Support NeoGAF

[Arksy]

You could make a very secure, very good system if you're willing to track everything that goes through the system.

We can't do that with elections, because it's a secret ballot. Tracking is illegal as it stands.

We have the most accountable and reliable election results in the fucking world. NO ONE, i repeat, NO ONE does it better than we do. A guy lost a bunch of Senate Votes off a truck last time, and the ENTIRE WA Senate election was re-done. All this because people ceebs waiting a week for the result? Really?

Don't fuck with the system, it's amazing as it is.

 

[Fredescu]

The enormous rise in early voting says there's a problem. The huge queues from the new Senate system despite that says there's a problem too. Electronic voting potentially solves both.

Is early voting a problem? The huge queues were a combination of the new Senate system and a cut in polling places. An electronic system like bobs suggestion would add an additional time overhead.

If polling places were cut to save a bit of money, wait until the electronic voting system needs to be refreshed every 2-3 elections due to hardware and software that does not last forever. Project budgets are slashed because "surely we can do it cheaper this time." Then someone calls an early election when a solution hasn't been agreed on to replace all the printers and terminals that have died over the natural course of machine death, because the election was assumed to be a couple of years away and a rush decision is made to buy up a bunch of machines and whoops there's a new connectivity standard now and the software wasn't written to support that so we better engage the software company that wrote it to update it, and by the way the core of the team that wrote it has left the company but they're confident that they can do it because who turns down a desperate customer with money behind them, and sure the development was documented but the actual live version we used last election has a bunch of improvements bolted on that there is no documentation for, but surely they commented the code pretty well when they did that, hey bill, what the fuck does variable x mean, I can't find it anywhere but if I comment out this line the whole thing breaks, and testing says that only half the devices work because it turns out the batch that was bought contains two slightly different versions of hardware because their was a minor hardware revision that the manufacturer didn't even tell the supplier about because it was really just a firmware revision but the newer firmware has some added security that means our software can't address the device in the same way and the election is next month.

I've worked in IT for twenty years and the above is just reality, no matter what public face the companies might put on. Admittedly I've never worked in the paper and pencil industry but at least we can go back to using that when we accidentally vote to burn it all down on day due to lack rounding error.

 

[darkace]

Pretty good video, here are the problems he summarises.

1: Auditing the software and hardware
2: Transit of voting data
3: Central count program with little to no accountability

I'll try and approach this from a standpoint that electronic voting has to just be better than paper voting, not impeccably perfect.

Problem 3 is easily solvable, who said the implementation needs a single central count program? Distribute the data from all machines to multiple (could be hundreds to thousands if necessary this is totally trivial) systems held by mix of the stakeholders of the election. Data has to obviously match between all counters to be considered valid. This is actually a really dumb solution and could be done with much more complex security measures but with the same underlying principle, it ensures against corruption of a central count program.

Problem 2 is mathematically solvable thanks to quantum key distribution technologies, transit of data is not an issue. Also note QKD systems are not quantum computing systems, they can be implemented with commercially available technology right now. But there are some vulnerabilities with modern systems due to hardware imperfections, these will be solved in time. QKD systems are also vulnerable to man in the middle attacks to the same extent and classical communication protocol is. But it is possible to authenticate using unconditionally secure schemes designed for QKD.

Problem 1 is hard to solve. At least to my knowledge. I'm sure smart people can think of a way to at least make it as secure as the paper counterpart.

Also paper voting is very vulnerable to MITM attacks. Like every step of it. Vote transit, vulnerable. Calling in results to a central count, extremely vulnerable. Pencils? cmon man.

The best argument in favor of paper voting IMO is that it's very easy to commit small scale fraud, but complexity raises immensely as you try and increase the scale of the fraud. With electronic voting it would be extremely difficult to commit small scale fraud, but if you can change one vote then you can probably change much more than one.

Also as a note. I don't support electronic voting because it's faster, but because I genuinely think it can be much more secure than paper voting.

Thanks for the write-up. I'm happy to go along with it if we can it's proven secure, but with the documented record of electronic voting fraud I'm going to need to see some serious receipts from experts before I'd agree.

 

[Arksy]

Is early voting a problem? The huge queues were a combination of the new Senate system and a cut in polling places. An electronic system like bobs suggestion would add an additional time overhead.

If polling places were cut to save a bit of money, wait until the electronic voting system needs to be refreshed every 2-3 elections due to hardware and software that does not last forever. Project budgets are slashed because "surely we can do it cheaper this time." Then someone calls an early election when a solution hasn't been agreed on to replace all the printers and terminals that have died over the natural course of machine death, because the election was assumed to be a couple of years away and a rush decision is made to buy up a bunch of machines and whoops there's a new connectivity standard now and the software wasn't written to support that so we better engage the software company that wrote it to update it, and by the way the core of the team that wrote it has left the company but they're confident that they can do it because who turns down a desperate customer with money behind them, and sure the development was documented but the actual live version we used last election has a bunch of improvements bolted on that there is no documentation for, but surely they commented the code pretty well when they did that, hey bill, what the fuck does variable x mean, I can't find it anywhere but if I comment out this line the whole thing breaks, and testing says that only half the devices work because it turns out the batch that was bought contains two slightly different versions of hardware because their was a minor hardware revision that the manufacturer didn't even tell the supplier about because it was really just a firmware revision but the newer firmware has some added security that means our software can't address the device in the same way and the election is next month.

I've worked in IT for twenty years and the above is just reality, no matter what public face the companies might put on. Admittedly I've never worked in the paper and pencil industry but at least we can go back to using that when we accidentally vote to burn it all down on day due to lack rounding error.

Furthermore, who the fuck checks it? Currenty we have members from each party standing behind people counting to make sure the whole system stays honest. I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Paper ballots are not perfect, there's a lot of paper waste, but most of that paper is at least recycled.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Is early voting a problem? The huge queues were a combination of the new Senate system and a cut in polling places. An electronic system like bobs suggestion would add an additional time overhead.

If polling places were cut to save a bit of money, wait until the electronic voting system needs to be refreshed every 2-3 elections due to hardware and software that does not last forever. Project budgets are slashed because "surely we can do it cheaper this time." Then someone calls an early election when a solution hasn't been agreed on to replace all the printers and terminals that have died over the natural course of machine death, because the election was assumed to be a couple of years away and a rush decision is made to buy up a bunch of machines and whoops there's a new connectivity standard now and the software wasn't written to support that so we better engage the software company that wrote it to update it, and by the way the core of the team that wrote it has left the company but they're confident that they can do it because who turns down a desperate customer with money behind them, and sure the development was documented but the actual live version we used last election has a bunch of improvements bolted on that there is no documentation for, but surely they commented the code pretty well when they did that, hey bill, what the fuck does variable x mean, I can't find it anywhere but if I comment out this line the whole thing breaks, and testing says that only half the devices work because it turns out the batch that was bought contains two slightly different versions of hardware because their was a minor hardware revision that the manufacturer didn't even tell the supplier about because it was really just a firmware revision but the newer firmware has some added security that means our software can't address the device in the same way and the election is next month.

I've worked in IT for twenty years and the above is just reality, no matter what public face the companies might put on. Admittedly I've never worked in the paper and pencil industry but at least we can go back to using that when we accidentally vote to burn it all down on day due to lack rounding error.

Furthermore, who the fuck checks it? Currenty we have members from each party standing behind people counting to make sure the whole system stays honest. I can't believe we're even having this discussion. Paper ballots are not perfect, there's a lot of paper waste, but most of that paper is at least recycled.

I can't deny that systematic organizational incompetence is a problem in IT on both the hardware and software sides. Both my own experience and that of everyone in the field I know bears that out. So yeah that's a pretty good argument against doing electronic voting but I still think we need to motivate theoretical research into solving the problems inherent in electronic voting rather than in the problematic culture of pretty much all organizations when it comes to making / saving a buck.


But the checking would still be done by all parties . You could have representatives of all parties verify data before and after transit and perform their own counts once the data has arrived.

 

[Fredescu]

I still think we need to motivate theoretical research into solving the problems inherent in electronic voting rather than in the problematic culture of pretty much all organizations when it comes to making / saving a buck.

I know it's not exactly what you mean but the inquiry into the 2013 election had a bunch to say about electronic voting. Most of it critical.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...eral_Election/Second_Interim_Report/Chapter_4


Also I don't think it's always incompetence as much as complexity. For example, often documentation is left out not because of who should have been documenting it but because the customer asked to remove the documentation line item from the tender to get the final cost over the line.

The more complex a system is, the more ways it can be easily broken. When you have a simple system that works, best to stick with that.

 

[Dryk]

The reason you get fast results on election night is that the AEC cheats like blazes , they guess the two most likely contenders for a seat , and then attribute preferences to whoever's higher up on the ticket for all other votes.

Well since they have to by law is it really cheating? A lot of the data nerds in the AEC would probably love to do a full preference count but they'd never get the funding for it.

 

[D.Lo]

You could make a very secure, very good system if you're willing to track everything that goes through the system.

We can't do that with elections, because it's a secret ballot. Tracking is illegal as it stands.

We have the most accountable and reliable election results in the fucking world. NO ONE, i repeat, NO ONE does it better than we do. A guy lost a bunch of Senate Votes off a truck last time, and the ENTIRE WA Senate election was re-done. All this because people ceebs waiting a week for the result? Really?

Don't fuck with the system, it's amazing as it is.

100% agree. A hard evidence paper trail which remains anonymous on the individual basis.

Getting a result earlier? Who gives a fuck compared to potential election hacks. Or just as bad, claims of hacks.

 

[PhantomZone]

The Liberals won... PARTY TIME :-D

 

[i_am_ben]

I wonder if the gay marriage plebiscite will get up, and if so when it will occur.

 

[Arksy]

I wonder if the gay marriage plebiscite will get up, and if so when it will occur.

Unless 100% of ALP members vote for Gay Marriage (they won't), you'd only need 2 liberal backbenchers and a bunch of the crossbenchers to agree to it for it to get up, where it would sweep the Senate. The ALP and Greens could blockade the Government, but that'd be politically risky.

The policy of the coalition is to hold a plebiscite and to basically vote along the lines of the result. This is 100% a political thing. There are a lot of Liberals that would lose votes, who are in marginal seats if they expressed a strong stance one way or another, regardless of what they believe. This way they can basically outsource the decision to the wider pubic, then back it on the basis that it's the democratic will of the people. Despite the fact that it's non-binding, I am willing to eat my hat if the motion is carried (which it fucking will) and same sex marriage isn't legalised. You ignore the people at your own peril in a democracy. I just came back from the UK where the entire political class is in chaos because they have no idea what to do, their voting bases voted against them.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Unless 100% of ALP members vote for Gay Marriage (they won't), you'd only need 2 liberal backbenchers and a bunch of the crossbenchers to agree to it for it to get up, where it would sweep the Senate. The ALP and Greens could blockade the Government, but that'd be politically risky.

The policy of the coalition is to hold a plebiscite and to basically vote along the lines of the result. This is 100% a political thing. There are a lot of Liberals that would lose votes, who are in marginal seats if they expressed a strong stance one way or another, regardless of what they believe. This way they can basically outsource the decision to the wider pubic, then back it on the basis that it's the democratic will of the people. Despite the fact that it's non-binding, I am willing to eat my hat if the motion is carried (which it fucking will) and same sex marriage isn't legalised. You ignore the people at your own peril in a democracy. I just came back from the UK where the entire political class is in chaos because they have no idea what to do, their voting bases voted against them.

This is already an expensive exercise in ignoring the will of the people as long as it's even remotely electorally possible though. The polling on this is beyond margin of error and shy Tory effects combined. And reliably so. A simple conscience vote would already see it carried, even if moderate Liberals in conservative seats and conservative Liberals in moderate seats votes against it.

 

[Arksy]

This is already an expensive exercise in ignoring the will of the people as long as it's even remotely electorally possible though. The polling on this is beyond margin of error and shy Tory effects combined. And reliably so. A simple conscience vote would already see it carried, even if moderate Liberals in conservative seats and conservative Liberals in moderate seats votes against it.

That's true, but if the vote was carried, it would probably also stop any future government from even entertaining the thought of trying to reverse it. A conscience vote is my preferred method as well, but we did just have an election and the governing party should at least to implement their manifestos.

 

[munchie64]

Gay marriage plebiscite is pretty infuriating to me. Waste of time and money.

I better get used to this kind of feeling for the next three years.

 

[Arksy]

Gay marriage plebiscite is pretty infuriating to me. Waste of time and money.

I better get used to this kind of feeling for the next three years.

I couldn't think of a better way to drive anti-SSM sentiment away from our society than allowing people to enunciate just how illogical and stupid their objections are.

 

[munchie64]

I couldn't think of a better way to drive anti-SSM sentiment away from our society than allowing people to enunciate just how illogical and stupid their objections are.

Fair enough, but I feel that after what the US did (I don'treally understand the circumstances there other than they were very different) just finally going through with it would be enough to help with that.

But in the end I must admit I will probably be as far away from complaining as possible once all is said and done.

 

[i_am_ben]

I couldn't think of a better way to drive anti-SSM sentiment away from our society than allowing people to enunciate just how illogical and stupid their objections are.

Perhaps, but this will also lead to further gay suicides.

 

[Dead Man]

I couldn't think of a better way to drive anti-SSM sentiment away from our society than allowing people to enunciate just how illogical and stupid their objections are.

Your optimism will be the death of plenty of gay kids. Not blaming your for that, just wish people weren't so sure that the outcome will be pure good.

 

[Arksy]

I'm NOT sure...but if we're going to claim that this is going to lead to suicides, at least give me some arguments as to why, or better yet some research. I agree that the sooner this issue is put to rest the better, but do you guys have anything from the same situation in the RoI? I haven't heard ANYONE mention anything like that.

 

[i_am_ben]

Your optimism will be the death of plenty of gay kids. Not blaming your for that, just wish people weren't so sure that the outcome will be pure good.

Yep. I grew up lucky.

But I still remember the hurtful comments from straight people back in 2004. Sometimes even from my parents.

 

[Aarglefarg]

That's true, but if the vote was carried, it would probably also stop any future government from even entertaining the thought of trying to reverse it.

It doesn't strike me as a real concern to avoid. I don't think it would be reversed in Australia if passed federally.

Also echoing that the rest of the year will be a horrible time. Malcolm Turnbull will share equal responsibility for all the abuse he denies there will be.

 

[Dead Man]

I'm NOT sure...but if we're going to claim that this is going to lead to suicides, at least give me some arguments as to why, or better yet some research. I agree that the sooner this issue is put to rest the better, but do you guys have anything from the same situation in the RoI? I haven't heard ANYONE mention anything like that.

I don't to hand, but there is a crucial difference with the Ireland vote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/ireland-gay-marriage-referendum.html?_r=0

There was support for the measure across the political spectrum, including from Prime Minister Kenny, of the center-right Fine Gael party, and his Labour coalition partner, which had pushed for the referendum. Sinn Fein, an opposition party, also expressed support.

Not really sure you can say the same about us. Can you imagine George Christensen or Eric Abetz releasing a statement like this when he loses?

In a news release, the Iona Institute congratulated the yes side for “a very professional campaign that in truth began long before the official campaign started.”

I can't.

 

[Jintor]

I'm NOT sure...but if we're going to claim that this is going to lead to suicides, at least give me some arguments as to why, or better yet some research. I agree that the sooner this issue is put to rest the better, but do you guys have anything from the same situation in the RoI? I haven't heard ANYONE mention anything like that.

The reasoning seems pretty logical to me... it's going to encourage a lot of anti-homosexual public discourse under the guise of (or I suppose, being charitable, in the form of) public policy discussion. A lot of pro-, of course, but a shitload of anti. Some of it is going to be from sources that many LGBT people may consider important to them - organisations, religions, friends, family. And of course the anti-talk, being shielded by the specter of public policy discussion, will in turn encourage a lot more anti- talk - not necessarily by people who will feel compelled to put their arguments in non-emotive form.

In short, the conversation around safe schools was bad enough. A nationwide gay marriage plebiscite...

 

[Arksy]

The reasoning seems pretty logical to me... it's going to encourage a lot of anti-homosexual public discourse under the guise of (or I suppose, being charitable, in the form of) public policy discussion. A lot of pro-, of course, but a shitload of anti. Some of it is going to be from sources that many LGBT people may consider important to them - organisations, religions, friends, family. And of course the anti-talk, being shielded by the specter of public policy discussion, will in turn encourage a lot more anti- talk - not necessarily by people who will feel compelled to put their arguments in non-emotive form.

In short, the conversation around safe schools was bad enough. A nationwide gay marriage plebiscite...

People who are bigots are going to be bigots regardless of whether there's a vote on the issue or not. I agree that it may embolden some idiots to do stupid things, but so did the Supreme Court ruling in the US. I firmly believe political solutions are better than legal ones, but the best solution would be to show that society as a whole utterly rejects any sort of nonsense.

I honestly feel that this is going to be a fucking wash. It's not even going to be close. Every message of ANTI is going to be drowned out by a thousand messages for PRO. There was polling done half a decade ago that showed support in the supermajority status. Last I checked it was nearing 70% or something stupidly high. I don't think you could find another issue with such high public support. I think that the systemic deconstruction and refutation of ANTI arguments by a huge majority of the public will be great in allowing people to push a more LGBT friendly policy agenda.

The ALP should try their luck, in pushing for it when the Parliament Resumes, with the same legislation. Enough of the Coalition backbenchers may allow it through. Who knows at this point. Warren Entsch has been voted in again, his vote alone may sway it.

 

[Jintor]

I'd agree that on the high level it'll probably be a wash, but I'm imagining specifically something like christian churches going all-out pulpit campaigning (over the table or under the table, as in the Chinese-language leaflets used recently as part of an underhanded anti-Labor move). It's easy from the outside to dismiss them as bigots, but for many of my friends their faith is a deep issue... for people inside these communities, will the fact that Australia at large has their back make up for the fact that the people closest to them will be expressing their views loudly, proudly and barracking for their status as not-as-good-as-us-heteros - possibly without even knowing the damage they're doing to people close to them?

I don't know, I really don't.

 

[Bernbaum]

The attitude of a lot of Christians I know is that they don't like it, can't properly articulate why they don't like it without sounding like a homophobe, and so stay quiet on the issue.

If public opinion is clearly in favour of it, moderate christian groups may just choose to opt out of the discussion to avoid tarnishing their image. Still, your Family Firsts and Bernadi's are of course going to spit hate.

 

[Arksy]

The attitude of a lot of Christians I know is that they don't like it, can't properly articulate why they don't like it without sounding like a homophobe, and so stay quiet on the issue.

If public opinion is clearly in favour of it, moderate christian groups may just choose to opt out of the discussion to avoid tarnishing their image. Still, your Family Firsts and Bernadi's are of course going to spit hate.

They're doin that now. At least afterwards they'll probably pipe down, because they've lost the argument so there's no more point.

I understand that a lot of religious people have issues because for them marriage is a sacred union, but we really need to draw a distinction between religious marriage and marriage as established by the state. You don't have to be Christian to get married yaknow? Almost every single culture I can think of performs some manner of marriage, in whatever form.

 

[Elaugaufein]

The attitude of a lot of Christians I know is that they don't like it, can't properly articulate why they don't like it without sounding like a homophobe, and so stay quiet on the issue.

If public opinion is clearly in favour of it, moderate christian groups may just choose to opt out of the discussion to avoid tarnishing their image. Still, your Family Firsts and Bernadi's are of course going to spit hate.

The ACL has been agitating to get various hate speech restrictions suspended for the plebiscite campaign for a while. So they are certainly planning on it.

 

[Arksy]

The ACL has been agitating to get various hate speech restrictions suspended for the plebiscite campaign for a while. So they are certainly planning on it.

What hate speech restrictions?

 

[Elaugaufein]

What hate speech restrictions?

Lemme see if I can dig up an article. Will edit in here if I can.

ETA - I apologize can't dig anything up on my phone. Have found some things that incidentally suggest it may have been the AFA instead but can't find the original.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Oh, this isn't the article I was looking for, which was about one of these groups wanting to have things like 18C suspended during the referendum, but this is the incident that kicked it off: https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/12/02/rundle-imagine-theres-no-religion-in-education/

 

[Shaneus]

Quite bummed about the result, frankly. The list of things that will take a turn for the worse either because of inaction on the government's part, or flat-out unfair policies are (IMO):
* Gay marriage plebiscite. Waste of money, gives free undue justification to hate speech at the expense of making a large percentage of the community feel like second-class citizens.
* NBN/FTTN bullshit. Enough said.
* Negative gearing abolition. Would save the government money and give first home buyers a greater opportunity of buying an established home. But fuck those people, right?
* Cuts to big businesses somehow resulting in "jobs and growth".
* Bloody-mindedness on both environmental policies (what coral bleaching?) and renewable energy (in terms of both environmental and also industry growth).
* CSIRO cuts and lack of investment.
* ABC and SBS cuts (might as well mention the Libs influence on ABC coverage while we're at it)
* Tighter restrictions on welfare system resulting in insignificant savings.
* "Safe schools" reduction in funding (unless it was pulled completely? I can't remember)
* Investigation into bank fraud not coming to fruition at all.

Ugh.

I feel like this is only a portion of why my heart sank when the result was basically announced on the weekend, but I can't think of what else was coming to mind then. I'm sure I'll add to the list if anything else springs up.

 

[Dryk]

* NBN/FTTN bullshit. Enough said.
* Bloody-mindedness on both environmental policies (what coral bleaching?) and renewable energy (in terms of both environmental and also industry growth).
* CSIRO cuts and lack of investment.

These parts are the most disheartening because they're impacting the country's future in a much more permanent way.

 

[Quasar]

Quite bummed about the result, frankly. The list of things that will take a turn for the worse either because of inaction on the government's part, or flat-out unfair policies are (IMO):
* Gay marriage plebiscite. Waste of money, gives free undue justification to hate speech at the expense of making a large percentage of the community feel like second-class citizens.
* NBN/FTTN bullshit. Enough said.
* Negative gearing abolition. Would save the government money and give first home buyers a greater opportunity of buying an established home. But fuck those people, right?
* Cuts to big businesses somehow resulting in "jobs and growth".
* Bloody-mindedness on both environmental policies (what coral bleaching?) and renewable energy (in terms of both environmental and also industry growth).
* CSIRO cuts and lack of investment.
* ABC and SBS cuts (might as well mention the Libs influence on ABC coverage while we're at it)
* Tighter restrictions on welfare system resulting in insignificant savings.
* "Safe schools" reduction in funding (unless it was pulled completely? I can't remember)
* Investigation into bank fraud not coming to fruition at all.

Ugh.

I feel like this is only a portion of why my heart sank when the result was basically announced on the weekend, but I can't think of what else was coming to mind then. I'm sure I'll add to the list if anything else springs up.

Yeah. Its pretty shit. And sadly even an opposing senate cannot do much to help much of that.

 

[munchie64]

Quite bummed about the result, frankly. The list of things that will take a turn for the worse either because of inaction on the government's part, or flat-out unfair policies are (IMO):
*Snip*

Ugh.

I feel like this is only a portion of why my heart sank when the result was basically announced on the weekend, but I can't think of what else was coming to mind then. I'm sure I'll add to the list if anything else springs up.

Agreed on pretty much everything here.

The teachers I know also often mention school funding and Gonski stuff. I don't know much about that, but it's quite disheartening.

 

[Arksy]

Oh, this isn't the article I was looking for, which was about one of these groups wanting to have things like 18C suspended during the referendum, but this is the incident that kicked it off: https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/12/02/rundle-imagine-theres-no-religion-in-education/

18C is only about race. Doesn't have any bearing on anything do with sexuality.

 

[jambo]

Pisses me off that Andrew Bolt gets a full page in The Advertiser to peddle his crap opinion.

Today's was about the recent incidents in the US involving both the shooting of black men and police officers.

He said that there is a race war in the US, but it is the blacks killing the whites that is the main issue.

I threw the paper across the room.

 

[Omikron]

Pisses me off that Andrew Bolt gets a full page in The Advertiser to peddle his crap opinion.

Today's was about the recent incidents in the US involving both the shooting of black men and police officers.

He said that there is a race war in the US, but it is the blacks killing the whites that is the main issue.

I threw the paper across the room.

You will be pleased to know that Bolt is excited to present Milo Yiannopoulos on his Sky show this week!

 

[darkace]

Quite bummed about the result, frankly. The list of things that will take a turn for the worse either because of inaction on the government's part, or flat-out unfair policies are (IMO):
* Gay marriage plebiscite. Waste of money, gives free undue justification to hate speech at the expense of making a large percentage of the community feel like second-class citizens.
* NBN/FTTN bullshit. Enough said.
* Negative gearing abolition. Would save the government money and give first home buyers a greater opportunity of buying an established home. But fuck those people, right?
* Cuts to big businesses somehow resulting in "jobs and growth".
* Bloody-mindedness on both environmental policies (what coral bleaching?) and renewable energy (in terms of both environmental and also industry growth).
* CSIRO cuts and lack of investment.
* ABC and SBS cuts (might as well mention the Libs influence on ABC coverage while we're at it)
* Tighter restrictions on welfare system resulting in insignificant savings.
* "Safe schools" reduction in funding (unless it was pulled completely? I can't remember)
* Investigation into bank fraud not coming to fruition at all.

Ugh.

I feel like this is only a portion of why my heart sank when the result was basically announced on the weekend, but I can't think of what else was coming to mind then. I'm sure I'll add to the list if anything else springs up.

Eh, some of these aren't that bad. I don't see a reason to hold a banking commission, the CSIRO and ABC/SBS cuts don't really mean anything, tightening welfare restrictions is a good thing, we have many people receiving welfare who don't actually need it and the company tax cuts are good policy.

 

[Jintor]

the CSIRO and ABC/SBS cuts don't really mean anything,

they don't mean job losses? then what do they mean?

 

[darkace]

they don't mean job losses? then what do they mean?

People don't have one true job.

 

[Shaneus]

hold a banking commission

To stop banks authorising loans they know people can't afford, and in general keep them honest.

the CSIRO

Innovation. Science. Technology. Advancement in all these areas.

ABC/SBS

Jobs. Public, non-commercial, unbiased news and global media access. Multicultural news coverage.

tightening welfare restrictions is a good thing

Not when it's potentially at the expense of those who need it the most. And the money it will save is a pittance compared to other things that could be done, if the predictions are accurate. Like abolishing negative gearing.

the company tax cuts are good policy.

That literally doesn't mean anything.

Agreed on pretty much everything here.

The teachers I know also often mention school funding and Gonski stuff. I don't know much about that, but it's quite disheartening.

Oh yeah, Gonski. Let's not forget about that.

 

[darkace]

To stop banks authorising loans they know people can't afford, and in general keep them honest.

That's what APRA and ASIC are for. They do a good job.

Innovation. Science. Technology. Advancement in all these areas.

The CSIRO cuts are designed to allow it to work better with the private sector. Spending more doesn't necessarily result in better outcomes.

Jobs. Public, non-commercial, unbiased news and global media access. Multicultural news coverage.

All of which will continue.

Not when it's potentially at the expense of those who need it the most. And the money it will save is a pittance compared to other things that could be done, if the predictions are accurate. Like abolishing negative gearing.

Last I checked it didn't come at the expense of those who needed it most. And saying 'we could do x instead of y' isn't a very good criticism.

That literally doesn't mean anything.

I've been over why multiple times.

 

[Jintor]

Every time the libs get into power the ABC/SBS inevitably re-evaluate their reporting standards and then their funding gets shafted anyway. It's a wonder they stay as good as they do.

I mean heck the ABC already had its fact-checking unit cut and then drum online got taken out. Now the drum online I could take or leave but abc fact check was doing pretty solid work.

 

[Arksy]

Every time the libs get into power the ABC/SBS inevitably re-evaluate their reporting standards and then their funding gets shafted anyway. It's a wonder they stay as good as they do.

I mean heck the ABC already had its fact-checking unit cut and then drum online got taken out. Now the drum online I could take or leave but abc fact check was doing pretty solid work.

Eh, when there were serious issues of bias pointed out to them, they just stonewalled and sandbagged. Claiming that there was no such thing, which is bullshit. There's no such thing as unbiased reporting, anywhere, ever. Contrast to the UK where when the BBC was accused of bias, it conducted a review, pushed out several reports and worked towards reducing bias within their reporting. It wasn't perfect, and there still some valid criticism from both left and right sources about the bias in BBC reporting (see: EU Ref, IndyRef)..but they're on the whole a lot better than they used to be, according to people on both sides of the spectrum over there.

Given his obnoxious behaviour, the director of the ABC was crying foul that he would not be given another term, what did he expect?

 

[Aarglefarg]

The Coalition has a majority* with 76 according to the ABC.

*as much as they could get a majority, being a Coalition and all.

 

[bobnowhere]

So today Capricornia and Flynn to the LNP and Cowan to the ALP leaving the Coalition with a wafer-slim 76 seats.

Only Herbert and Hindmarsh still undecided with the likelihood of one going each way.

The Wildcard is Melbourne Ports, it could still go to anyone. Labor in 2nd and should win but if the Greens get ahead into 2nd they or the Libs will win it.

There's going to be a lot of very marginal Coalition seats for the next election.

 

[hidys]

The Coalition has a majority* with 76 according to the ABC.

*as much as they could get a majority, being a Coalition and all.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-02/has-antony-green-called-the-election-yet/7560994

Yep. They just gave Capricornia to the LNP. I suspect they'll give Hindmarsh and Cowan to the ALP pretty soon (Labor has already declared victory in Cowan). Herbert will be down to the wire.

There is a lot of speculation that Melbourne Ports might have to be recounted since it is possible that the TPP is actually LNP/Green.

 

[Elaugaufein]

So today Capricornia and Flynn to the LNP and Cowan to the ALP leaving the Coalition with a wafer-slim 76 seats.

Only Herbert and Hindmarsh still undecided with the likelihood of one going each way.

The Wildcard is Melbourne Ports, it could still go to anyone. Labor in 2nd and should win but if the Greens get ahead into 2nd they or the Libs will win it.

There's going to be a lot of very marginal Coalition seats for the next election.

There's something amusing about the Libs taking Melbourne Ports because of ALP preferences. Something about noses and faces.

 

[hidys]

There's something amusing about the Libs taking Melbourne Ports because of ALP preferences. Something about noses and faces.

That would the opinion of everyone except Michael Danby.