Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › SA Gerrymander must end
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Send Topic Print
SA Gerrymander must end (Read 5649 times)
St George of the Garden
Gold Member
*****
Offline


http://tinyurl.com/n
3o8m2x

Posts: 9809
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #45 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:55pm  
I tried offering you alternative voting schemes, I pointed out the Nats have a gerrymander (your term not mine in this discussion) and the Greens have a savage negative gerrymander—there should be more Greens than Nats by a long shot.

Personally, I am prepared to put up with the vagaries of the single member system. In 1998 I was disappointed Howard won, was more disgusted with the Rodent saying that was a “mandate” for the GST.
Back to top
 
I want Muso as GMod. Bring back Muso!
WWW Friends of the National Broadband Network  
IP Logged
 
St George of the Garden
Gold Member
*****
Offline


http://tinyurl.com/n
3o8m2x

Posts: 9809
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #46 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:47pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:03pm:
Well, Labor in SA got 1 more seat than the Libs.


as discussed at length, the entire point of the thread which you, as usual, didn't get.


Not only that, it is only a gerrymander if seat boundaries were drawn up by the govt to deliberately affect the outcome of the election unfairly.

It is the independent AEC that draws the boundary. No gerrymander.
Back to top
 
I want Muso as GMod. Bring back Muso!
WWW Friends of the National Broadband Network  
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #47 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:01pm  
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:47pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:03pm:
Well, Labor in SA got 1 more seat than the Libs.


as discussed at length, the entire point of the thread which you, as usual, didn't get.


Not only that, it is only a gerrymander if seat boundaries were drawn up by the govt to deliberately affect the outcome of the election unfairly.

It is the independent AEC that draws the boundary. No gerrymander.



gerrymanders don't have to be deliberate.  a gerrymander is by definition a system that denies government to the party that wins a significant majority REGARDLESS of who put it in place.
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
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #48 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:02pm  
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:55pm:
I tried offering you alternative voting schemes, I pointed out the Nats have a gerrymander (your term not mine in this discussion) and the Greens have a savage negative gerrymander—there should be more Greens than Nats by a long shot.

Personally, I am prepared to put up with the vagaries of the single member system. In 1998 I was disappointed Howard won, was more disgusted with the Rodent saying that was a “mandate” for the GST.


Nats don't have a gerrymander at all.  They do well (average ~40%) in the seats in which they stand while the greens average <9% in the seats in which they stand.

the concept of voting fails you as always.
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
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16618
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #49 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:15pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:01pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:47pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:03pm:
Well, Labor in SA got 1 more seat than the Libs.


as discussed at length, the entire point of the thread which you, as usual, didn't get.


Not only that, it is only a gerrymander if seat boundaries were drawn up by the govt to deliberately affect the outcome of the election unfairly.

It is the independent AEC that draws the boundary. No gerrymander.



gerrymanders don't have to be deliberate.  a gerrymander is by definition a system that denies government to the party that wins a significant majority REGARDLESS of who put it in place.


No, a gerrymander is deliberate and is by definition:
Quote:
In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16618
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #50 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:20pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:02pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:55pm:
I tried offering you alternative voting schemes, I pointed out the Nats have a gerrymander (your term not mine in this discussion) and the Greens have a savage negative gerrymander—there should be more Greens than Nats by a long shot.

Personally, I am prepared to put up with the vagaries of the single member system. In 1998 I was disappointed Howard won, was more disgusted with the Rodent saying that was a “mandate” for the GST.


Nats don't have a gerrymander at all.  They do well (average ~40%) in the seats in which they stand while the greens average <9% in the seats in which they stand.

the concept of voting fails you as always.


George has shown a far greater understanding of the electoral system than you have LWE, you just can't understand it, it's you that fails. He wasn't saying the nats have a gerrymander except to demonstrate the excessive representation they have in proportion to the votes they attract, he is using what you see to be a gerrymander, less votes getting a greater proportion of representation. You would do yourself a favour by reading and understanding what he is saying, rather than trying to "win". You're wrong and you just don't like the outcome of the vote. Sour grapes, hence my first response via a pic.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
St George of the Garden
Gold Member
*****
Offline


http://tinyurl.com/n
3o8m2x

Posts: 9809
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #51 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:21pm  
I am just enjoying LW’s whining and trying to prolong it.

I also think, not sure, that state seats are drawn within the boundary of the corresponding Fed electorate.

But Greens have a much higher support than the Nats. LW kindly points out that the Nats can win certain seats, just like SA Labor did, irrespective of total votes.
Back to top
 
I want Muso as GMod. Bring back Muso!
WWW Friends of the National Broadband Network  
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16618
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #52 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:34pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:02pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:55pm:
I tried offering you alternative voting schemes, I pointed out the Nats have a gerrymander (your term not mine in this discussion) and the Greens have a savage negative gerrymander—there should be more Greens than Nats by a long shot.

Personally, I am prepared to put up with the vagaries of the single member system. In 1998 I was disappointed Howard won, was more disgusted with the Rodent saying that was a “mandate” for the GST.


Nats don't have a gerrymander at all.  They do well (average ~40%) in the seats in which they stand while the greens average <9% in the seats in which they stand.

the concept of voting fails you as always.


Labor don't have a gerrymander at all.  They do well in the majority of seats or near majority and then govern with the help of independents in that case.

See what I did there?

It's about seats, not total votes, and you don't like that when Labor hold govt but are defending it for the Nats and their pitiful total vote count. You can't have it both ways.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #53 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:11pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:33pm:
Aussie wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:25pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 20th, 2014 at 9:08pm:
Love the rightarded outrage tho.

Govts don’t draw the seat boundaries, the AEC do, unlike in Joh’s day. Govt on 19% of the vote?


29%.


Labor in SA didn't get a whole lot more. 

Liberal and Country League in SA didn't get a whole lot more. 

Fixed it for you.
Back to top
 
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Bam
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #54 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:24pm  
Setanta wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:15pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:01pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:47pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:03pm:
Well, Labor in SA got 1 more seat than the Libs.


as discussed at length, the entire point of the thread which you, as usual, didn't get.


Not only that, it is only a gerrymander if seat boundaries were drawn up by the govt to deliberately affect the outcome of the election unfairly.

It is the independent AEC that draws the boundary. No gerrymander.



gerrymanders don't have to be deliberate.  a gerrymander is by definition a system that denies government to the party that wins a significant majority REGARDLESS of who put it in place.


No, a gerrymander is deliberate and is by definition:
Quote:
In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts.

And that is an important point. Gerrymanders are intentionally engineered, by definition.

Meet the first Gerrymander. This is the map of an American electoral district that was created in 1812, drawn as a winged monster in a political cartoon:
...

Here is a particularly infamous example - a congressional district shaped like a pair of earmuffs.
...

These were not created accidentally.

The Playmander and Bjelkemander both had a massive overweight of rural electorates. Neither was created accidentally.

There is no such thing as an "accidental" gerrymander.
Back to top
 
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.
 
IP Logged
 
Dsmithy70
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #55 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:00pm  
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 1:06pm:
Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:08am:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:38am:
buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 20th, 2014 at 7:57pm:
•In the 1998 federal election John Howard of the Liberal Party ran against the Labor Party’s Kim Beazley.

Loser
Kim Beazley
 received
5,630,409
votes while the winner
John Howard
, owing to the gerrymander effect, lead his party to victory and government with the grand total of
5,413,431


This was also election Howard claimed his "mandate" - or "referendum" - on his
GST
Even though MORE people voted AGAINST it - than FOR it



WHERE was the "outrage" THEN ?




( ... and bear in mind, this was a "fork in the road" FEDERAL ELECTION - and "referendum" if you like - on ANOTHER new way to tax us all
As opposed to who will lead the"state of insignificance")






and like every other hypocritical leftie you consider that any time 'you' were denied power by a SLIGHT 2PP discrepancy that makes every other event - even a massive gerrymander - okay.

do you even have a principle bone in your body?  All you do is beg the question of why every liberal govt doesn't immediately institute a massive gerrymander in their own favour.  AFter all, you don't seem to have any trouble with the concept.


A principle stands whether its 1 vote or a million votes.

Its not a "well only if you get over x amount"

Do you believe it or you don't.

And just as you accuse everyone else of, you believe when it is in your favour & pull out every excuse when it doesn't


well if that is your stand then I guess there really isn't any point in debating it with you, is it?  I suppose you think Hawke stole the election in 1990 too?

The more you post the more I realise that you don't actually understand principle at all.  2PP is an APPROXIMATION of the votes not actual votes as pretty much most people understand.  The worst part is that there is simply no way you will ever admit that the SA Libs have been ripped off.  They could get get 60/40  or even 80/20 and stay in opposition and your position wouldn't change.  As long as howard has won in 1998 with a sliver more of the 2PP then you will excuse any result.

I REALLY GENUINELY HOPE that the current liberal govts Australia-wide impose a gerrymander that denies labor its rightful right to govt in the future just so I can laugh at your 'unfair' arguments in the future.


Suppose not because frankly I don't care.

The current system works great when it falls your way and a travesty of justice when it doesn't.

It's boring wheres the discussion of policies, every thread disolves into this blah blah blah
Back to top
 
REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 16618
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #56 - Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:12pm  
Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:00pm:
Suppose not because frankly I don't care.

The current system works great when it falls your way and a travesty of justice when it doesn't.

It's boring wheres the discussion of policies, every thread disolves into this blah blah blah


We're all apes but some just have so many more nits to pick. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #57 - Mar 22nd, 2014 at 8:20am  
Setanta wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:20pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:02pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:55pm:
I tried offering you alternative voting schemes, I pointed out the Nats have a gerrymander (your term not mine in this discussion) and the Greens have a savage negative gerrymander—there should be more Greens than Nats by a long shot.

Personally, I am prepared to put up with the vagaries of the single member system. In 1998 I was disappointed Howard won, was more disgusted with the Rodent saying that was a “mandate” for the GST.


Nats don't have a gerrymander at all.  They do well (average ~40%) in the seats in which they stand while the greens average <9% in the seats in which they stand.

the concept of voting fails you as always.


George has shown a far greater understanding of the electoral system than you have LWE, you just can't understand it, it's you that fails. He wasn't saying the nats have a gerrymander except to demonstrate the excessive representation they have in proportion to the votes they attract, he is using what you see to be a gerrymander, less votes getting a greater proportion of representation. You would do yourself a favour by reading and understanding what he is saying, rather than trying to "win". You're wrong and you just don't like the outcome of the vote. Sour grapes, hence my first response via a pic.




the nats DONT have excessive representation at all.  they only stand in a small number of seats and win a lot of them.  why threat is some intellectual challenge for you and simian to understand is a comment on your intelligence.
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
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #58 - Mar 22nd, 2014 at 8:22am  
Setanta wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:34pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:02pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:55pm:
I tried offering you alternative voting schemes, I pointed out the Nats have a gerrymander (your term not mine in this discussion) and the Greens have a savage negative gerrymander—there should be more Greens than Nats by a long shot.

Personally, I am prepared to put up with the vagaries of the single member system. In 1998 I was disappointed Howard won, was more disgusted with the Rodent saying that was a “mandate” for the GST.


Nats don't have a gerrymander at all.  They do well (average ~40%) in the seats in which they stand while the greens average <9% in the seats in which they stand.

the concept of voting fails you as always.


Labor don't have a gerrymander at all.  They do well in the majority of seats or near majority and then govern with the help of independents in that case.

See what I did there?

It's about seats, not total votes, and you don't like that when Labor hold govt but are defending it for the Nats and their pitiful total vote count. You can't have it both ways.


the highlighted bit is WHY it is a gerrymander.  it is a basic principle of our voting system that the number of seats should be close to the number of votes.  you wont get any argument from people on either side of politics. just you.
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
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: SA Gerrymander must end
Reply #59 - Mar 22nd, 2014 at 8:23am  
Bam wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 10:11pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:33pm:
Aussie wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 5:25pm:
St George of the Garden wrote on Mar 20th, 2014 at 9:08pm:
Love the rightarded outrage tho.

Govts don’t draw the seat boundaries, the AEC do, unlike in Joh’s day. Govt on 19% of the vote?


29%.


Labor in SA didn't get a whole lot more. 

Liberal and Country League in SA didn't get a whole lot more. 

Fixed it for you.



44% isn't a lot more than 29%???

only in your intellectually dim world perhaps.
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
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Send Topic Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge