Australian Politics Forum - Slipper threatens to quit

cods

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88048

Re: Slipper threatens to quit
Reply #15 - Sep 5^th, 2011 at 11:41am

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

progressiveslol wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 10:38am:

cods wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 10:25am:

Verge wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 8:45am:

adelcrow wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2011 at 5:16pm:

He'll run as an independent at the next election and easily win

It all comes down to where the preferences lie, and if he crosses the floor before the election if current polling continues, he will be dead in the water.

you know we are in one mighty big poo right now... and it all comes down to those PREFERENCES>>

do you think out of all this mess people will start to wake up.. to what their one little vote can doooooooooooooo?

we are in a mess and its all the fault of the VOTER.. surely there has to be a way to stop someone who gets the least primary votes.. ending up getting into power on second best... surely if they rate so low on primary they dont deserve to get any preferences..

seems to me an awful lot rides on second choice now..

I have said it before, but primary votes should be the goal and if 1st and 2nd are within a margin of say 5% of each other, then preferences should kick in then and only then.

I generally think preferences are fine. Where I object is when the system allows someone with 49% of the vote to be defeated by someone with 35% (or less). That seems very wrong and the real problem is that it treats a second preference as equal to the primary vote. The vast majority of people vote for one candidate - not several. Optional preferential voting helps this problem. But I would agree with you that if the margin (on primary votes) between first and second exceeds 8% say then preferences should not be distributed.

when we have a system that allows someone with the least to beat someone with the most... then its flawed..

its like the guy that won gold in the speed skating...he has never done a thing since..not picking on him of course.. well done to him.. but the best guys fell over..so it doesnt mean he was the best... and thats what govt should be all about... the best ones get in.. I get freaking mad when I think we are paying the likes of Wilkie..to pontificate about a basic non event..whilst doing stuff all about something like the asylum seekers policy.

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: Slipper threatens to quit
Reply #16 - Sep 5^th, 2011 at 11:48am

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

I generally think preferences are fine. Where I object is when the system allows someone with 49% of the vote to be defeated by someone with 35% (or less). That seems very wrong and the real problem is that it treats a second preference as equal to the primary vote. The vast majority of people vote for one candidate - not several. Optional preferential voting helps this problem. But I would agree with you that if the margin (on primary votes) between first and second exceeds 8% say then preferences should not be distributed.

Where your logic goes wrong, Longy, is that elections are not so much about which pollie/s win or lose a political ballot - rather in whom the majority of electors most place their respect and trust!

It is not about the desire or deservedness of pollies to win - it is about their role as democratic representatives entrusted to advance the best overall interests of the electorate!

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Slipper threatens to quit
Reply #17 - Sep 5^th, 2011 at 10:33pm

Equitist wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 11:48am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

I generally think preferences are fine. Where I object is when the system allows someone with 49% of the vote to be defeated by someone with 35% (or less). That seems very wrong and the real problem is that it treats a second preference as equal to the primary vote. The vast majority of people vote for one candidate - not several. Optional preferential voting helps this problem. But I would agree with you that if the margin (on primary votes) between first and second exceeds 8% say then preferences should not be distributed.

Where your logic goes wrong, Longy, is that elections are not so much about which pollie/s win or lose a political ballot - rather in whom the majority of electors most place their respect and trust!

It is not about the desire or deservedness of pollies to win - it is about their role as democratic representatives entrusted to advance the best overall interests of the electorate!

IM sure you were really really trying to make a valid point, but bugger if I can find it. Although I did see your stalinist side when you said 'elections werent about actually winning'.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged