voting system.  ;D ;D ;D Here is the snippet, feel free to read the rest of his horse sh1t opinion if you want, most of it is inane drivel. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D You really need to get over your insane hatred of compulsory voting. Voluntary voting is what put Trump in the White House. They got exactly what they wanted, so I don't see what you think the problem is. What I want is that the lecturer of politics at Monash University has modicum of understanding of our our compulsory voting works before lecturing another country of its virtues. BTW, Im off the roll again and those lazy public servants have stopped hassling me; so our compulsory voting is once again, not my problem.  :) :) no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close.

are you sure Americans vote directly for President? My understanding was the electoral college decides the POTUS. Tell me where I am wrong.

rhino wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 3:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:06pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:48pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Jezz this fkken clown is supposed to be a lecturer at one of our more prestigious universities and his subject is politics. The cretin does even understand the laws surrounding our compulsory voting system.  ;D ;D ;D Here is the snippet, feel free to read the rest of his horse sh1t opinion if you want, most of it is inane drivel. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D You really need to get over your insane hatred of compulsory voting. Voluntary voting is what put Trump in the White House. They got exactly what they wanted, so I don't see what you think the problem is. What I want is that the lecturer of politics at Monash University has modicum of understanding of our our compulsory voting works before lecturing another country of its virtues. BTW, Im off the roll again and those lazy public servants have stopped hassling me; so our compulsory voting is once again, not my problem.  :) :) no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close. are you sure Americans vote directly for President? My understanding was the electoral college decides the POTUS. Tell me where I am wrong.

Well, internet space is limited, so I'll just stick to this particular instance.

You went wrong by assuming he said that "Americans vote directly for their President".

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:40pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:18pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:10pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:02pm: Such behaviour is common in the halls of academia. They're preaching to mostly 18-19 year olds in lecture theatres, who don't have the ability to think critically yet and view lecturers as near gods. Lecturers are fully aware of this and that's why they often do it. It's good to know we have you there, Mistie, to clean up those halls. Literally! What and knock the broom out of your hands? Not at all. I'm willing to give Mistie a hand. Aren't you? I think your mate token black might need to be relegated to sweeping floors at his Uni until he learns his subject matter in a little more detail. Nothing wrong with mixing with the help. It builds character.

He needs knowledge about the subject he teaches others; he is a fkken embarrassment to us all.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 3:25pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:40pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:28pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:18pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:10pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:02pm: Such behaviour is common in the halls of academia. They're preaching to mostly 18-19 year olds in lecture theatres, who don't have the ability to think critically yet and view lecturers as near gods. Lecturers are fully aware of this and that's why they often do it. It's good to know we have you there, Mistie, to clean up those halls. Literally! What and knock the broom out of your hands? Not at all. I'm willing to give Mistie a hand. Aren't you? I think your mate token black might need to be relegated to sweeping floors at his Uni until he learns his subject matter in a little more detail. Nothing wrong with mixing with the help. It builds character. He needs knowledge about the subject he teaches others; he is a fkken embarrassment to us all.

All part of his presidential training.

The Republic of Waleedia will be fine under his rule guidance.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:06pm: no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close. Just because you got the most votes does not mean you get to be in charge; even happens here. If someone does not want to vote so be it; it what happens in first world democracies all over the planet. You should happy that they exist, even if we aren't one.  :) :)

When Trumps leads the world to war and/or trade war, remember that voluntary voting is what caused it.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 2:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:06pm: no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close. So do you think the US should have "First Past the Post" voting?

longy, would you prefer the Electoral College be scrapped and just the "popular" vote retained? That's the only way Clinton could have won

If the US changed to First Past the Post voting, would you be happy with that? There's no chance of it happening but there's nothing stopping you from suggesting it as a viable alternative ... but you'd have to convince 50 States, the States take precedence over the Fed, you wouldn't think it these days, but they do indeed. There's no chance of compulsory voting either

So what do you think about the voting system in the US? it stinks in your opinion and needs changing, or is it Ok? How would you ensure candidates who get the most "popular" votes, can win ?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 3:39pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:06pm: no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close. Just because you got the most votes does not mean you get to be in charge; even happens here. If someone does not want to vote so be it; it what happens in first world democracies all over the planet. You should happy that they exist, even if we aren't one.  :) :) When Trumps leads the world to war and/or trade war, remember that voluntary voting is what caused it.

Compulsory voting is a wank; there is NO evidence that any of our elections would turn out any different if we were a first world democracy and neither would the US if they decided to flush their right to vote down the toilet.


We are alone, everyone else is right we are wrong.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 3:39pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:10pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:06pm: no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close. Just because you got the most votes does not mean you get to be in charge; even happens here. If someone does not want to vote so be it; it what happens in first world democracies all over the planet. You should happy that they exist, even if we aren't one.  :) :) When Trumps leads the world to war and/or trade war, remember that voluntary voting is what caused it.

You want to explain yet why you think americans vote directly for President?

Insipid twat who repeats the sjw bleatings gleaned from an equally insipid self indulging social media echo chamber leftist cesspool.

Just your typical swamp rat really.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 3:52pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:06pm: no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close. So do you think the US should have "First Past the Post" voting? longy, would you prefer the Electoral College be scrapped and just the "popular" vote retained? That's the only way Clinton could have won If the US changed to First Past the Post voting, would you be happy with that? There's no chance of it happening but there's nothing stopping you from suggesting it as a viable alternative ... but you'd have to convince 50 States, the States take precedence over the Fed, you wouldn't think it these days, but they do indeed. There's no chance of compulsory voting either So what do you think about the voting system in the US? it stinks in your opinion and needs changing, or is it Ok? How would you ensure candidates who get the most "popular" votes, can win ?

A) the US already has first-past the post voting.
B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system

and yes, the US electoral system is an abomination which is so fragmented and so open to abuse that it is a disaster. what did you think of North Carolina which passed a voter ID law specifically designed to disenfranchise blacks and student. They literally researched ID mainly used by these groups and then banned them.  You think that this is even remotely fair? Or how about the recent election where a Democrat won the governors mansion and the REpublican congress literally voted to strip the governor of most of his powers.

THIS is the USA electoral system

This is the system where elections are run by local committees comprised of members of political parties which can and have, literally banned people from auditing the votes.

REmember 2000? the supreme court with a majority of republican appointees voted to HALT A RECOUNT because GWB was in front.


so does it stink?  I can think of some third-world cesspools with a more open and less corrupt system. Did Trump ACTUALLY win? We will never know since recounts have to be paid for by individuals and even then, can be stopped by judges who owe allegiance to politics above democracy.

STINKS AND THEN SOME

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:01pm:

Jezz this fkken clown is supposed to be a lecturer at one of our more prestigious universities and his subject is politics. The cretin does even understand the laws surrounding our compulsory voting system.  ;D ;D ;D Here is the snippet, feel free to read the rest of his horse sh1t opinion if you want, most of it is inane drivel. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D

Tell me, Bigol64, does anybody actually make sure that you cast a vote, when you vote?   ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 4:26pm:

A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system

Well I take it then you would prefer they had just First Past the Post voting, nothing else. If they went that way, it would be counter to Australia's beliefs about it. What if we did away with preferential voting, how would that go?

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 5:04pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Jezz this fkken clown is supposed to be a lecturer at one of our more prestigious universities and his subject is politics. The cretin does even understand the laws surrounding our compulsory voting system.  ;D ;D ;D Here is the snippet, feel free to read the rest of his horse sh1t opinion if you want, most of it is inane drivel. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D Tell me, Bigol64, does anybody actually make sure that you cast a vote, when you vote?   ::)

This is supposedly President Waleed's quote:

"Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up."

This is from BigHole's own quote (from the AEC):

"Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box."

So, looking at the three parts of our future President's quote:

1. Nothing from the AEC about being compelled to support a candidate.

2. Nothing about casting a valid vote.

3. It says they must attend a polling place, and King Aly said "They are obliged to turn up".

He did not, as BigHole has wrongfully assumed, say "They are ONLY obliged to turn up".

Mr President is right and BigHole is, once again, wrong.

- Voters are not compelled to support a candidate
Correct
- or even to cast a valid ballot.
Correct
- They are obliged to turn up.
Correct

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 5:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 4:26pm: A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system Well I take it then you would prefer they had just First Past the Post voting, nothing else. If they went that way, it would be counter to Australia's beliefs about it. What if we did away with preferential voting, how would that go?

Look, you clown.... I said nothing of the sort and I support preferential voting. I said nothing about the US system other than to tell you what it actually is.

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 5:04pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:01pm: Jezz this fkken clown is supposed to be a lecturer at one of our more prestigious universities and his subject is politics. The cretin does even understand the laws surrounding our compulsory voting system.  ;D ;D ;D Here is the snippet, feel free to read the rest of his horse sh1t opinion if you want, most of it is inane drivel. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D Tell me, Bigol64, does anybody actually make sure that you cast a vote, when you vote?   ::)

Since I don't vote Id say no.


But you do know that this was the Australian Electoral Commission stating this, not me, don't you?


I can give you a link to that AEC or you could easily find it just like that idiot waleed could have by using google.

So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement because he is a cretin and the AEC states that you cannot just get your name ticked off the ballot; it is NOT BigOl stating this but the fkken AEC!  :) :)


Glad to see another fine Australian no longer ignorant of the system they vote under.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:15pm:

So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement ...

No, he didn't.

You've made a complete fool of yourself.

His statement is 100% correct.

- Voters are not compelled to support a candidate - correct

- or even to cast a valid ballot. - correct

- They are obliged to turn up. - correct

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 4:26pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 3:52pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:06pm: no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close. So do you think the US should have "First Past the Post" voting? longy, would you prefer the Electoral College be scrapped and just the "popular" vote retained? That's the only way Clinton could have won If the US changed to First Past the Post voting, would you be happy with that? There's no chance of it happening but there's nothing stopping you from suggesting it as a viable alternative ... but you'd have to convince 50 States, the States take precedence over the Fed, you wouldn't think it these days, but they do indeed. There's no chance of compulsory voting either So what do you think about the voting system in the US? it stinks in your opinion and needs changing, or is it Ok? How would you ensure candidates who get the most "popular" votes, can win ? A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system and yes, the US electoral system is an abomination which is so fragmented and so open to abuse that it is a disaster. what did you think of North Carolina which passed a voter ID law specifically designed to disenfranchise blacks and student. They literally researched ID mainly used by these groups and then banned them.  You think that this is even remotely fair? Or how about the recent election where a Democrat won the governors mansion and the REpublican congress literally voted to strip the governor of most of his powers. THIS is the USA electoral system This is the system where elections are run by local committees comprised of members of political parties which can and have, literally banned people from auditing the votes. REmember 2000? the supreme court with a majority of republican appointees voted to HALT A RECOUNT because GWB was in front. so does it stink?  I can think of some third-world cesspools with a more open and less corrupt system. Did Trump ACTUALLY win? We will never know since recounts have to be paid for by individuals and even then, can be stopped by judges who owe allegiance to politics above democracy. STINKS AND THEN SOME

So not about compulsory voting then.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:16pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:15pm: [ So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement ... No, he didn't. You've made a complete fool of yourself. His statement is 100% correct.

The courts of Australian made that statement fkkwit not me I just posted what THEY fkken said.

What the fkk is wrong with you people is it your poor state school education or were you dropped on your head as a child?

He is a dullard and your are doing your usual bullsh1t to cover that up.


BTW why the fkk are you still here?

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:16pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:15pm: [ So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement ... No, he didn't. You've made a complete fool of yourself. His statement is 100% correct. The courts of Australian made that statement fkkwit not me I just posted what THEY fkken said.

Yes, but you failed to actually read what they said.

"It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off".

And Waleed's statement:

"Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up."

You'll notice the absence of the word "only".

Thus, Mr Waleed is 100% correct.

You have made an absolute fool of yourself with this thread.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 1:01pm:

"Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D

Quote:

Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.

Technically Wally is pretty close to the mark,


Quote:

"Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot.

This is actually very close to the mark. You are required to mark the ballot, that would include drawing Donald duck on it, there is no compulsion to cast a valid vote, just to mark the ballot paper.

hes only bitching because his side lost...BIG TIME...

the yanks and the Brits would still have had more people voting without compulsary than Australia does with it..

whats it got to do with him how the west run their elections..

how about looking at those Muslum countries..

where a king can have 70 children to carry on the LINE>...yeah right

have you noticed this guy never has a shot at them does he???...

I think there are still countries that dont allow women to vote..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/27/7-ridiculous-restrictions-on-womens-rights-around-the-world/?utm_term=.4ad5ecfeac23

waleed should take a shot at these archaic rules then I might take a look at what he has to say about Australia until then....


With Saudi Arabian women behind the wheel since Saturday to protest their country's refusal to grant driver's licenses to women, they’re challenging not only long-standing restriction, but also a the larger system of Saudi Arabian gender-based laws, some of the harshest in the world.

According to one measurement, though, there are actually several countries that rank lower on women;s rights than Saudi Arabia. The World Economic Forum, which publishes the preeminent ranking on gender gap issues, ranked Saudi Arabia 10th from the bottom in its 2013 report -- ahead of Mali, Morocco, Iran, Cote d’Ivoire, Mauritania, Syria, Chad, Pakistan and Yemen. Women’s rights abuses are by no means limited to North Africa, West Africa or the Middle East, though that’s where we tend to hear such stories most frequently.

“A lot of the most severe stuff comes out of legal or de facto guardianship systems,” said Rothna Begum, a researcher who tracks women’s rights in the Middle East and North Africa for the advocacy group Human Rights Watch.

But she adds that, especially in Saudi Arabia, “things are modernizing.”

Here are nine other remarkable legal restrictions against women, from Asia to Latin America:

1. India (some parts): Road safety rules don’t apply to women. In some states of India, women are excepted from safety rules that mandate motorcycle passengers wear helmets -- an exemption that kills or injures thousands each year. Women’s rights advocates have argued the exemption springs from a culture-wide devaluation of women’s lives. Supporters of the ban say they’re just trying to preserve women’s carefully styled hair and make-up -- which isn’t exactly a feminist response.

2. Yemen: A woman is considered only half a witness. That’s the policy on legal testimony in Yemen, where a woman is not, to quote a 2005 Freedom House report, “recognized as a full person before the court.” In general, a single woman’s testimony isn’t taken seriously unless it’s backed by a man’s testimony or concerns a place or situation where a man would not be. And women can’t testify at all in cases of adultery, libel, theft or sodomy.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:15pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:04pm: Tell me, Bigol64, does anybody actually make sure that you cast a vote, when you vote?   ::) Since I don't vote Id say no. But you do know that this was the Australian Electoral Commission stating this, not me, don't you?

Oh, yes.  I recognise it from their paraphenalia.

So, you don't vote.  You are quoting from the AEC how it likes the voting to occur, not how it actually happens, nor the instructions which are usually given before the opening of the Polling Booth to the various functionaries by the Polling Booth supervisor.

You are aware what those instructions are, aren't you, Bigol64?

IIRC they are:  "The voters will be made to form a queue.  They will be directed to the first member of staff that is free and they will have their name marked off the roll.  They will be handed their ballot paper and directed to the voting booth.  If they refuse the ballot paper you are to ask them again and if they again refuse it, you are to hand it to the supervisor who will fold and place it in the ballot box.  Once they have marked the paper (assuming of course they have taken it), they are to then fold and place it in the ballot box.   On no account are they allowed to leave the Ballot Station with a ballot paper in their possession.

You will note, no voter is forced to take a ballot paper.  No one is standing over them when they mark the ballot paper (or not).   They are prevented from leaving the Ballot Station with any ballot papers.

The only way they can be fined is if they refuse to have their name marked off the roll.   They are not made to vote.

I have worked on elections, at the Ballot Booth as an AEC official now for the last 20 years, both at State and Federal elections.

I think it's time you voted, Bigol64, to acquaint yourself with the procedures from a voter's viewpoint.   ::)

Dnarever wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:43pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 1:01pm: "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandatory.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=2&referer=&utm_source=bugger&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_bugger Here is the truth, something that escapes walled's statements most of the time Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been upheld by a number of legal decisions: ™ High Court 1926 – Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380 ™ Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 – Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807 ™ High Court 1971 – Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271 ™ Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 – Krosch v Springbell; ex parte Krosch [1974] QdR 107 ™ ACT Supreme Court 1981 – O’Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13 And some people here think he knows what he is talking about; guess again numpties, you've duped,  ;D ;D Quote: Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. Technically Wally is pretty close to the mark, [quote]"Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot.

This is actually very close to the mark. You are required to mark the ballot, that would include drawing Donald duck on it, there is no compulsion to cast a valid vote, just to mark the ballot paper.[/quote]

Correct.

And he didn't say the only requirement was turning up at the polling place.

He said "They are obliged to turn up", which is quite correct.

He said nothing wrong in his statement.

BigHole has made a fool of himself with this thread.

I seem to remember an old saying

you can lead a horse to water
but you cant make it drink..


thats smacks of this thread.. who cares who ,really cares about the dotted Is or the crossed Ts.....

you are obliged if you have any manners at all.. ::) ::)
to take the ballot form....as I do...

if you refuse to take it.. or tear it up... is anyone obliged to arrest you...or do they ignore you.??....

the officer who hands you the form puts a number or something on it..is this so it can be checked to see if you did in fact vote or give them the big finger?????>..

until a whole load of people do this.....Big Finger..


I guess we will never know.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

cods wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:49pm:

hes only bitching because his side lost...BIG TIME... the yanks and the Brits would still have had more people voting without compulsary than Australia does with it..

Really?

Australia generally has a ~94% valid voter turn out.

The UK has generally about ~66% voter turn out.

The US has generally about ~58% voter turn out.

I think Australia leads by quite a margin...   ::)

cods wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:56pm:

I seem to remember an old saying you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.. thats smacks of this thread.. who cares who ,really cares about the dotted Is or the crossed Ts..... you are obliged if you have any manners at all.. ::) ::) to take the ballot form....as I do... if you refuse to take it.. or tear it up... is anyone obliged to arrest you...or do they ignore you.??.... the officer who hands you the form puts a number or something on it..is this so it can be checked to see if you did in fact vote or give them the big finger?????>.. until a whole load of people do this.....Big Finger.. I guess we will never know.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The Ballot official has to initial the ballot paper. If it isn't initialled the vote is invalid. This is to prevent people bringing their own ballot sheets and voting multiple times.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:24pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:20pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:16pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:15pm: [ So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement ... No, he didn't. You've made a complete fool of yourself. His statement is 100% correct. The courts of Australian made that statement fkkwit not me I just posted what THEY fkken said. Yes, but you failed to actually read what they said. "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off". And Waleed's statement: "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." You'll notice the absence of the word "only". Thus, Mr Waleed is 100% correct. You have made an absolute fool of yourself with this thread.

Indeed. Case closed.

Sorry Big Ol, but you just got showed up.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 7:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:24pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:20pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:16pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:15pm: [ So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement ... No, he didn't. You've made a complete fool of yourself. His statement is 100% correct. The courts of Australian made that statement fkkwit not me I just posted what THEY fkken said. Yes, but you failed to actually read what they said. "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off". And Waleed's statement: "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." You'll notice the absence of the word "only". Thus, Mr Waleed is 100% correct. You have made an absolute fool of yourself with this thread. Indeed. Case closed. Sorry Big Ol, but you just got showed up.

That 7 or 8 times today Bighole?

cods wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:56pm:

I seem to remember an old saying you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.. thats smacks of this thread.. who cares who ,really cares about the dotted Is or the crossed Ts..... you are obliged if you have any manners at all.. ::) ::) to take the ballot form....as I do... if you refuse to take it.. or tear it up... is anyone obliged to arrest you...or do they ignore you.??.... the officer who hands you the form puts a number or something on it..is this so it can be checked to see if you did in fact vote or give them the big finger?????>.. until a whole load of people do this.....Big Finger.. I guess we will never know.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

In Australia, we vote the "Australian vote" - secret ballot.  There is nothing on the ballot paper that identifies it with yourself.  What the Polling official does is initial it, with their own initials to indicate that it is a valid paper.

Interestingly, in the UK, they do not have a secret ballot.   Each ballot paper has a number.  This is marked against your name on the electoral roll when you are handed the ballot paper.   Ballot papers are kept for IIRC 14 years.   If the Government so wished, they could trace back who voted for which candidate.   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 5:56pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 4:26pm: A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system Well I take it then you would prefer they had just First Past the Post voting, nothing else. If they went that way, it would be counter to Australia's beliefs about it. What if we did away with preferential voting, how would that go? Look, you clown.... I said nothing of the sort and I support preferential voting. I said nothing about the US system other than to tell you what it actually is.

Keep your stupid mouth shut then about the US not getting the president they wanted

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 8:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:56pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 4:26pm: A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system Well I take it then you would prefer they had just First Past the Post voting, nothing else. If they went that way, it would be counter to Australia's beliefs about it. What if we did away with preferential voting, how would that go? Look, you clown.... I said nothing of the sort and I support preferential voting. I said nothing about the US system other than to tell you what it actually is. Keep your stupid mouth shut then about the US not getting the president they wanted

When Trump got about 25% of the vote and Clinton finished with over 3,000,000 more votes it is difficult to argue that it is the result that Americans wanted but it is the result they got.

Told you all before - Aleed Wally would learn a lot more by spending one day here and on another couple of political forums than he could in a lifetime of bending the books...

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 4:26pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 3:52pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:06pm: no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close. So do you think the US should have "First Past the Post" voting? longy, would you prefer the Electoral College be scrapped and just the "popular" vote retained? That's the only way Clinton could have won If the US changed to First Past the Post voting, would you be happy with that? There's no chance of it happening but there's nothing stopping you from suggesting it as a viable alternative ... but you'd have to convince 50 States, the States take precedence over the Fed, you wouldn't think it these days, but they do indeed. There's no chance of compulsory voting either So what do you think about the voting system in the US? it stinks in your opinion and needs changing, or is it Ok? How would you ensure candidates who get the most "popular" votes, can win ? A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system and yes, the US electoral system is an abomination which is so fragmented and so open to abuse that it is a disaster. what did you think of North Carolina which passed a voter ID law specifically designed to disenfranchise blacks and student. They literally researched ID mainly used by these groups and then banned them.  You think that this is even remotely fair? Or how about the recent election where a Democrat won the governors mansion and the REpublican congress literally voted to strip the governor of most of his powers. THIS is the USA electoral system This is the system where elections are run by local committees comprised of members of political parties which can and have, literally banned people from auditing the votes. REmember 2000? the supreme court with a majority of republican appointees voted to HALT A RECOUNT because GWB was in front. so does it stink?  I can think of some third-world cesspools with a more open and less corrupt system. Did Trump ACTUALLY win? We will never know since recounts have to be paid for by individuals and even then, can be stopped by judges who owe allegiance to politics above democracy. STINKS AND THEN SOME So not about compulsory voting then.

I could show you that compulsory voting would have prevented WW2 and you'd still support voluntary. You wank on endlessly about the supposed 'sacrifice' of the military and yet you aren't even selfless enough to VOTE.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 8:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:56pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 4:26pm: A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system Well I take it then you would prefer they had just First Past the Post voting, nothing else. If they went that way, it would be counter to Australia's beliefs about it. What if we did away with preferential voting, how would that go? Look, you clown.... I said nothing of the sort and I support preferential voting. I said nothing about the US system other than to tell you what it actually is. Keep your stupid mouth shut then about the US not getting the president they wanted

You think there is some kind of connection between those two statement you boofhead? the vote is routinely rigged... by republicans as in north carolina or other examples of where republicans only are allowed to count the votes and let's not forget the republican supreme court in 2000 literally stopping recount to avoid a possible democrat win.

the confidence in the integrity of the american voting system is low by western standards. we lose a handul of votes in an election and a re-election is ordered.  The americans lose 100,000 and the republic courts, government or electoral committee dont give  crap.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 8:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:56pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 4:26pm: A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system Well I take it then you would prefer they had just First Past the Post voting, nothing else. If they went that way, it would be counter to Australia's beliefs about it. What if we did away with preferential voting, how would that go? Look, you clown.... I said nothing of the sort and I support preferential voting. I said nothing about the US system other than to tell you what it actually is. Keep your stupid mouth shut then about the US not getting the president they wanted

Most unpopular incoming President in modern history.

Very low turnout for his inauguration.

And, this is the kicker, more people voted for Clinton than Trump.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that America didn't get the President they wanted, and at least 3 million people would agree with me.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 8:50pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 8:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:56pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 4:26pm: A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system Well I take it then you would prefer they had just First Past the Post voting, nothing else. If they went that way, it would be counter to Australia's beliefs about it. What if we did away with preferential voting, how would that go? Look, you clown.... I said nothing of the sort and I support preferential voting. I said nothing about the US system other than to tell you what it actually is. Keep your stupid mouth shut then about the US not getting the president they wanted Most unpopular incoming President in modern history.

By the same pollsters who said he'd never get the nomination and he'd never win.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 8:43pm:

I could show you that compulsory voting would have prevented WW2 and you'd still support voluntary. You wank on endlessly about the supposed 'sacrifice' of the military and yet you aren't even selfless enough to VOTE.

Yes with manually counting that many votes they would have all been much too busy to fight.

Frank wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 9:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 8:50pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 8:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:56pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:08pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 4:26pm: A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system Well I take it then you would prefer they had just First Past the Post voting, nothing else. If they went that way, it would be counter to Australia's beliefs about it. What if we did away with preferential voting, how would that go? Look, you clown.... I said nothing of the sort and I support preferential voting. I said nothing about the US system other than to tell you what it actually is. Keep your stupid mouth shut then about the US not getting the president they wanted Most unpopular incoming President in modern history. By the same pollsters who said he'd never get the nomination and he'd never win.

There is also those pesky millions of people protesting that gives it away ?

Its time wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 7:36pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 7:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:24pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:20pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:16pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:15pm: [ So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement ... No, he didn't. You've made a complete fool of yourself. His statement is 100% correct. The courts of Australian made that statement fkkwit not me I just posted what THEY fkken said. Yes, but you failed to actually read what they said. "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off". And Waleed's statement: "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." You'll notice the absence of the word "only". Thus, Mr Waleed is 100% correct. You have made an absolute fool of yourself with this thread. Indeed. Case closed. Sorry Big Ol, but you just got showed up. That 7 or 8 times today Bighole?

9, actually.

But who's counting?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 11:20pm:

Its time wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 7:36pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 7:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:24pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:20pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:16pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:15pm: [ So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement ... No, he didn't. You've made a complete fool of yourself. His statement is 100% correct. The courts of Australian made that statement fkkwit not me I just posted what THEY fkken said. Yes, but you failed to actually read what they said. "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off". And Waleed's statement: "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." You'll notice the absence of the word "only". Thus, Mr Waleed is 100% correct. You have made an absolute fool of yourself with this thread. Indeed. Case closed. Sorry Big Ol, but you just got showed up. That 7 or 8 times today Bighole? 9, actually. But who's counting?

Not me , much  :)

Laydeez and Chennumens!  Can we leave the bitch fighting and get on the subject...

Oooh - you bitch, Greg... ooooh you hairy monster BigOl.... Ooooh you emotional negative longweekend... ooooooh you tract repeater aquascoot    ......wait a minute.....

It's a fair cop!

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 11:56pm:

Can we leave the bitch fighting and get on the subject...

The subject is concluded. Big Ol's allegation against Waleed has been proven to be completely false, and not even Big Ol is defending his claim anymore. There's not much else to talk about really.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 7:34pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:24pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:20pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:16pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:15pm: [ So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement ... No, he didn't. You've made a complete fool of yourself. His statement is 100% correct. The courts of Australian made that statement fkkwit not me I just posted what THEY fkken said. Yes, but you failed to actually read what they said. "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off". And Waleed's statement: "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." You'll notice the absence of the word "only". Thus, Mr Waleed is 100% correct. You have made an absolute fool of yourself with this thread. Indeed. Case closed. Sorry Big Ol, but you just got showed up.

It would have been easy to get this wrong, What Waleed said did seem suss on the face of it.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 7:28am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 7:34pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:24pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:20pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:16pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:15pm: [ So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement ... No, he didn't. You've made a complete fool of yourself. His statement is 100% correct. The courts of Australian made that statement fkkwit not me I just posted what THEY fkken said. Yes, but you failed to actually read what they said. "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off". And Waleed's statement: "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." You'll notice the absence of the word "only". Thus, Mr Waleed is 100% correct. You have made an absolute fool of yourself with this thread. Indeed. Case closed. Sorry Big Ol, but you just got showed up. It would have been easy to get this wrong, What Waleed said did seem suss on the face of it.

In his (small) mind, BigHole inserted "only" into this statement:

"They are obliged to turn up"

That's where he went wrong.

We demand nothing short of a written apology to our first president big hole

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 6:51am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 11:56pm: Can we leave the bitch fighting and get on the subject... The subject is concluded. Big Ol's allegation against Waleed has been proven to be completely false, and not even Big Ol is defending his claim anymore. There's not much else to talk about really.

The word not  is in front of that word only; as you are NOT only obliged to show up, but ........,.


And if any of you actually read the legal precedents you would see that your obligation does in fact extend beyond just showing up.

Were all of you dropped on your heads as babies?

I gave you the names to some very interesting cases involving our voting obligations; I know waleed did not read them but you lot of fkktards should have.  ;D ;D ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 10:35am:

And if any of you actually read the legal precedents you would see that your obligation does in fact extend beyond just showing up.

And nobody is saying it doesn't.

If you read the President's statement, you'll see that he didn't limit the voters' obligations to just showing up.

"Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up."

You done goofed, BigHole.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:24pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:20pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:16pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:15pm: [ So everyone after me, that fkkwit walleed made a false statement ... No, he didn't. You've made a complete fool of yourself. His statement is 100% correct. The courts of Australian made that statement fkkwit not me I just posted what THEY fkken said. Yes, but you failed to actually read what they said. "It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off". And Waleed's statement: "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." You'll notice the absence of the word "only". Thus, Mr Waleed is 100% correct. You have made an absolute fool of yourself with this thread.

You have based you entire argument once again on semantics, you point out the word only like set the legal precedence for the entire voting system.


it is NOT the case to ONLY attend and get your name marked off and waleed and the res of you geniuses think that all you have to do.


This would be wrong, that is not all you have to do.

It is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.

See how the AEC failed to use the word show up.

http://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 10:44am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2017 at 10:35am: And if any of you actually read the legal precedents you would see that your obligation does in fact extend beyond just showing up. And nobody is saying it doesn't. If you read the President's statement, you'll see that he didn't limit the voters' obligations to just showing up. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." You done goofed, BigHole.

Is english not your first language?


And why the fkk are you here, or are you still a LYING PIECE of SH!T?

http://oi65.tinypic.com/2e4f690.jpg

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 10:47am:

it is NOT the case to ONLY attend and get your name marked off and waleed and the res of you geniuses think that all you have to do.

Where did Waleed, or anyone else, say that you only have to attend and get your name marked off?

You're seeing things that aren't there, BigHole.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 10:50am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2017 at 10:44am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2017 at 10:35am: And if any of you actually read the legal precedents you would see that your obligation does in fact extend beyond just showing up. And nobody is saying it doesn't. If you read the President's statement, you'll see that he didn't limit the voters' obligations to just showing up. "Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up." You done goofed, BigHole. Is english not your first language?

Where did Waleed, or anyone else, say that you only have to attend and get your name marked off?

Show us.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 8:43pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:17pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 4:26pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 3:52pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 2:06pm: no they didnt. Even with voluntary voting, Clinton got a big majority of the votes. And if you included all the lazy people who didnt vote, Trump woudlnt have even gotten close. So do you think the US should have "First Past the Post" voting? longy, would you prefer the Electoral College be scrapped and just the "popular" vote retained? That's the only way Clinton could have won If the US changed to First Past the Post voting, would you be happy with that? There's no chance of it happening but there's nothing stopping you from suggesting it as a viable alternative ... but you'd have to convince 50 States, the States take precedence over the Fed, you wouldn't think it these days, but they do indeed. There's no chance of compulsory voting either So what do you think about the voting system in the US? it stinks in your opinion and needs changing, or is it Ok? How would you ensure candidates who get the most "popular" votes, can win ? A) the US already has first-past the post voting. B) when you ask the entire country to vote for just two positions Pres and VP, it doesnt seem to make sense to use a college system and yes, the US electoral system is an abomination which is so fragmented and so open to abuse that it is a disaster. what did you think of North Carolina which passed a voter ID law specifically designed to disenfranchise blacks and student. They literally researched ID mainly used by these groups and then banned them.  You think that this is even remotely fair? Or how about the recent election where a Democrat won the governors mansion and the REpublican congress literally voted to strip the governor of most of his powers. THIS is the USA electoral system This is the system where elections are run by local committees comprised of members of political parties which can and have, literally banned people from auditing the votes. REmember 2000? the supreme court with a majority of republican appointees voted to HALT A RECOUNT because GWB was in front. so does it stink?  I can think of some third-world cesspools with a more open and less corrupt system. Did Trump ACTUALLY win? We will never know since recounts have to be paid for by individuals and even then, can be stopped by judges who owe allegiance to politics above democracy. STINKS AND THEN SOME So not about compulsory voting then. I could show you that compulsory voting would have prevented WW2 and you'd still support voluntary. You wank on endlessly about the supposed 'sacrifice' of the military and yet you aren't even selfless enough to VOTE.

Actually you can't show where compulsory voting has done sh1t.

What compulsory voting does do, is line the pockets of the parties and independents with taxpayer's hard earned money. And nothing else.


You know nothing about sacrifice as your stupid comparison between serving this country and standing in a fkken line, you dolt.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 10:47am:

it is NOT the case to ONLY attend and get your name marked off

Correct.

And nobody said it was.

https://s25.postimg.org/rt6l0zi4f/fullsizeoutput_a6.jpg

Waleed's the man...... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 21^st, 2017 at 6:53pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 6:15pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jan 21st, 2017 at 5:04pm: Tell me, Bigol64, does anybody actually make sure that you cast a vote, when you vote?   ::) Since I don't vote Id say no. But you do know that this was the Australian Electoral Commission stating this, not me, don't you? Oh, yes.  I recognise it from their paraphenalia. So, you don't vote.  You are quoting from the AEC how it likes the voting to occur, not how it actually happens, nor the instructions which are usually given before the opening of the Polling Booth to the various functionaries by the Polling Booth supervisor. You are aware what those instructions are, aren't you, Bigol64? IIRC they are:  "The voters will be made to form a queue.  They will be directed to the first member of staff that is free and they will have their name marked off the roll.  They will be handed their ballot paper and directed to the voting booth.  If they refuse the ballot paper you are to ask them again and if they again refuse it, you are to hand it to the supervisor who will fold and place it in the ballot box.  Once they have marked the paper (assuming of course they have taken it), they are to then fold and place it in the ballot box.   On no account are they allowed to leave the Ballot Station with a ballot paper in their possession. You will note, no voter is forced to take a ballot paper.  No one is standing over them when they mark the ballot paper (or not).   They are prevented from leaving the Ballot Station with any ballot papers. The only way they can be fined is if they refuse to have their name marked off the roll.   They are not made to vote. I have worked on elections, at the Ballot Booth as an AEC official now for the last 20 years, both at State and Federal elections. I think it's time you voted, Bigol64, to acquaint yourself with the procedures from a voter's viewpoint.   ::)

I thrive on the fact that the AEC is populated with lazy and stupid people who couldn't find their arse with both hands behind their back.


I don't vote, I am not on the electoral roll and at this stage I have not intention of changing that.  :) :)


Im pretty sure it is still illegal for anyone to deliberately encourage another to not cast a valid vote. As in what waleed mentioned and currently being supported by others.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 11:10am:

Im pretty sure it is still illegal for anyone to deliberately encourage another to not cast a valid vote. As in what waleed mentioned and currently being supported by others.

Once again, you're seeing things that aren't there.

Where did Waleed encourage people to not cast a valid vote?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 10:57am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2017 at 10:47am: it is NOT the case to ONLY attend and get your name marked off Correct. And nobody said it was.

Why have you not fkked off from this site yet; anything you have to say on ANY matter is invalid.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 11:13am:

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2017 at 11:10am: Im pretty sure it is still illegal for anyone to deliberately encourage another to not cast a valid vote. As in what waleed mentioned and currently being supported by others. Once again, you're seeing things that aren't there. Where did Waleed encourage people to not cast a valid vote?

Why are you still here, you made the bet now fkk off.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 11:18am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2017 at 11:13am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2017 at 11:10am: Im pretty sure it is still illegal for anyone to deliberately encourage another to not cast a valid vote. As in what waleed mentioned and currently being supported by others. Once again, you're seeing things that aren't there. Where did Waleed encourage people to not cast a valid vote? Why are you still here, you made the bet now fkk off.

To highlight your mistakes and irrational bigotry.

Mission accomplished.

Your white flag has been accepted.

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 11:14am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22nd, 2017 at 10:57am: BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22nd, 2017 at 10:47am: it is NOT the case to ONLY attend and get your name marked off Correct. And nobody said it was. Why have you not fkked off from this site yet; anything you have to say on ANY matter is invalid.

Well we all knew that was coming , how is that apology letter coming along ,

one for president Waleed

one for Greg

BigOl64 wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 11:10am:

I thrive on the fact that the AEC is populated with lazy and stupid people who couldn't find their arse with both hands behind their back.

Typical exaggeration.  Most of the AEC staff that I have met and interacted with have been smart, dedicated people who carry out their duties diligently.  As you are, you claim, neither registered to vote or have voted, I wonder on what basis you have made your assessment?


Quote:

I don't vote, I am not on the electoral roll and at this stage I have not intention of changing that.  :) :)

Interesting.  All states require you, except South Australia, IIRC to be registered to vote, Bigol64.  South Australia doesn't require you to register but once registered, you are not able to let your registration lapse.   You can register only on the state roll there, also unusually.   You don't have to register to vote federally.

Now, unless you're a long-time resident of South Australia, Bigol64, you are boasting of undertaking an illegal act and promoting an illegal act.  Tsk, tsk.    ::)


Quote:

Im pretty sure it is still illegal for anyone to deliberately encourage another to not cast a valid vote. As in what waleed mentioned and currently being supported by others.

Waleed has merely mentioned the reality of voting in Australia, Bigol64 whereas you have failed to comply with the electoral act in all states, except South Australia.   Tsk, tsk. tsk.    ::) ::) ::)

I can see why you lefties think he is the ducks nuts, he is inspiration to you, but considered a cretin by the rest of us. He is your donald trump and that is why you want him for president.

BigOld,

That's why Socialist indoctrination at an early age, like what happened to the Lefties here, is so dangerous because it bends the brain so they can't see round corners.

juliar wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2017 at 4:50pm:

I can see why you lefties think he is the ducks nuts, he is inspiration to you, but considered a cretin by the rest of us. He is your donald trump and that is why you want him for president. BigOld, That why Socialist indoctrination at an early age, like what happened to the Lefties here, is so dangerous because it bends the brain so they can't see round corners.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Even the most persuasive argument — that compulsory voting violates free speech ideals that include the right to silence — misunderstands how compulsory voting works. Voters are not compelled to support a candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up.

Leave your form blank if the options are so uninspiring. Draw pictures on it. Even this is useful: By tracking the growth of these “informal” votes we can gauge voter dissatisfaction. - Waleed Aly




LOL what a useless drongo

And the Greenies and Lefties go from polling place to polling place voting multiple times.