2016 Australian election thread

[pi]

Does anyone know why they aren't counting votes til Tuesday? Why not Monday?

It was something about securing all the votes and making sure no votes got lost. Last election some postal votes were 'misplaced' and the AEC wants to make sure they're all accounted for before counting of votes re-commences.

no thoughts. Here, there, or in the minds of those who allowed her in.

This is hilarious and I agree completely. #quexit

[likeneverbefore]

Would a hung parliament create a sense that Australia is economically instable to foreign investors?

[jakesilove]

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...

Political discourse is important, as it allows multiple ideas and ideals to be heard, debated in the public sphere and considered by all relevant parties. This is fundamental to democracy; we don't elect dictators, and we ensure there are checks on all branches of government (at least to some, albeit minor, extent). Even politicians 'backstabbing' each other can serve an important political purpose; displaying the shifting tides of popularity, both personally and in terms of policy.

This, however, must operate within limits. When a campaign is about workers' rights, we do not elect a pro-slave Minister for the sake of political discourse. Why? Because they are wrong. They are wrong, objectively, subjectively, in every sense and in every sphere. Wrong.

Pauline Hanson is wrong. We as a society should despise every fiber of her being, and every word that secretes itself from her racist mouth. Just allowing her to speak is detrimental to Australia; giving her a pedestal to speak from makes me ashamed to be Australian.

"Interesting" is not a criteria in politics. At least, it shouldn't be. Donald Drumpf should not be elected because he can use the most buzzwords in a sentence. Of course, politicians need to interact with the masses; the masses should just know better. Clearly, Australia can no longer take the moral high ground when it comes to international decisions that shake the foundations of modern society. What we can do is make sure we don't welcome Hanson back into the public sphere; we can boo her at every turn, heckle her, debate against her (an often fruitless attempt, but important for the public to see), call her out for what she really is.

Compromise often does result in successful policy formulation and implementation, as it takes the best of all opinions and cohesively weaves them together; it also often doesn't. But when you compromise with an idea inherent wrong, necessarily dangerous and over-ridingly evil, that isn't a compromise; it's a sacrifice. And when the lives of individual people are at stake, and they are, that isn't a sacrifice we as a country should be willing to make.

Her election is shameful. We all should have done more.

[Swagadaktal]

Her election is shameful. We all should have done more.

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.

[HopefulLawStudent]

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.

What does it say about voters that Hanson was voted into parliament? After all, in theory, our parliamentarians are supposed to represent the views and values of their constituents... (And it's not like her racist and intolerant ideologies were a secret.)

[Elizawei]

Sam Dasytari inviting Pauline to eat a Halal snack pack was by far one of the funniest moments

If you haven't seen the 1 min vid and her hilarious response go watch it XD

[Swagadaktal]

Rather, we should oppose Hanson with facts, logic and reasoned arguments.

LOL
OMG
THIS IS THE FUNNIEST THING I'VE EVER READ LMAO OMG IM DYING HAHHAAH

Not sure if you've met a supporter or understand her supporters, but this definitely will not work. Sorry to say it but you're too idealistic here.

I agree with the rest of what you've said though, can't fight fire with fire. I refer to my previous point; we need to let the views run its course. It's not correct for us to respond in the same manner and using the same tactics she employs.

But reasoned, sustained arguments are probably the weakest ways to oppose her views.

And to tackle your first point: I don't think Jake was saying that she doesn't deserve her platform. She earned that seat (at a cost) - but it was earned. Rather, Jake was enforcing the notion that such fervent and inflammatory views should not have such a following within an expected tolerant and multicultural society such as Australia. So we as a community should try to highlight our multiculturalism and tolerance, and should not have let people reach such a hateful/threatened/fearful stage.

Sam Dasytari inviting Hanson to eat a Halan snack pack was by far one of the funniest moments

If you haven't seen the 1 min vid and her hilarious response go watch it XD

LOL THIS WAS GOLD.

Did you also see his review of a HSP? He went through the criteria as seen on Halal Snack Pack Appreciation Society, utilising the correct terms such as "brothers and sisters." Lmao such a funny guy

[brenden]

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 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).

I'd hate to see your definition of far right lol.

[Aaron]

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. 

Totally agreed. I'd +1 if I could.

[brenden]

There's been reasons and facts and stuff thrown Pauline's way but they just got said like 60 years ago which is the awkward bit I s'pose

[Swagadaktal]

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 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).

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.

Do you think that we should have a debate on whether Mosques should be allowed? Or a debate on whether Halal certification should continue to exist (even though an investigation has cleared it)? What possible topic could be discussed where people could actually discuss the issue?

People have tried to deal with their concerns haven't they? Or am I thoroughly mistaken here? Haven't numerous investigations (including the one on Halal certifications that I just referred to) occurred? Yet Pauline Hanson just stated not a few days ago that "98% of Australians are against Halal" -- I'd love to think as idealistically as you but these techniques haven't worked. Reason has not worked. Evidence has not worked.

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'd also like to question your argument that there's a 'disconnect' between the 'elitist' and 'working class'. I don't think this is a substantiated argument (please show me I'm wrong - I'm genuinely up for discussion here if I say anything here you disagree with, don't take any of these things wrongly I don't mean them as an attack. I really want to understand different points of views ) - Wouldn't you say a lot of people against Hanson are working class? Why is it that some people are enamoured by Hanson's alienation by the elitists but the other 98+% of the working class isn't? 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. This undercurrent is what is pushing these views to the front in this election, wouldn't you say?

[brenden]

There has to be a disconnect between the classes - in a general sense. People struggle psychologically to envision experiences far from their own. I.e., imagine someone living within 10kms of the city trying to envision the working life of someone living in Pakenham that has a CBD job. I'm sure their views on public transport for example will be really, really different. Lol.This is just one really, really basic way that class is an obvious separator. Changes to the healthcare system? No biggy to healthy people with lots of money. $7 a couple of times a year? Done. I'll pay that $21 up front! But for someone chronically sick on low-income... that's daunting. (The last one isn't necessarily to do with class, but more to do with health... but it does reinforce the idae of envisioning experiences diff to your own I mentioned before. Why you think men feel like feminism is less necessary than women do lol. - so in that regard, there just has to be a disconnect between the elite and working class. Their lives are very, very different.

[The Raven]

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.

In a way this is representative of the disconnect that abc was talking about. When we categorise a group of people as those at the 'point of no return' we feel justified in rejecting their needs as citizens in this democratic society. We can continue to castigate these voters as 'not representative of Australia', but what happens when that vote continues to increase with every election cycle that these people continue to feel rejected by the political mainstream. Perhaps we will ignore the rise until it is too late...

We might lament the presence of Trump in the US, but what we have to realise is that Trump isn't some spontaneous manifestation of the latent racism and xenophobia inside American citizens, his popularity is a product of the decades in which the political establishment has ignored the demands of its people. In this vein we see a shift to other minor parties, look at the NXT in South Australia and the way in which they have managed to make huge in roads in previously liberal safe areas. Why?
Xenophon is one of the few politicians willing to argue for trade protectionism in an area of mining and manufacturing that no longer has support from the mainstream parties.

As Abc pointed out, One Nation barely got any votes last election, does that mean that Australia has suddenly become much more rascist over the last 4 years? More likely, people are frustrated with the political mainstream and willing to lash out by voting for minor parties, of which One Nation is just one of many.

(Not trying to attack you in anyway, just pointing out a different way of looking at this issue)

[FallingStar]

Well,

The discontent of the major parties could probably explain the hung parliament, which is probably where we're going to go.
And that is shown through the rise in the minor parties in this election, be it One Nation, Nick Xenophon Team, The Greens... You name it. And there's more independents here too.

 

[Glasses]

I myself have a pretty strong dislike of Pauline Hanson - however I will admit that I love one of her policies. That policy being:

http://www.onenation.com.au/policies/university-allowance

But the sad thing is that despite how much I agree with this policy (and hate that centrelink payments are based on parental income), I will never vote for One Nation, because of (what I view as) their outrageous and discriminatory policies (e.g. regarding Islam, multiculturalism, refugees).

I do believe that Pauline Hanson believes in what she's doing, and thinks she's benefiting Australia - but what annoys me is the means through which she tries to do this. Her policies aside, I think she would be a good politician (because of her loyalty to Australia), but she's also extremely racist, ignorant and xenophobic (in my opinion).

I also don't like that her views tend to sway with what's 'in' at the time. E.g. She started off with her racist attitudes and comments towards Asians, then Indigenous Australians, and now Islam.

*I hope this doesn't appear that I'm endorsing Hanson, because I'm definitely not (and like I said, I strongly dislike her), but I do think that she's in politics for the benefit of Australia, not herself.*