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


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

- or even to cast a valid ballot.

- They are obliged to turn up.

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




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.

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



So not about compulsory voting then.

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


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.

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-restri...

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.

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


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.

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


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...