Democrats to give prefs to Family First Party (1 Viewer)

[mervvyn]

Sarcasm was perhaps excessive, but the point was good.
The Senate is where minor parties come into their own, or independents, be it all for better or worse. People often vote for a major party in the reps and then a minor party in the senate to moderate whichever govt gets in.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Sarcasm was perhaps excessive, but the point was good.
The Senate is where minor parties come into their own, or independents, be it all for better or worse. People often vote for a major party in the reps and then a minor party in the senate to moderate whichever govt gets in.

mmm...well I'm in my arsehole mood tonight.

 

[Generator]

Who in their right mind would link the Greens to the Nazis with respect to supposedly 'radical' ideas? In what way are socially responsible policies 'radical' in an abhorrent sense?

 

[neo o]

I just find it ironic that someone is linking the Communist Party of Australia..oops I mean the greens, to the Nazis

 

[thorrnydevil]

I just find it ironic that someone is linking the Communist Party of Australia..oops I mean the greens, to the Nazis

lol.......

 

[leetom]

I just find it ironic that someone is linking the Communist Party of Australia..oops I mean the greens, to the Nazis

The CPA isn't involved with the Greens or their policy making.

 

[mervvyn]

I don't think Nicho was linking them and saying "they have similar policies" - the impression i had was that we shouldn't underestimate parties with policies that seem extreme, a category in which the Nazis and Greens fit, albeit in different areas. (this is because plenty of the Greens ideas seem extreme to the generally conservative Australian population - things like marijuana, logging, medicare, HECS which some people call socially responsible, are such a far cry from the status quo in policy, law and general political opinion that they seem extreme, or over the top.

 

[eviltama]

Sarcasm was perhaps excessive, but the point was good.
The Senate is where minor parties come into their own, or independents, be it all for better or worse. People often vote for a major party in the reps and then a minor party in the senate to moderate whichever govt gets in.

The smaller parties and independents, if they get elected to the Senate, have a thing called the balance of power, this means they can influence government policy making. Also, if they gained a far few votes, the government would see that this percentage of the population wanted something, so they change there policy to suit the environment. This would be called Politics.

Doesn't seem to work too well when things such as same sex marriage come up and both the libs and labour (who said they wouldn't oppose it.. just like medicare.. just like a lot of their lies) get behind it and rush it through regardless of the consequences and regardless of what the majority of the population wants. There still isn't same sex unions, same sex marriage is 'banned' and over seas marriages are void. I don't see politics working, i see a nice tight strangle hold on the government and on what the government should be doing in contrast to what it should be doing. It should be taking care of its people, ALL OF ITS PEOPLE.. not just those it chooses to target because they need the votes.

 

[thorrnydevil]

I don't think Nicho was linking them and saying "they have similar policies" - the impression i had was that we shouldn't underestimate parties with policies that seem extreme, a category in which the Nazis and Greens fit, albeit in different areas. (this is because plenty of the Greens ideas seem extreme to the generally conservative Australian population - things like marijuana, logging, medicare, HECS which some people call socially responsible, are such a far cry from the status quo in policy, law and general political opinion that they seem extreme, or over the top.

I thought that way to...unless the Greens have some Genocide policy we haven't heard about.

 

[Generator]

It's a poor (at best) link.

 

[thorrnydevil]

It's a poor (at best) link.

Whats a poor link?

 

[Generator]

The Greens and the Nazis...

 

[thorrnydevil]

The Greens and the Nazis...

OK, I thought you were talking about a hyperlink link.

 

[neo o]

Doesn't seem to work too well when things such as same sex marriage come up and both the libs and labour (who said they wouldn't oppose it.. just like medicare.. just like a lot of their lies) get behind it and rush it through regardless of the consequences and regardless of what the majority of the population wants. There still isn't same sex unions, same sex marriage is 'banned' and over seas marriages are void. I don't see politics working, i see a nice tight strangle hold on the government and on what the government should be doing in contrast to what it should be doing. It should be taking care of its people, ALL OF ITS PEOPLE.. not just those it chooses to target because they need the votes.

This is not a 'gay rights' thread. Please don't try and hijack it kthx.

1) 'Regardless of what the majority of the population wants' So you've conducted a few surveys? May i see the results please?

2) Homosexual marriages that took place overseas imo shouldn't be recognised if they aren't recognised domestically.

i see a nice tight strangle hold on the government and on what the government should be doing in contrast to what it should be doing. It should be taking care of its people, ALL OF ITS PEOPLE.. not just those it chooses to target because they need the votes.

1) It's hard to say whether the governments stance on gay marriage either won or lost votes, since it may cause them to loose some marginal seats like Adelaide because of the gay vote.

2) When you say "ALL OF ITS PEOPLE" I assume you mean "PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE SAME VESTED INTERESTS AS ME" right?

 

[eviltama]

This is not a 'gay rights' thread. Please don't try and hijack it kthx.

1) 'Regardless of what the majority of the population wants' So you've conducted a few surveys? May i see the results please?

2) Homosexual marriages that took place overseas imo shouldn't be recognised if they aren't recognised domestically.

I'm not hijacking it (it was hijacked waaaaaaay earlier than this kk) I didnt conduct the surveys.. didnt need to. Google the results if u want to see them again. They're there. As for your second point are u a bit confused. A marriage which isnt recognised domestically.. isn't recognised... obviously.As legal and as binding as it is, it just doesn't cut it apparently. Tho i reckon if they wanna make it fair they gotta do it to all. None of this 'one rule for one, another for everyone else' bullshit. Of course every (legally conducted) marriage bar same sex marriages are recognised domestically... But that isn't an issue for you. And it doesn't seem that its an issue for any politicians since they wiped that off the floor in record time.

1) It's hard to say whether the governments stance on gay marriage either won or lost votes, since it may cause them to loose some marginal seats like Adelaide because of the gay vote.

It's hard to say whether it will cost them votes or not, even harder now that they cut it off at the ankles and ram raided it out the door before the issue could truely be assessed and have its potential seen. Howard and Latham both knew it would be an issue they would have to face at some time, and like the fkn cowards they are they ran from it.

2) When you say "ALL OF ITS PEOPLE" I assume you mean "PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE SAME VESTED INTERESTS AS ME" right?

No. when i say "ALL OF ITS PEOPLE" i mean, ALL OF THE PEOPLE LIVING UNDER THEIR GOVERNMENT. That means everyone who pays taxes, who goes to school, who uses public transport, who gets mugged, who are raped, who are victims of domestic violence, who are criminals, who are religious, who are not, who are hetero, who are homo who are bi, tran or otherwise defined... i mean EVERY BLOODY PERSON AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES IT WANTS TO DO TO US TODAY.

Howards picked his target demographics, Lathams got his. They run with it and ignore the rest and hope we get a few swinging voters on our side for good measure. Politics isn't about taking care of the people anymore.. its all about getting votes, getting in and staying there. Stuff the people, just make sure we have good ads and a well funded campaign strategy and we'll be fine.

 

[malkin86]

How do preferences work?

 

[twiddla]

mervvyn understands the point I was trying to make - i was saying to not ignore extreme policies even if u think oh they'll never try and institute that! - in no way am i trying to imply that the nazi's are the same as the greens in fact i even stated that in the last post

 

[loquasagacious]

In response to malkin's question:

House of Reps:
On your paper you order your preferances eg Greens 1, Labor 2 and CPA 3

The AEC counts votes and the tally comes back Labour 30 000 Librals 32000 Greens 15000, CPA 5

No one has an absolute majority so second preferance are distributed eg

Labour gets 30 000 first preferance + 10 000 second preferances

Liberals get 32 000 first preferance + 3 000 second preferances

Therefore Labor gets 40 000 votes which beats the liberals 35 000, Labor gets in but it owes the greens.

In the Senate:
It's pretty similar but done on a state by state basis not an electorate by electorate basis and there are multiple senate seats per state as opposed to 1 house of reps seat per elctorate.

The numbers are pretty shifty but i think you should get the gist.

 

[malkin86]

So if I give the preferences, why can the Democrats give their preferences to the FFP?

 

[loquasagacious]

In a preferance deal the democrats are agreeing to put say the christian democrats in second place on their how to vote card and in the senate (at least at state level in NSW not sure elsewhere) if u vote above the line eg rather than putting in 500 preferances u just put in democrats your preferances are automatically the same as the Deoomcrat preferances eg deomcrats 1 Christian Democrats 2.