I guess this may be solved by making voting optional
If you think about it, voting is sort of optional in Australia. Turning up and getting your name marked off is compulsory but what you do with your vote is entirely up to you. It's a secret ballot.
If you think about it, voting is sort of optional in Australia. Turning up and getting your name marked off is compulsory but what you do with your vote is entirely up to you. It's a secret ballot.
why do we still vote using paper?
I wish the voting process was less complicated. Can someone tell me how preferencing deals etc. is democratic?
I don't like this talk about Liberal + Greens deals to boot a Labor member out of Batman (Vic Seat).
I'm actually just so sick of how binary politics seems to be.Aha except for the cruel treatment of Asylum seekers - they seem to be aligned there lol
This is probably stupid but I hate how there never seems to be bipartisan support on anything (or at least if there is, there's no real media coverage of it). It's like if Liberal wants to do x, Labor will do y even if they had previously voiced their support for x.
Like yeah, we get it. You're the opposition. But it'd be nice if you guys could agree on some things sometimes...
Aha except for the cruel treatment of Asylum seekers - they seem to be aligned there lol
Lol, you're probably right about that. :'(I have no idea but it looks like the Greens are opposing the HECS increase. http://www.whatwillmydegreecost.com.au
Anybody here know which party wants to lower the HECs repayment threshold to $42000?
I don't want to make the wrong decision on election day and unfortunately don't follow politics too heavily!
Anyone?
Lol, you're probably right about that. :'(
Anybody here know which party wants to lower the HECs repayment threshold to $42000?
I don't want to make the wrong decision on election day and unfortunately don't follow politics too heavily!
Anyone?
Voted Already.
The Senate ballot paper is so bloody long, and awkward to write on in the comparatively small polling booths.
Since this is after all an educational website (:P), can someone please mind explaining what a double dissolution is?
Normally the whole lower house is dismissed and re-elected, but only half the Senate is. That means half the senators will be experienced and up-to-date with the current bills, even if all new people get elected. A double dissolution is where *all* the Senate is re-elected, and it only happens when there's a special trigger (eg the Government thinks "important" legislation is being voted down).
Since this is after all an educational website (:P), can someone please mind explaining what a double dissolution is?Just to break it down really simply, this is what happnens in a DD:
Thanks everybody for the replies. Just wondering, what was the bill that caused this double dissolution election (unless I've read wrong and this isn't a double dissolution election :o) Also, what happens when there's a hung parliament?
Just to break it down really simply, this is what happnens in a DD:
> legislation tries to get passed
> it doesn't get passed, twice
> prime minister goes "what the FUCK >:( >:( >:( >:( guys i HATE you I'm going to call an election" (legislation not being passed twice generates a double dissolution "trigger", meaning an election can be called).
> as MR said, both the houses of parliament are dissolved (i.e., double dissolution).
So basically, what happened last night is, Malcom Turnbull played himself. #anotherone #majorkey
Holy shit thought what a night?! I sort of bailed when it was 61 seats apiece... Can someone fill me in? I've read that it's 70 to 65 seats at the moment, and that 11 are in balance with 6 looking ALP likely? Am I right in suggesting the most probable outcome of the election is 75 to 71 seats; hung parliament?
Thanks everybody for the replies. Just wondering, what was the bill that caused this double dissolution election (unless I've read wrong and this isn't a double dissolution election :o) Also, what happens when there's a hung parliament?
I have a question - seeing as it was a double dissolution election, what will happen at the next election (in 3 years)? Seeing as senators are supposed to serve 6 year terms, will half of them still be up for re-election in the next election? - And if so, how do they work this out?
:)
Thanks everybody for the replies. Just wondering, what was the bill that caused this double dissolution election (unless I've read wrong and this isn't a double dissolution election :o)Just wanted to clarify- the government knowingly goes into a double dissolution. It's not like they send the bill in three times and they're like "shit, double dissolution" - they knowingly send it into the senate in complete awareness that it will result in a double dissolution. It's when the govt cant get shit through coz the other hoes are as stubborn as hell (i forgot the names of the respective groups so i used shit, and hoes as a substitute hehe :P) -so they're like "aight fam well ima make your seat available to the aus public and see who's laughing then" .
wellllllllllll....no thoughts. Here, there, or in the minds of those who allowed her in.
pauline hanson is back in the senate.........
thoughts everyone? hahaha
wellllllllllll....
pauline hanson is back in the senate.........
thoughts everyone? hahaha
We should respect the democratic process - the people have spoken. It's not like 'One Nation' is mysterious - it's been around for a while and everyone knows their principles and beliefs. I'm happy with a result that doesn't see a major party get another seat. The crossbench provides some difference and truth.Idk about that. I said what i said before purely out of the fact that no one reading it will be offended by it. If people reading this aren't opposed to her in their views I don't think they'd be in support of them on this site.
no thoughts. Here, there, or in the minds of those who allowed her in.Dying
The democratic purpose isn't infallible.
Does anyone know why they aren't counting votes til Tuesday? Why not Monday?
no thoughts. Here, there, or in the minds of those who allowed her in.
So glad Pauline Hanson is back- not because I agree with her policies, but because politics has become so BORING ever since Turnbull became PM. Abbott was entertaining with his winking, eating raw onions and threatening to "shirtfront" world leaders, and the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd fiasco was hilarious. But ever since it's been Turnbull v Shorten, Australian politics has been dull as hell (This 8 week long campaign was the most boring in history). I for one am counting on Senators Hanson and Hinch to liven things up a bit!
Also, no party having a majority in either house is healthy for our democracy and can be good for policy formulation and implementation. Compromise can often improve government legislation, and its good to provide a 'check' on the government's power.
On a side note, I think Turnbull is toast if the libs are forced to govern in a minority...he already lacks authority in his own party and now has no mandate to implement his own agenda. Conservatives in the liberal party are already starting to attack him...
Her election is shameful. We all should have done more.The question I put forward to you is: what? What could we have done?
The question I put forward to you is: what? What could we have done?
Have you seen her campaign? It is completely unfounded, vehement, racist and blunt. There is no diplomacy in it. She didn't employ any tactility or expert opinion. She did not use any expert opinions. She used evidence without source. She claims that she knows Muslims in her party. She also claims that 98% of Australians are against halal -- and not once has she ever referred to a source to substantiate her claims.
She doesn't even speak eloquently - rather with slurred jagged sentences. She doesn't look like the archetypal respectable woman in society. Yet she manages to gather some seats.
It boggles my mind how she was elected. Like disregard the completely racist views, just her political method simply should not make sense. Like with Donald Trump I can see the substance that people appreciate. I understand why people would support him (well I somewhat understand) - because the appeal is there. With Pauline I simply cannot see a point of view why someone would vote for her.
So this makes me think that her election was inevitable. She was going to gather a seat regardless of what anyone did. It's unfortunate but this is the sad reality we live in now.
I think this is a force of evil that must run its course unfortunately.
The reality of politics.
EDIT: changed necessary with "force of evil" coz in no way is this necessary.
Rather, we should oppose Hanson with facts, logic and reasoned arguments.LOL
Sam Dasytari inviting Hanson to eat a Halan snack pack was by far one of the funniest moments ;)LOL THIS WAS GOLD.
If you haven't seen the 1 min vid and her hilarious response go watch it XD
I'm not quite sure I agree with this. Part of the reason she has a decent following is because there is a perception that the "elites" (namely the political and media class) are out of touch with and don't listen to the concerns espoused by the working class. The elites are dismissive and talk down to her supporters, fuelling division and an 'us vs them' mentality. What I was merely suggesting was for people to engage with her constituency and their concerns, rather than simply shout "racist!", "bigot!", "Islamophobe!", "Xenophobe!" etc. Let's remember that One nation only garnered just over 1% of the vote in 2013. Their sudden spike in support would suggest to me that people feel that they are not being listened to by the major parties...I'd hate to see your definition of far right lol.
I think she gains support when both major parties pretend that we live in a multicultural garden where everything is perfect...it is much better to have an open debate on tensions within our community from the political centre, however when this is not offered, people look to far right and far left parties to have their concerns heard (although I still wouldn't call One Nation a far right party; there were much worse parties on the Senate ballot paper, including ones whose agenda bordered on neo-nazism).
That's your opinion. I could assert the same thing about a plethora of other political parties, including the greens, the ALP and the LNP on many issues...but does mean that these parties should not have representation in our federal parliament if people vote for them? And to be honest, the tone of your post is bordering on totalitarian. Why should we, in a free and open liberal democratic society, not give her a platform to represent the views of her constituents if she has been popularly elected? You're not going to persuade Hanson supporters to your point of view by merely "heckling" them and mindlessly chanting that they are "wrong". Rather, we should oppose Hanson with facts, logic and reasoned arguments. Why fight Hanson's "hatred" with a different form of hatred? Ultimately such an approach is counter-productive; her initial rise to stardom proves this point, as the more snobbish/biased against her the media was, the more popular she became.
And I do think that Hanson has the potential to improve policy/legislative outcomes, in spite of her racism. She in fact has several policies I wholeheatedly agree with, including opposing Coal Seam Gas, opposing the TPP and supporting Euthanasia. Of course I detest many of her other policies, but in a democracy, we must respect the will of the people who elected her.
I'm not quite sure I agree with this. Part of the reason she has a decent following is because there is a perception that the "elites" (namely the political and media class) are out of touch with and don't listen to the concerns espoused by the working class. The elites are dismissive and talk down to her supporters, fuelling division and an 'us vs them' mentality. What I was merely suggesting was for people to engage with her constituency and their concerns, rather than simply shout "racist!", "bigot!", "Islamophobe!", "Xenophobe!" etc. Let's remember that One nation only garnered just over 1% of the vote in 2013. Their sudden spike in support would suggest to me that people feel that they are not being listened to by the major parties...What debate do you propose? I'm not quite sure what you expect other people to do? Like a genuine question here this isn't a debate technique I'm genuinely bemused considering the possible debate topics.
I think she gains support when both major parties pretend that we live in a multicultural garden where everything is perfect...it is much better to have an open debate on tensions within our community from the political centre, however when this is not offered, people look to far right and far left parties to have their concerns heard (although I still wouldn't call One Nation a far right party; there were much worse parties on the Senate ballot paper, including ones whose agenda bordered on neo-nazism).
Throwing pejoratives are horrible in all ways, however, through a Machiavellian lens we can state that these pejoratives have illustrated Hanson and her views most effectively to hopefully deter future supporters from adopting a bigoted view in society. We can't alter the views of Hanson's supporters, so I think the second best option is to deter others from reaching the 'point of no return' as I like to call it.
"I think other politicians have done a rotten job so far, so we should give her a go,"
"She's the only one to have the guts to get things done," he said.
"With any luck, it can't get any worse. Everyone else already makes it worse, why not give her a turn?"
"A lot of them think she supports the people, not like politicians supporting themselves. They say she's more interested in the people than the position."
It's not the pejoratives thrown by the elitist that cause this division, but rather the years of racism and intolerance which has been brewing under the surface.
Turnbull was going around before the election promising no one will pay more to see the doctor because of the extended freeze on medicare rebates. Can someone please explain how a medicare freeze + not paying more is sustainable/logical? Won't doctors be ultimately forced to charge some copayment to meet the rising costs associated with running a medical practice?
I think i'll try nail two issues at once (only briefly skimmed over everything).
People say the Greens got Pauline Hanson elected because they changed the senate voting system. This is utterly false slander by those with a desperate crabs in a bucket mentality. The new senate voting changes mean that parties can't negotiate lists in secret and without the input of the voters, lists which in the past have gotten total wild cards elected (Jackie Lambie, Ricky Muir, The LDP). In some aspects, these people are as extreme as Pauline Hanson
So, it's clear our voting system can produce unexpected outcomes. The new changes put the power of the preference flow back into the hands of the people rather than arcane "preference whisperers".
Here's the real reason Pauline Hanson got elected - because people voted for her. There was no Greens, Liberal or Labor tricks, no party is to blame. She recieved 9% of the vote, almost 1 out of every 10 voters preferenced her first.
Democracy is not to produce good outcomes, democracy is outcome neutral. All democracy is designed to do is represent the will of the people and by Pauline Hanson getting elected, the will of that 9% is represented, this outcome is democratic. The attack arguments Labor is running against The Greens are anti-democratic in that they think that if 1 in 10 people vote for someone, somehow, its a mistake that person gets a spot.
I hate many of Pauline Hansons policies but to ignore the fact people voted for her is a total fantasy. These people voted for her for a reason. Something the main parties aren't addressing, a fear, an idea, a belief. If the major parties (or indeed, *all* parties or society as a whole) doesn't address the concerns of these people, forces like Pauline Hanson will grow and grow.
We're seeing it all over the political world with people like Trump. Trump, however, predates the wider movement we saw even earlier in places like Greece (Golden Dawn) or many other European nations where the top two parties of the previous 50 years are no longer the top two, because they felt establishment, they ignored fears and concerns people were voicing. The major parties need to start listening to 9% that voted for Pauline Hanson and figure out what to do with them, to simply ignore them is a very dangerous thing indeed.