ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: slothpomba on November 09, 2014, 11:07:25 pm
-
Since the election is getting closer and closer, i thought people would like to take a squiz at the updated "vote compass" on the ABC website (http://www.abc.net.au/news/vic-election-2014/vote-compass/). How close your results are to reality may vary a little, it obviously cant capture all your beliefs or all the beliefs of a party, especially since the interpretation is often subjective. Still worth a crack though!
-
LOL im a labor supporter and i didnt even know it :P
-
64% Greens
60% Labor
40% Liberal
That was my final result.
-
Liberal 53%
ALP 44%
GRN 36%
Am eligible to vote but am not signing up, hoping to dodge a fine seeing as I won't be in Vic.
-
Am eligible to vote but am not signing up, hoping to dodge a fine seeing as I won't be in Vic.
You can vote early at any electorate office or vote postally :p. It's not really that hard. My local office is maybe ~20 minutes walk, ~10 by bus, ~5 by car. Unless you live in the sticks, your office probably isn't that far from you imo. Here is a full list (http://votingcentrelookup.vec.vic.gov.au/).
Just a reminder to everyone else too that tomorrow is the last day to register. Since people probably aren't reading this text (are you) here is a graphic that popped up on my newsfeed:
(https://i.imgur.com/JjSfQQs.png)
-
Greens 86%
Labor 70%
Liberal 38%
confirmation that i'm a dirty hippy
-
Is it compulsory to vote in state elections?
-
Is it compulsory to vote in state elections?
Yes, it's compulsory if you're over 18.
I'm 16 and they've already sent me a couple of letters telling me to enrol ;
-
Labor 61%
Liberal 51%
Greens 50%
Pretty interesting to see the candidate's stance on the various issues too!
-
Yes, it's compulsory if you're over 18.
I'm 16 and they've already sent me a couple of letters telling me to enrol ;
What if I'm 18 and I haven't enrolled, do I still have to enrol to vote? Do i get a fine if I don't enrol
-
Is it compulsory to vote in state elections?
It is compulsory to vote in all elections in Australia. If you are over 70 i believe, you may be exempt from council elections.
What if I'm 18 and I haven't enrolled, do I still have to enrol to vote? Do i get a fine if I don't enrol
I don't believe its illegal to not enroll but you really should. A few contests in Australian elections (even in Victoria) have been decided by an incredibly small number of votes. It's quite easy to vote as well, you can even vote early (avoid the lines!) or do a postal vote.
-
It is compulsory to vote in all elections in Australia. If you are over 70 i believe, you may be exempt from council elections.
I don't believe its illegal to not enroll but you really should. A few contests in Australian elections (even in Victoria) have been decided by an incredibly small number of votes. It's quite easy to vote as well, you can even vote early (avoid the lines!) or do a postal vote.
Is AEC enrolment enough or do you have to enrol separately for Victorian elections?
-
72% Labor
69% Greens
49% Liberal
Is AEC enrolment enough or do you have to enrol separately for Victorian elections?
AEC enrolment also includes Victorian elections
-
L/NP: 56%
ALP: 52%
GRN: 44%
As I thought, right-leaning centrist.
-
64% Greens
63% ALP
52% LNP
Which is funny because you couldn't pay me to vote Greens.
(http://i.imgur.com/1TbdMDq.png)
This state (and country) is desperately in need of a socially progressive and economically responsible party who can introduce quality policy but aren't absolute twats.
-
I can't remember numbers, but I feel directly on Labor's dot...which is seriously concerning.
-
(http://i61.tinypic.com/b877dc.png)
ALP: 66%
L/NP:57%
GRN: 55%
Interesting. I really don't know who I'm going to be voting for in this election, but I guess this gives me a bit of food for thought.
EDIT: resized image
-
Greens 81%
Labor 70%
LNP 49%
-
ALP - 65%
GRN - 63%
L/NP- 48%
Also, does anyone know how I can enrol ? And how do I know if I am enrolled ?
-
ALP - 65%
GRN - 63%
L/NP- 48%
Also, does anyone know how I can enrol ? And how do I know if I am enrolled ?
http://vec.vic.gov.au/Enrolment/Default.html
Hurry, you don't have a lot of time. If you didn't enroll, you are not enrolled. It's not automatic, like, it's something you have to actively do. If you don't remember doing it, you're probably not enrolled haha :p.
You can do it online now which is handy (i had to go to an office when i did it).
You have until 8PM, Tonight
If you are 17, you can also enroll to vote in the future (but you obviously cant vote in this particular election until you are 18). If you have a few minutes to spare, why not do it now ;D .
Here is some interesting (i'm not kidding) information on how our beautiful democracy works and why voting is important. They do actually try to include interesting factoids so its worth a read!
-
If you are 17, you can also enroll to vote in the future (but you obviously cant vote in this particular election until you are 18). If you have a few minutes to spare, why not do it now ;D .
For super keen beans (I actually didn't do this), you can enrol through the AEC at 16. :P
-
For super keen beans (I actually didn't do this), you can enrol through the AEC at 16. :P
I enrolled at 16 (I was so excited to turn 16 for some reason lol) but then they told me I had to re-enrol when I turned 17 as at 16 you can enrol in federal elections, but you need to be 17 for state enrolment apparently. So it's easier just to wait until you turn 17 so you can do it at once.
This state (and country) is desperately in need of a socially progressive and economically responsible party who can introduce quality policy but aren't absolute twats.
You can say that again. I'm a LNP member because I can't justify economic suicide but laws relating to several moral issues are too overarching and should be liberalised, there are issues which are too liberalised though but that's for another debate.
-
I enrolled at 16 (I was so excited to turn 16 for some reason lol) but then they told me I had to re-enrol when I turned 17 as at 16 you can enrol in federal elections, but you need to be 17 for state enrolment apparently. So it's easier just to wait until you turn 17 so you can do it at once.
Really? AEC and VEC share enrolment details, so you usually only have to enrol at one. It can't be that hard for VEC to just sit on the Federal enrolment data for a year, if they want to keep it 17 that much. >_>
Also, lel because the ALP has a far better economic record when in gov't than the Libs.
-
Really? AEC and VEC share enrolment details, so you usually only have to enrol at one. It can't be that hard for VEC to just sit on the Federal enrolment data for a year, if they want to keep it 17 that much. >_>
Also, lel because the ALP has a far better economic record when in gov't than the Libs.
Yeh the enrolment thing was my own experience - not sure if it's still like that.
About the latter, maybe so, I'm not interested in debating right now after my exams.
-
Yeh the enrolment thing was my own experience - not sure if it's still like that.
Might well be - I just think it's rather silly of VEC.
Someone, try this out for us!
-
fuck
had an exam and was gonna sign up but only just got home
-
fuck
had an exam and was gonna sign up but only just got home
you might as well enrol now anyway so you don't have to worry about it in the future.
edit:
actually it appears you may be able to vote:
If you have missed the deadline to be included on the State election roll, you should attend an early voting centre or election day voting centre to enrol and vote on the spot. To do so, you should bring a proof of identity. Acceptable proofs of identity include:
- a driver licence or learner permit
an electricity bill in your name for your current home address. - a council rates notice in your name or
- an electricity bill in your name for your current home address
It may take longer to enrol and vote at a voting centre, so please allow extra time.
https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/Elections/2014VictorianStateelection.html#enrol
-
Thanks for that info guys and especially the digging on Chase's behalf, excellent work guys!!
Without further adieu, i guess it is only fair i post my results.
(https://i.imgur.com/n5QM0JT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4lyV7Lw.png)
Honestly, i was shocked how there was not much division between The Greens and the ALP for me. I'm a member of one of those parties and i thought there would have been more division. The numbers were a little surprising too.
I guess it must be kept in mind this quiz is based on state politics and state finances. It's often a different beast both in party dynamics and what the government does compared to federal politics. I guess this causes a lot of the discrepancies many of us are witnessing.
I don't think Napthine has done a terrible job, he carries a lot of baggage from Baileu (before he resigned and napthine got his job). They have managed the state decently i believe, in an administrative capacity, they've done fairly well. Some of their policies i'm not a fan of such as the creation of mandatory minimum sentences (taking power out of the hands of judges to decide, often for politically motivated reasons) and some of their other measures.
Regarding state politics, i feel less of a gulf between the party i belong to and the other close party to us on the ideological spectrum. For me, it's more of a reactionary thing in state politics, this party didn't do x or y rather than finding a particular party lacking in a grand vision. I am disappointed some things are flat out ignored though like gambling reform (a big issue for me).
The two major parties have accepted some of the promises of the others. Both parties for instance will cut public transport fares if they are elected. I believe there are a few other similar measures that they both agree on as well.
-
You can say that again. I'm a LNP member because I can't justify economic suicide but laws relating to several moral issues are too overarching and should be liberalised, there are issues which are too liberalised though but that's for another debate.
Exactly. However I can't right now think of any existing or proposed social policy that is too liberal, what did you have in mind?
-
I (poorly) overlaid the three images we have so far:
(https://i.imgur.com/DatzTSv.png)
Here are some more stats i managed to retrieve out of it:
(https://i.imgur.com/96iMsw1.png)
Anna.xo is almost our perfect median person (3% off). The current person with the highest divergence is American Beauty (51%).
(https://i.imgur.com/eSW5fP0.png)
Assuming highest % represents a vote, that is how first preference votes would look.
(https://i.imgur.com/7Lydk9Z.png)
-
ahahhaa compared to everyone else I'm so right wing.
-
ahahhaa compared to everyone else I'm so right wing.
Or maybe you're regular and we're all just far left :p
Anyway, according to the graph, its not so much that you show an unusual amount of support for the liberals. It's just more you hate every other party haha.
-
My result has changed quite a bit from last time. But here we are:
ALP 64%
Hippies 57%
LNP 49%
(http://i61.tinypic.com/23lxpom.png)
-
Exactly. However I can't right now think of any existing or proposed social policy that is too liberal, what did you have in mind?
Mostly policies which in the name of multiculturalism allow radical organisations and individuals to flourish unchecked and unfettered. Like something needs to be going wrong when I look on Facebook see a guy openly supporting organisations like Hezbollah/ISIS and/or proclaiming support to 'gas the jews' and then when clicking on their profile it says they come from Essex, UK or West Sydney. I really don't know what policy change would fix the issue though, just that the current system is broken.
This is an interesting article about it http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4841/west-enchantment-islam (the writer is a widely respected journalist focusing on Turkey's religious and ethnic minorities and their persecution).
-
we should have a party as socially progressive as labor, perhaps a tad more (according to the vote compass), and dead centre economically
would get all of the 18-25 year old votes LOL
-
we should have a party as socially progressive as labor, perhaps a tad more (according to the vote compass), and dead centre economically
would get all of the 18-25 year old votes LOL
I wouldn't call Labor socially progressive, they recently had 6 years in office and didn't introduce any sort of change to big social issues which have been around for a while - if anything they moved to the right in many respects in a last ditch effort for votes.
-
The State ALP, under (one of the best A-G's on recent history) Rob Hulls, reformed our justice system, enshrined non-adversarial justice into the law, shored up programs to reform rather than put away in prison, and . The Lib Government has pretty much undo'd all of that, with abolishing suspended sentence, introducing mandatory minimums, and all sorts of other populist responses.
They also reformed abortion law (first state in Australia to do so), introduced a Charter of Human Rights (ditto), and banned discrimination in all walks of life on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (all the way back in 2000).
Not socially progressive? Great joke.
Social issues simply aren't so much a Federal thing. Labor did remove every single difference between married couples and de-facto (including same-sex) ones as far as the law goes.
-
Despite my best efforts not to enroll the AEC was tipped off by centrelink that I existed and hence I was automatically enrolled for the federal election. Will the same have occurred for the state election? I don't particularly want to rock up and find out I'm not enrolled because that'd be a tad awks.
-
I believe that usually, once you're enrolled Federally you're also enrolled for State elections. You can check here.
-
In the interests of giving slothpomba more data to make graphs with:
(http://i.imgur.com/cyV3zcZ.png)
ALP: 71%
GRN: 70%
L/NP: 39%
Not too surprising, I think.
-
to the great surprise of nobody who knows me at all:
GRN 80%
ALP 73%
LNP 40%
(http://i.imgur.com/PIdAgb0.png)
-
we should have a party as socially progressive as labor, perhaps a tad more (according to the vote compass), and dead centre economically
would get all of the 18-25 year old votes LOL
I don't know if we have the same interpretion of what it means to be dead centre economically. You can not be truly socially progressive without being economically progressive. You can have all the gay rights you want but if people cant afford to eat, it hardly matters. A lot of the debate about womens equality surrounds the pay gap, that is fundamentally an economic issue and relatively speaking, women are an economically disadvantaged class. What point is a socially progressive policy on justice if entrenched poverty and disadvantage lead people towards a life of crime (i have seen in my own community).
See my point :p.
In other news, will reupdate graphs soon...
-
Has anyone noticed that Labor has mysteriously moved on Nina's graph?
-
What point is a socially progressive policy on justice if entrenched poverty and disadvantage lead people towards a life of crime (i have seen in my own community).
All institutionalised welfare does is put people into a cycle of welfare dependence where children grow up with role models who teach them to live of welfare. e.g. billions have been spent on Aboriginal welfare for decades yet it hasn't made any meaningful difference because economics is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. If people were actually willing to look at social issues in a pragmatic way instead of throwing money at them and hoping for the best it would go a long way.
To understand progress to be constantly increasing government spending is to make the future even more unsustainable as taxes are raised to cover the spending and people just grow more dependent on government spending, requiring even more government spending.
Meaningful social policy should be able to reduce economic gaps in the long term without relentless spending which can't do anything but spiral out of control.
Also, I don't think there is anyone that goes without food on the table, even without government assistance one can go to soup kitchens etc. also the mechanisms for financial assistance for people who are starving at a government level are already in place. They don't require any progress for implementation. Any more increases in government provided welfare are just a continuance of unsustainable spending and crippling taxation which can only result in increasing inequality in the long term.
-
Has anyone noticed that Labor has mysteriously moved on Nina's graph?
Holy crap, you're right. It might be just the aspect ratio though, maybe like hers is more stretched in one direction?
All institutionalised welfare does is put people into a cycle of welfare dependence where children grow up with role models who teach them to live of welfare. e.g. billions have been spent on Aboriginal welfare for decades yet it hasn't made any meaningful difference because economics is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself.
Yeah, fuck the poor! Cut them off welfare when they have no means of purchasing goods. I'm sure that'll be good for social cohesion, social progress, crime and it's certainly full of compassion. There will always be people, who, for whatever reason, cannot find jobs. It's not that they're not motivated in all cases, there is something else going on. In poorer countries, these people have to result to any number of horrible outcomes - crime, prostitution or simply starve. Are we to believe that starving African families simply lack the willpower? Are we to honestly believe all or even most on welfare honestly enjoy it? That they simply lack the will to get a job? How are we to prove that?
To understand progress to be constantly increasing government spending is to make the future even more unsustainable as taxes are raised to cover the spending and people just grow more dependent on government spending, requiring even more government spending.
Has government spending grown significantly as a part of GDP though? Either way, the average person, especially from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, is far better off today than in any other time in Australian history. Money well spent i say.
Also, I don't think there is anyone that goes without food on the table, even without government assistance one can go to soup kitchens etc.
Tell me, how much do your parents make, what is their profession, what kind of house do you live in? Have you ever really experienced poverty yourself? If you have, i will withdraw my remark. If you haven't, it's oh so easy for you to say this from your position of financial privilege.
I do agree, however, that welfare is a bandaid solution. As Martin Luther King said in his Speech Against The Vietnam War (one of my favourites of his, give it a listen):
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see than an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.
-
Tell me, how much do your parents make, what is their profession, what kind of house do you live in? Have you ever really experienced poverty yourself? If you have, i will withdraw my remark. If you haven't, it's oh so easy for you to say this from your position of financial privilege.
If you need to hide behind 'your privilege/circumstances/position invalidates your opinion on this topic', you may need to find a better stance.
-
I think an (at least) middle class person making arguments about government welfare dependence that are neither sound not have any empirical backing is pretty hilarious.
The real value of just about every single government handout in Australia has either declined or remained constant thanks to automatic adjustments. None have been increased via the government's discretion. Attitudes to those receiving handouts (especially New Start) is disgusting.
Government spending as a whole, as a proportion of GDP, has stayed pretty constant around the 25% mark throughout Australia's history. While there are alternative macroeconomic theories, experience has shown us that increased government spending during times of recession does alleviate them and is sustainable. Generally, quality of life is higher in countries with higher government spending than lower ones, as it plays an important role both in setting up regulatory schemes to protect most people, and shifting wealth around from those who sit idly making it to those who've actually toiled for it.
But yeah sure, please do let me know where you think gov't spending should be cut. Maybe defence? Shame on soldiers for becoming reliant on gov't to fund their wages, and the Australian people on a military (user-pays!). Maybe education? It's teachers' fault for not choosing a more prestigious occupation, and those who can't afford private tuition for expecting gov't to fund their kids' education. Health? Infrastructure? Criminal justice? Pensions?
-
83% GRN
77% ALP
46% L/NP
(http://i.imgur.com/G8chWrk.png)
-
Before you jump to conclusions and 'oh you must be an ignorant fuck because you've never actually starved yourself' insults, maybe actually listen to what I am saying?
--
Yeah, fuck the poor! Cut them off welfare when they have no means of purchasing goods. I'm sure that'll be good for social cohesion, social progress, crime and it's certainly full of compassion. There will always be people, who, for whatever reason, cannot find jobs. It's not that they're not motivated in all cases, there is something else going on. In poorer countries, these people have to result to any number of horrible outcomes - crime, prostitution or simply starve. Are we to believe that starving African families simply lack the willpower? Are we to honestly believe all or even most on welfare honestly enjoy it? That they simply lack the will to get a job? How are we to prove that?
I never said to cut poor off my welfare. All I said is that linking social progress to 'economic progress', which sounds like your insinuating increasing taxation and increasing spending, is unsustainable and doesn't actually address the real social issues.
And yes, I know there will always be people for one reason or another which cannot work, I'm not dumb. Where have I said welfare should be cut? All I've said is that 'economic progress' is unsustainable. I support limited welfare to those that actually need it, but I don't support it as a means to address issues which have nothing to do with finances.
And thanks for pointing out to me captain obvious that not all people on welfare want to be on welfare, but really how does that detract from the fact that 'economic progress' as you call it, is just a means of not actually addressing underlying issues while, increasing spending and taxation.
Has government spending grown significantly as a part of GDP though? Either way, the average person, especially from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, is far better off today than in any other time in Australian history. Money well spent i say.
Are they better of because taxation has increased and spending has increased, which you seem to call 'economic progress'? No, they are not. They are better off because of economic development which has increased efficiency, and brought down the cost of new technology to help them live their lives. Living standards have improved not just because people now get a welfare check linked to inflation which is below a livable wage anyway, but because that's what the free marker has done for the most part. Thereby we shouldn't undermine the free market by disguising socialism as 'economic progress'.
Tell me, how much do your parents make, what is their profession, what kind of house do you live in? Have you ever really experienced poverty yourself? If you have, i will withdraw my remark. If you haven't, it's oh so easy for you to say this from your position of financial privilege.
How is that relevant? I'm not going to tell you my family's finances, because it's not relevant, rude of you to ask and they're not as high as you seem to think, so you wouldn't be able to use it as a means to insult me regardless. I'm intimately aware of the struggles of people in poverty, I haven't said anything which attempts to downplay that. Before you jump to conclusions and a holier than thou attitude, maybe listen.
Also how does one need to experience something before they can make a comment about it anyway? - most politicians setting welfare haven't experienced poverty either but they seem to be quite aware of it, or should their opinions not be valid because they haven't actually starved before? or do you only use that ridiculous argument for people that agree with you? because everyone that agrees with you has a valid opinion and everyone that disagrees with you is an ignorant fuck which has no idea?
I think an (at least) middle class person making arguments about government welfare dependence that are neither sound not have any empirical backing is pretty hilarious.
Here we go again. Snap judgments and invalidating my opinion because you stereotype all those on the economic right as billionaires. I'm hardly as well of as you and slothpomba seem to be insultingly insinuating.
The real value of just about every single government handout in Australia has either declined or remained constant thanks to automatic adjustments. None have been increased via the government's discretion. Attitudes to those receiving handouts (especially New Start) is disgusting.
Government spending as a whole, as a proportion of GDP, has stayed pretty constant around the 25% mark throughout Australia's history. While there are alternative macroeconomic theories, experience has shown us that increased government spending during times of recession does alleviate them and is sustainable. Generally, quality of life is higher in countries with higher government spending than lower ones, as it plays an important role both in setting up regulatory schemes to protect most people, and shifting wealth around from those who sit idly making it to those who've actually toiled for it.
Where have I denied any of those facts? All I've said is that increasing spending and taxation as a percentage of GDP isn't 'economic progress' and doesn't actually resolve social issues in the long term, while harming the economy.
[quote
But yeah sure, please do let me know where you think gov't spending should be cut. Maybe defence? Shame on soldiers for becoming reliant on gov't to fund their wages, and the Australian people on a military (user-pays!). Maybe education? It's teachers' fault for not choosing a more prestigious occupation, and those who can't afford private tuition for expecting gov't to fund their kids' education. Health? Infrastructure? Criminal justice? Pensions?
[/quote]
Where have I said government spending should be cut? All I've said is that it is bad social policy to constantly increase spending whenever someone has a problem.
What ridiculous arguments about government funded wages, when have I said anything about them? Instead of putting words in my mouth actually listen to what I am saying.
If you want to know some areas I think are able to be cut, it's the amount the government contributes to HECS, there's no reason why more proportion of the course cost can't be paid back in the future by the user. Also, there's no reason why people not on FTBA or FTBB can't pay more for healthcare, such as by paying a small fee whenever they get bulk billed doctor's appointments? See, I've said nothing about cutting welfare to people who would starve without it, and in fact my ideas would probably decrease inequity by creating more costs on people who have higher incomes. Look at the world outside of class-war rich want to destroy the poor ideology and you'd realise the world is much less black and white.
-
I'm sorry, you were responding to a post saying that progressive social policy is meaningless if it is not backed up with economic policy that cares for those of lower SES background with what was basically a welfare dependence argument and "the solution is not to throw money at it". Everyone listened to what you were saying. To change course now and start targeting spending benefiting the middle- and upper-class is a little late.
Also, I don't think there is anyone that goes without food on the table, even without government assistance one can go to soup kitchens etc. also the mechanisms for financial assistance for people who are starving at a government level are already in place. They don't require any progress for implementation. Any more increases in government provided welfare are just a continuance of unsustainable spending and crippling taxation which can only result in increasing inequality in the long term.
This is the closest you came, recognising that government programs that aid the "starving" might have application. It also completely missed the point regarding the necessity of government spending for economic development that KP was making - by removing lower SES communities from violence, drugs and insecure jobs into much more 'productive' communities. Speaking of which...
Are they better of because taxation has increased and spending has increased, which you seem to call 'economic progress'? No, they are not. They are better off because of economic development which has increased efficiency, and brought down the cost of new technology to help them live their lives. Living standards have improved not just because people now get a welfare check linked to inflation which is below a livable wage anyway, but because that's what the free marker has done for the most part. Thereby we shouldn't undermine the free market by disguising socialism as 'economic progress'.
Of course spending is not progress on its own, and I'd challenge you to find anyone who ever claims that. Even based on the most Keynesian viewpoint, spending needs to go somewhere useful to develop economic activity. Government does have a lot to do with increasing living standards. And most of our increase in median wages in recent history came from a time of high taxation and regulated markets backed by a protectionist system. Socialism, by the way, doesn't mean increased government spending.
[citation needed] on increased government spending harming the economy. Our % of spending as GDP is one of the lowest in the world, and the countries with the highest ones tend to have better living standards than us. Within developed countries there is actually generally a positive correlation.
-
83% GRN
77% ALP
46% L/NP
you are my people!!!
-
Why is it that people and parties seem to be located in the top left and bottom right corners? Why not top right or bottom left?
-
Why is it that people and parties seem to be located in the top left and bottom right corners? Why not top right or bottom left?
most people just identify as right or left and go with whatever party best represents those values without going into specific policies pretty much. there's not enough of a voter base for other parties in Australia.
-
most people just identify as right or left and go with whatever party best represents those values without going into specific policies pretty much. there's not enough of a voter base for other parties in Australia.
Yup, without getting into too much of a debate - this is why the two-party system needs to be replaced/reformed.
-
Why is it that people and parties seem to be located in the top left and bottom right corners? Why not top right or bottom left?
Sex Party would be top right, Bob Katter would be bottom left
-
Here's mine.
For what it's worth, I'm split between voting ALP and Greens. The Greens have a good candidate in my seat (Melbourne,) but I'm not at all a fan of Labor/Green minority governments.
Will vote Green in the upper house.
Why is it that people and parties seem to be located in the top left and bottom right corners? Why not top right or bottom left?
Depends on your frame of reference. Internationally, all three minor parties would be scattered around the centre (say compared to Golden Dawn and Die Linke.)
Sex Party would be top right, Bob Katter would be bottom left
Katter's an agarian socialist, would be bottom left(ish).
-
Accidentally closed the browser, but I'm just above Labor (so slightly more socially progressive than them, same economic leaning). Will be voting Labor in the election though (assuming I'm eligible...need to check that).
-
Yup, without getting into too much of a debate - this is why the two-party system needs to be replaced/reformed.
yeh I've been thinking about that lately. Maybe a good idea would be too abolish the concept of the upper house as a state's house at federal level, replacing it with a nationwide proportional system, with a minimum threshold of say 3.25% to get seats. same for upper house in Victoria abolishing the electoral regions in favour of a state wide vote.
the lower house allows for good stability so I don't see a pressing need to change it.
-
yeh I've been thinking about that lately. Maybe a good idea would be too abolish the concept of the upper house as a state's house at federal level, replacing it with a nationwide proportional system, with a minimum threshold of say 3.25% to get seats. same for upper house in Victoria abolishing the electoral regions in favour of a state wide vote.
The electoral regions, unlike states, are equal in population (within tolerance margins). Given that we use STV, and assuming that you want a relatively high quota to make it more difficult for microparties to be elected, by splitting up the state (and requiring 1/6 for a quota in each region, rather than 1/41 statewide which would be crazy) regions serve an important purpose.
Generally agree with Senate reform, but given that it more or less mirrors nationwide votes anyway, it's not very pressing.
For what it's worth, I'm split between voting ALP and Greens. The Greens have a good candidate in my seat (Melbourne,) but I'm not at all a fan of Labor/Green minority governments.
Yeah, anytime a government hasn't had a majority in the lower house in recent times it hasn't fared particularly well at the next election.
Depends on your frame of reference. Internationally, all three minor parties would be scattered around the centre (say compared to Golden Dawn and Die Linke.)
Die Linke is quite interesting. I wonder whether they'll end up splitting over whether moderating and joining SDP in a coalition.
-
Hmm, so I got:
ALP 69
Greens 66
LNP 46
Practically central on economic policy, but quite socially progressive.
-
Why is it that people and parties seem to be located in the top left and bottom right corners? Why not top right or bottom left?
DLP is another example of a party in the bottom-left. It's a religious conservative split from Labor, actually over the ALP's supposed acceptance of communism (at the time), but it was strongly aligned with religious interests and I believe that they are on the economic left.
These sorts of parties don't really fare particularly well, because working class people are quite happy with where the ALP is in terms of its progressiveness.
As for top-right, it's not terribly uncommon either. Even certain factions within the Liberal Party swing that way, but it's predominantly conservative these days. The Greens also have certain people within it who are right-wing economically (aka "blue greens") but they simply are not enough to drive the party rightwards economically. Again, most of its voter base, which is mostly with the party as a result of its social issues, are happy enough to continue voting for it despite being left of centre economically. There is possibly a gap there with fiscal centrism and social progressiveness.
-
ALP: 68%
GRN: 63%
L/NP: 42%
Very interested to see the outcomes this state election.
-
Easy win for Labor in the end...
You're all a bunch of hippies :P
(http://vvcap.net/db/_BUXF-olt4lgS0XTzudp.png)