• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paile

Banned
Nothing ever changes and short of outright revolt or revolution, nothing ever will. It simply doesn't matter what political analysts have to say and how logical their arguments are.
 
M

markot

Banned
paile said:
Nothing ever changes and short of outright revolt or revolution, nothing ever will. It simply doesn't matter what political analysts have to say and how logical their arguments are.
Click to expand...

No. It will change. It doesnt need an constitutional ammendment or anything.

Coalition will be sick of the stupid parties after having to deal with them for a few weeks, and the ALP and Greens will be for it too.

Also itll be popular.
 
T

toddhunter

Member
Why not just force everybody to vote "below the line", but only for as many parties as they like?

In this way you can specify a 1st, 2nd and 3rd preference and ignore the other 112 parties.

paile said:
Nothing ever changes and short of outright revolt or revolution, nothing ever will. It simply doesn't matter what political analysts have to say and how logical their arguments are.
Click to expand...

Lots of things change. The simple driver will be the two major parties wanting the rules to be more advantageous.
 
J

Jintor

Member
paile said:
Nothing ever changes and short of outright revolt or revolution, nothing ever will. It simply doesn't matter what political analysts have to say and how logical their arguments are.
Click to expand...

Things change, it just takes time and political capital
 
P

paile

Banned
Jintor said:
Things change, it just takes time and political capital
Click to expand...

What's changed in the last twenty years?

The only change you ever see is superficial. Real, deep structural reform does not happen and there has not been any significant change to our political system in over a generation.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
paile said:
What's changed in the last twenty years?

The only change you ever see is superficial. Real, deep structural reform does not happen and there has not been any significant change to our political system in over a generation.
Click to expand...

Of course not. The ALP and LNP like it the way it is. Labor preferencing the LNP over the Greens in the House of Reps , says it all. If anything they'd like a stronger hegemony which is why I could see them adopting relative high minimum quota's for membership and to be allocated preferences as well as increasing fees.
 
F

Fredescu

Member
paile said:
What's changed in the last twenty years?
Click to expand...

Above the line voting was introduced nineteen years ago, and was successful at it's goal of lowering the informal vote. At the state level there have been multiple changes to the voting system. In NSW we've had optional preferential above the line for a while.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Fredescu said:
Above the line voting was introduced nineteen years ago, and was successful at it's goal of lowering the informal vote. At the state level there have been multiple changes to the voting system. In NSW we've had optional preferential above the line for a while.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that in reaction to a situation very much like we have now ? I'm actually pretty impressed that such a fair solution was chosen as opposed to something to entrench the current players.
 
F

Fredescu

Member
Elaugaufein said:
Wasn't that in reaction to a situation very much like we have now ? I'm actually pretty impressed that such a fair solution was chosen as opposed to something to entrench the current players.
Click to expand...

It was, we had a huge senate paper in the late 90s at some point. I doubt that the majors will be able to resist putting a minimum quota percentage on senate seats to be honest, even though optional preferential above the line, or a small number of max preferences below the line is all that's needed.
 
i_am_ben

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
The electoral system is one of the main reasons to be proud of being Australian.

one of the best in the world.
 
J

Jintor

Member
paile said:
What's changed in the last twenty years?

The only change you ever see is superficial. Real, deep structural reform does not happen and there has not been any significant change to our political system in over a generation.
Click to expand...

Was going to point out stuff like the State government changes, particularly the waiting period for parties after the 1995 election where Labor got surprised by a single-issue party that sprouted in the last 3 months of the campaign.

But yes, change generally does favour the change-makers, sad but true

i_am_ben said:
The electoral system is one of the main reasons to be proud of being Australian.

one of the best in the world.
Click to expand...

As long as we don't have an electoral college and rampant gerrymandering. Or civil war. Either one, not so great.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
i_am_ben said:
The electoral system is one of the main reasons to be proud of being Australian.

one of the best in the world.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Sadly, that's actually a pretty low bar. There's actually a few voting systems that are demonstrably superior to ours (though the really common First-Past-the-Post is demonstrably worse) .
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
bobnowhere said:
Well The Chaser managed to find Jaymes Diaz, showed up on the show tonight. He actually seemed like a good sport about it all.
Click to expand...

He was probably told to keep out of the media, and the LNP pretty much gave up on the seat / hoped the swing to them was sufficient to overcome it.

That is one thing they've been very good at, if someone does something controversial in the media, they make sure they get taken out of the spotlight for a while so things cool down. Its going to be a lot harder to do that in government.
 
R

roosters93

Member
I can't remember who but someone brought up Tasmania's Hare-Clark System and it seems to be the best system I've come across. I don't think all of its features would be able to be transferred to the aus senate though.
 
J

Jintor

Member
Shorten is the face of the faceless men who knifed Rudd and Gillard. Albo is Labor Left and is called Albo, so he's probably alright.

A quick skim on Wiki suggests that he championed equal super co-contributions for same-sex couples and is backing marriage equality in a big way.

also:

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (4.52 p.m.)—Today my grievance is against the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) for his failure to provide leadership. You can trim the eyebrows; you can cap the teeth; you can cut the hair; you can put on different glasses; you can give him a ewe’s milk facial, for all I care; but, to paraphrase a gritty Australian saying, `Same stuff, different bucket.’ In the pantheon of chinless blue bloods and suburban accountants that makes up the Australian Liberal Party, this bloke is truly one out of the box. You have to go back to Billy McMahon to find a Prime Minister who even approaches this one for petulance, pettiness and sheer grinding inadequacy. I read the late Paul Hasluck’s description of Billy McMahon, and I cannot find a thing that does not describe this Prime Minister equally well:

"I confess to a dislike of McMahon. The longer one is associated with him the deeper the contempt for him grows and I find it hard to allow him any merit. Disloyal, devious, dishonest, untrustworthy, petty, cowardly—all these adjectives have been weighed by me and I could not in truth modify or reduce any one of them in its application to him."

In John Howard, here also is a man, small in every sense. Some have said that he is the worst Prime Minister since Billy McMahon. That is unfair to Billy McMahon. I am one of the few people who have opened up and read David Barnett’s biography of John Howard. I have to admit I have not read it all, because it is impossible to stay awake. I did, however, get to page 17. Here Barnett outlines Howard taking six weeks off work to campaign for the McMahon government. Was Billy McMahon grateful? Barnett outlined:

An appointment was arranged with McMahon in his office in Parliament House. Howard was ushered in, and Bill McMahon jumped to his feet. "No" he said. "I don’t want to see him." Then McMahon, who also had an appointment with a Japanese delegation, stopped himself. "I thought you were Japanese" he explained.

Barnett goes on to explain what John Howard’s incredibly crucial and high-powered job was in the McMahon campaign: he was given the job of rolling the manual auto queue built into McMahon’s podium. How appropriate. In this book Howard is quoted as saying of McMahon `he arrived in the job too old and too late’—this from a man who was born old and for whom time has stood still.

But the gulf, Mr Deputy Speaker, between the man in his mind—the phlegmatic, proud old English bulldog—the Winston of John Winston Howard—and the nervous, jerky, whiny apparition that we all see on the box every night. When he looks on the box he gets to see what we see—not the masterful orator of his mind but the whingey kid in his sandpit. Spare a thought for us, Mr Deputy Speaker, because we have to watch this performance every day—the chin and top lip jutting out in `full duck mode’. We get this every day because this is a man in refuge from himself and from the rest of Australia.
Click to expand...

Oooooh, question time would be so fun
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
Shaneus said:
I don't know a lot about either guy... but apparently Albo is the guy we'd want as opposition leader?
Click to expand...

Depends on how pragmatic you are. If you're pragmatic (i.e willing to sell out your ideals to see your chosen team get into power) or you just want the LNP out as soon as possible, you probably want Shorten, at least for a while, he'll probably be conservative enough to cool down the shine of the Coalition for those swing voters who lean conservative. Lets face it, disillusioning the left edge of Labor's base or even the very rare progressive leaning swing voter with strong enough feelings on a particular issue to place the LNP and ALP in the same boat for similar policty on it, will not in practice hurt Labor, those people will move to the Greens, and the nature of the things means that the Greens are basically stuck siding with the ALP, so in practice they lose very little.

If you're idealistic , you probably want someone who'll actually stick to why you voted for them, Shorten is unlikely to be good on that front, he's neck deep in political power games and like most such willing to sacrifice his principles, at least short term, for a possible gain (this is a guy who both knifed and restored Rudd).
 
H

hidys

Member
Jintor said:
Shorten is the face of the faceless men who knifed Rudd and Gillard. Albo is Labor Left and is called Albo, so he's probably alright.

A quick skim on Wiki suggests that he championed equal super co-contributions for same-sex couples and is backing marriage equality in a big way.

also:



Oooooh, question time would be so fun
Click to expand...

If I'm going to be honest they really are both faceless men. Shorten is leader of the Victorian Right and Albo leader of the NSW Left. But in the eyes of the electorate Albo will have far more legitimacy than Shorten by a country mile and wasn't an isiot who thought it would be a good idea to dump a Prime Minister during his first term.
 
V

Ventron

Member
shanshan310 said:
7000488483_cc3339995a_m.jpg


How dare they correct my wrong facts! Obvious bias!!!!111!!!
Click to expand...

Hmmm...
 
J

Jintor

Member
By the way, the Coalition wants to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Hilarious. They're pouring public money into private sector job creation in a clean energy future that'll be relevant for years after the mining boom buggers off, and it's earning a profit, and the Libs want to strangle it in its crib. Fantastic.

ABC have called Indi for McGowan, but given how tight this race is, I'd wait until the AEC results go up to start celebrating. ABC calculator appears to believe everything is above-the-line votes.
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
hidys said:
If I'm going to be honest they really are both faceless men. Shorten is leader of the Victorian Right and Albo leader of the NSW Left. But in the eyes of the electorate Albo will have far more legitimacy than Shorten by a country mile and wasn't an isiot who thought it would be a good idea to dump a Prime Minister during his first term.
Click to expand...

Since the Caucus is basically identical to the LNP party room , every member of the ALP in government is technically a Faceless Man (and likewise every coalition member) , the only real difference is how much power they wield.
 
J

Jintor

Member
I think he's saying facts don't necessarily skew Left (although the fact check admits to being based on scarce data...)

Or maybe he's saying us lefto wingers are just like them because we react angrily when facts don't match our perception of things. In which case, I agree! But the people the fact check highlighted there were at least constructive about the whole thing.
 
H

hidys

Member
Elaugaufein said:
Since the Caucus is basically identical to the LNP party room , every member of the ALP in government is technically a Faceless Man (and likewise every coalition member) , the only real difference is how much power they wield.
Click to expand...

A Faceless man with regards to how the term is used now (it originally referred to this) is anyone in the caucus or involved with the party in other ways (Sam Dastyari, Bruce Hawker) who holds significant power behind the scenes. It can't really be said of regular backbenchers/ party members. The LNP obviously does have its own faceless men too (Brian Loughnane, federal director of the LNP, Christopher Pyne who holds a lot of power in SA).
 
E

Elaugaufein

Member
hidys said:
A Faceless man with regards to how the term is used now (it originally referred to this) is anyone in the caucus or involved with the party in other ways (Sam Dastyari, Bruce Hawker) who holds significant power behind the scenes. It can't really be said of regular backbenchers/ party members. The LNP obviously does have its own faceless men too (Brian Loughnane, federal director of the LNP, Christopher Pyne who holds a lot of power in SA).
Click to expand...

Interesting. My family (particularly my grandmother) (who as I mentioned before are pretty much all dyed in the wool conservative voters) pretty much use the term interchangeably with the Caucus. I wonder if its common or if its specific to a social group my grandmother belonged to it .
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
roosters93 said:
I can't remember who but someone brought up Tasmania's Hare-Clark System and it seems to be the best system I've come across. I don't think all of its features would be able to be transferred to the aus senate though.
Click to expand...

The senate pretty much is Hare-Clark, it could just do with a few tweaks. I do think that the HoR should be more proportional though, especially with compulsory voting and some of the large electorate sizes there are. For example around 1/4 to a 1/3 of the voters in the seat of Melbourne lean conservative, but end up with a representative almost diametrically opposed to their views. You also have examples like Eden-Monaro, where the outcome in a seat that is largely rural/regional can be determined by an affluent satellite suburb of Canberra. As long as the seats per district was kept relatively low it shouldn't upset the apple cart too much in terms of the House favouring larger parties and the Senate the minors.
 
V

Ventron

Member
Jintor said:
Or maybe he's saying us lefto wingers are just like them because we react angrily when facts don't match our perception of things. In which case, I agree! But the people the fact check highlighted there were at least constructive about the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Basically this. Although are the people highlighted there done so because they're constructive or because they're not illegal to publish?
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
Ventron said:
Basically this. Although are the people highlighted there done so because they're constructive or because they're not illegal to publish?
Click to expand...
Much like censorship and intimidation aimed at causing it, or a tax compared to a fixed price trading scheme, there is a difference between people complaining about/questioning a fact check and writing off the entire concept as a left wing conspiracy.
 
R

roosters93

Member
A More Normal Bird said:
Much like censorship and intimidation aimed at causing it, or a tax compared to a fixed price trading scheme, there is a difference between people complaining about/questioning a fact check and writing off the entire concept as a left wing conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Can we get this post fact checked guys? Preferably by the ABC, their bias with facts aligns with my views.
 
L

lexi

Banned
Wow.

It was wrong to accept the view of the 97 per cent of climate scientists who agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely caused by human activities, because "the argument of consensus . . . is a flawed argument," Dr Jensen said.
Click to expand...

FUCKING WOW.
 
S

senahorse

Member
A mandate in assisting the destruction of this awesome planet. It's the one thing that really shits me about most politicians, they usually only care about the next 3-6 years, one of the reasons negative gearing is here to stay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Graven |OT| A heretic priest killing hexed creatures
4
833
mansoor1980 replied
NEOGAF - A Data-Driven View Pt. 3: Communities Section
Social Community
10
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
How The Last of Us became 'the greatest story' ever told in video games
Opinion Analysis 2 3 4 5
203
21K
Elysium44 replied
Forza Horizon 5 |OT| Are you a Mexican, or a Mexican't?
|OT| 42 43 44 45 46
2K
205K
MagnetoWasRight replied
Battlefield 2042 Briefing – What We Learned From The Open Beta
Opinion Game Dev
35
4K
REDRZA MWS replied
Top Bottom