Voted early - way to go.

[BobL]

SWMBO is going to be away on election day so today we dropped into an early polling place so she could do the business and thought, as I'm here I might as well vote.

As we arrived I spotted an empty parking bay right outside the front door so we didn't have to deal with the pamphleteers who were all hanging around the middle of the carpark. One did come running over but we made it inside the door in time.

Inside there was one person in front of us and we were done and dusted in 2 minutes.

Later I read that over 120,000 people voted on the first day the early polling places opened (yesterday) - that's twice as many as the first day on the 2016 election. I think that says we've all had a gut full of the advertising and BS.

[doug3030]

I think that says we've all had a gut full of the advertising and BS.

BS as in Bill Shorten?

[FenceFurniture]

Yebbut what if you were in Qld and were going to vote One Nation (somehow!) in the Senate. You go and vote yesterday or today and come home only to see vids of the goose you just voted for......

What if, in 1993, you'd voted early for the Libs and then seen the Mike Willesee train wreck interview with John Hewson....(esp if you were a cake shop owner without autistic maths skills)

I suspect in either case your lower sphincter might tighten.

Yeah o'course we've had a gutful, but we have to let the journos conduct their examinations for the full course to make sure exposure of the facts is as full as it can be.

Only time I can see it being ok to vote early is if you know you are going to vote informal (which is a legitimate message-sending vote in itself)

[FenceFurniture]

BS as in Bill Shorten?Yeah, and Bloody Scummo.

[doug3030]

Yeah, and Bloody Scummo.

We really don't have any choices worth leaving the shed to go and vote for - pre-poll or on the day.

I intend to go out and vote in pre-poll so I don't have to queue up for hours. Not a viable option with my back problems

[FenceFurniture]

We really don't have any choices worth leaving the shed to go and vote for - pre-poll or on the day.Ain't that the truth. Probable Dickhead vs Known Dickhead. Great choice.

[BobL]

Yebbut what if you were in Qld and were going to vote One Nation (somehow!) in the Senate. You go and vote yesterday or today and come home only to see vids of the goose you just voted for......
What if, in 1993, you'd voted early for the Libs and then seen the Mike Willesee train wreck interview with John Hewson....(esp if you were a cake shop owner without autistic maths skills)
I suspect in either case your lower sphincter might tighten.
Yeah o'course we've had a gutful, but we have to let the journos conduct their examinations for the full course to make sure exposure of the facts is as full as it can be.
Only time I can see it being ok to vote early is if you know you are going to vote informal (which is a legitimate message-sending vote in itself)

Oh not that old claptrap again.
Anyone that has to change away from a party based on the vids of a goose, or change their vote based on last nights tweedle dumb and tweedle dee show deserves to have their lower sphincter tighten.
The 1993 cake shop incident - crikey is that all you can come up with? - it sounds like a month python sketch.
Anyway - nothing that WA does electorally influences the election outcome anyway - so we might as well not vote.
And remember no matter who you vote for you always get a politician.

[DavidG]

Political threads are frowned on

See rule 3.
You will see that political posts lead to the breaking of a number of sections of rule 3.
Please no person names,or party names.

3.0 - Material you may NOT post
You agree NOT to post material or links to web-sites that contain material, that is:
3.1 - abusive, obscene, divisive or vulgar
3.2 - defamatory, hateful or threatening
3.3 - racially motivated
3.4 - sexually-orientated
3.5 - Incitement to commit breach of any Commonwealth or State law or regulation.
3.6 - offensive to reasonable adults
3.7 - inappropriate on a family friendly forum
3.8 - infringes copyright
3.9 - infringes on right to privacy
3.10 - denigrates any particular group, incorporated body or individual
3.11 - false or deliberately misleading
3.12 - naming companies or products involved in disputes or grievances (naming & shaming)
3.13 - in violation of any laws be it of your country, the country where Woodwork Forum is hosted or International Law
3.14 - posts that the Admin Team, at its absolute discretion, consider to be trolling
3.15 - considered by the Admin Team to be an ongoing promotion of a competitive website

[FenceFurniture]

Oh not that old claptrap again. It's hardly old Bob - pre-polling is becoming very popular in recent years and so this situation takes on more gravity. It's hardly claptrap either. I think I read that they are expecting double the pre-poll voters this time? A 100% increase in three years is huge.



Anyone that has to change away from a party based on the vids of a goose, or change their vote based on last nights tweedle dumb and tweedle dee show deserves to have their lower sphincter tighten.What, so we should kill off investigative journalism because people don't need to know the truth about what their politicians get up to? That's the logical conclusion of what you are saying. For some of the followers of the "vids" party I suspect it might be the last straw, just like it was for the leader, and a lot of the followers obviously "think" like that particular leader.

I would suggest that the country may well have dodged a bullet because of that exposè. Maybe a seat in the Senate was unachievable from second place, but now it surely is out of the question (even though the ballot papers have been printed). We need our Law makers to be of good character, regardless of whether they have a family or not.



The 1993 cake shop incident - crikey is that all you can come up with? - it sounds like a month python sketch.No, there are other examples. Those two were just the current one and the most famous one. There was a massive budget black hole incident some years ago ($6 bill unaccounted for expenditure, by one of the major parties). Whatever it was, the numbers were wildly inaccurate.

"The Cake Shop Sketch" does have a certain ring to it though..... :D

In any case it is not how many examples I can come up with, it's the principle behind why voting early may not be such a good idea (in some elections, anyway). There are always many many voters who have not made up their mind during the campaign - some right up until the day. An exposè like we have seen will surely help them to decide.

In a different scenario, what if you were going to vote for one of the majors (which is the most probable scenario) and there was an exposè that showed that one of their foundation policies was never intended to be implemented - it was just a massive vote catcher to gain power for three years. It was a policy that had swung your vote, you vote early, the exposè is aired. How do you feel then eh? I know I'd feel bloody ropeable and ripped off.




Anyway - nothing that WA does electorally influences the election outcome anyway - so we might as well not vote.It's the marginal seats and the swing voters that affect the outcome, no matter where they are. Safe seats and rusted on voters could (usually) be taken out of the equation just like "pairing" in the house. Your comment suggests that you might continue to vote for the person or party exposed during the campaign, regardless of what's been exposed, simply because you think your vote doesn't matter. Our vote always matters.


We have one of the best electoral systems in the world on two counts: people are forced to have a say (even if that is informal voting, which says something), and we have preferential voting (which needs a little tweaking). We should value it while we can as it may not be there forever. We should also value investigative journalism while it still exists - it is already under threat with the closing of so many outlets and concentration of media power into just a few pairs of hands around the world. One of them will die in the next few years or so, but one wonders what might follow him.

If we are apathetic about our democracy then we will lose it - no question, especially in these somewhat more dangerous days. Just because things have largely always been the same for us Baby Boomers does not mean that they can't change very rapidly indeed in the current ultra-fast world. A stroke of the pen from our largest trading partner and we would be rooted. My partner comes from Argentina - we don't appreciate the easy ride Australia has had.

[FenceFurniture]

The 1993 cake shop incident - crikey is that all you can come up with?I've just seen yet another example in this morning's news. One of the major parties has dumped a candidate for expressing hateful views against a particular religion.

What if you were from that religion and had pre-polled to vote for him yesterday? You'd feel sick to your stomach, regardless of whether he was sacked now or sacked later. It might even turn you off that particular party completely so you would feel as though you had voted incorrectly.

[BobL]

In a different scenario, what if you were going to vote for one of the majors (which is the most probable scenario) and there was an exposè that showed that one of their foundation policies was never intended to be implemented - it was just a massive vote catcher to gain power for three years. It was a policy that had swung your vote, you vote early, the exposè is aired. How do you feel then eh? I know I'd feel bloody ropeable and ripped off.

This doesn't bother me as I start out by considering ALL policies as "exposed" or at least highly unlikely to be implemented at all, or anywhere near the original claims.
Many of the so called policies are meaningless/vague and always estimated in terms of funding if they intend to meet targets.
Once they get in they find they can't afford to implement many of them so they "select" what they want to implement (core and non-core promises) and then many are blocked by the senate or even factions of their own party.
Then there's the increasing amount of time spent on not passing any policies, just endless bickering between and inside parties, there's no real interest in advancing the country - just hanging on to power - just look at the last couple of governments we've had.

[FenceFurniture]

This doesn't bother me as I start out by considering ALL policies as "exposed" or at least highly unlikely to be implemented at all, or anywhere near the original claims. That's a very jaded and cynical view, but I'm not saying it's not at least partially justified.

However, how do you decide who to vote for, or do you just vote informal every time these days? (which would seem to be the only logical choice if you don't believe any of what they say, or that any good will come from it)

[doug3030]

I've just seen yet another example in this morning's news. One of the major parties has dumped a candidate for expressing hateful views against a particular religion.

What if you were from that religion and had pre-polled to vote for him yesterday? You'd feel sick to your stomach, regardless of whether he was sacked now or sacked later. It might even turn you off that particular party completely so you would feel as though you had voted incorrectly.

But - what about if we don't get to hear that one of these miscreants went to a strip club or said something less than politically correct about someone's religion or sexual preferences the WEEK AFTER they are elected?

Can we call the election null and void because all the information was not made available in advance?

All of them are guilty of SOMETHING that they would rather we did not know about.

If the political parties worked as hard at governing the country for the benefit of all as they do going around searching for buckets of $#IT to tip over each other we would all be far better off.

[BobL]

That's a very jaded and cynical view, but I'm not saying it's not at least partially justified.
Unfortunately it's hard wired into my professional training. ie start by setting your crap meter on high, assume nothing, and dig around in the background to see where their coming from.


But - what about if we don't get to hear that one of these miscreants went to a strip club or said something less than politically correct about someone's religion or sexual preferences the WEEK AFTER they are elected?
Well exactly.

[Tonyz]

If I go on poling day, rest assured the minders leave me alone, living in a small town the local 'minders' recognise me and by now know well enough to leave me alone. But to try and play the game I hang around till there is only me heading for the entry door, they all quickly find other stuff to do.
I am not a bear, nor a Staffy bull terrier, nor look like atilla the hun they have just learnt that I dont need their wastage paper forms and if they force it upon me, I'll find a very interesting place on their person, so it cant be used again.

[FenceFurniture]

But - what about if we don't get to hear that one of these miscreants went to a strip club or said something less than politically correct about someone's religion or sexual preferences the WEEK AFTER they are elected?$#ITTER'S DITCH in that case :D Hopefully they would be forced to resign and we could have the fun of a costly by-election (which their party should be forced to pay for).

[FenceFurniture]

the minders leave me alone,I took a can of insect repellent once. Stood about 3 metres away from the pack and when they all looked at me I sprayed myself with gusto. At least it gave us all a laugh.

[BobL]

If I go on poling day, rest assured the minders leave me alone, living in a small town the local 'minders' recognise me and by now know well enough to leave me alone. But to try and play the game I hang around till there is only me heading for the entry door, they all quickly find other stuff to do.
I am not a bear, nor a Staffy bull terrier, nor look like atilla the hun they have just learnt that I dont need their wastage paper forms and if they force it upon me, I'll find a very interesting place on their person, so it cant be used again.

I wouldn't be arguing with Yoda.

[damian]

I'm not going to comment on political candidates as that would just make you ALL cranky :D

I voted tuesday as I was busy doing something useful on monday (falcon water pump).

Once there was a 50/50 chance what you saw on the telly was a lie, now it's 100%. Anyone who has ever had a direct connection with a "story" will tell you what's reported has no resemblance to what happened yet some choose to believe all the other stories are true somehow ?

The pamphleteers don't bother me. They offer politely I wave them away, get it over and get onto the much more interesting sausage. We don't get shot at or bombed so I'm alright with that.

Know this absolute truth: In a democracy you get the government you deserve. If you don't like the parliament (and I don't) blame the electorate.

2c. (is it over yet ?)

[BobL]

The pamphleteers don't bother me. They offer politely I wave them away, get it over and get onto the much more interesting sausage. We don't get shot at or bombed so I'm alright with that.

You were able to get a sausage at the pre-poll place! Not at the one I went to.

[Beardy]

I am a bit surprised that people don’t know who they are voting for long before the Election Day. Don’t you vote for the party and their fundamental beliefs not whether you like the particular candidate because he used to be a rockstar, football player or can scull a beer etc.
There is basically three choices and three fundamentally different viewpoints on how our world should go around, the rest is smoke and mirrors.

I am interested to hear when it comes out who was behind the deliberate attempt to discredit Pauline’s party, they must be worried about her if they went to that much effort.

[damian]

You were able to get a sausage at the pre-poll place! Not at the one I went to.

No good point, I got mine when I got home :D

[doug3030]

I am interested to hear when it comes out who was behind the deliberate attempt to discredit Pauline’s party, they must be worried about her if they went to that much effort.

Well seeing as how it has all come from Al Jazeera footage, and it is all attacking that particular party (which is about as far right as we get), as well as discrediting the NRA, which is also pretty much out on the right, then I would be looking at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

We have been asked to not name names or parties but if you point, I'll whistle. :rolleyes:

[Handyjack]

At this point of time I do not even know how many candidates are standing for either house in my electorate. Part of the reason might be that a lot of what gets put in my letter box goes straight in the bin and I only read the newspaper on line during the week which makes it easy to skip stuff. The local paper has shrunk and not been delivered to my home for a long time.

[Sturdee]

I voted today and unlike election days it was a breeze. Parked next to the entrance, using my newly minted disabled permit, no waiting in a queue and in an out in ten minutes.

All the arguments about policies still to come out is in my case irrelevant as I'm voting to get rid of the sitting member who espouses and acts in parliament on his ultra conservative view which is not mine. If my local member can ignore the result of the majority vote in his electorate on the marriage equality issue then even blind Freddy would be a better member.

Just my opinion but I vote to punish.

Peter.

[ian]

I've just seen yet another example in this morning's news. One of the major parties has dumped a candidate for expressing hateful views against a particular religion.
I wish.
Think back to 1996 (?) and the election of a well known candidate who had been dumped / dis-endorsed by their party.
Although "dumped" and "dis-endorsed" the candidate remained on the ballot and was subsequently elected.

[Beardy]

Well seeing as how it has all come from Al Jazeera footage, and it is all attacking that particular party (which is about as far right as we get), as well as discrediting the NRA, which is also pretty much out on the right, then I would be looking at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

We have been asked to not name names or parties but if you point, I'll whistle. :rolleyes:

It will be interesting to see if these type of tactics becomes the new low standard for our political opponents

[BobL]

It will be interesting to see if these type of tactics becomes the new low standard for our political opponents

It's nothing new, Most pollies of any era would have used the same tactic if such info were available

[BobL]

Just my opinion but I vote to punish.

That's how I tend to view things as well.

It wouldn't matter all that much to me who has the reins of power provided they don't tell me how I should live my life, keep things tidy, don't seek to be lining their own or certain interest groups pockets, don't makes us a laughing stock of the rest of the world, keep things moving along, and don't slug any specific community too hard. But as soon as they start acting like a mob of feral schoolies they lose my vote - eventually the next mob turn into the same thing so they have to go as well. It's well know that there have been very few occasions in Australia where parties win elections, instead the other side(s) lose them.

[doug3030]

It's well know that there have been very few occasions in Australia where parties win elections, instead the other side(s) lose them.

This time it looks like two sides doing their best to lose. The side that fails in it's attempt to lose will be declared the winner.

[Beardy]

It's nothing new, Most pollies of any era would have used the same tactic if such info were available

Yes but these stooges were employed by Al Jazeera for three years preparing this information, creating false aliases and organisations for the sting. Kinda think they have taken it to a new level

[FenceFurniture]

It wouldn't matter all that much to me who has the reins of power provided they don't tell me how I should live my life, keep things tidy, don't seek to be lining their own or certain interest groups pockets, don't makes us a laughing stock of the rest of the world, keep things moving along, and don't slug any specific community too hard.So just the common garden variety of Utopia then, nothing too upmarket? :U

Sounds good to me anyway.

[doug3030]

Kinda think they have taken it to a new level

But who is "they"?

One of our left-leading party's leader apparently lacks the ability to tie his own shoe laces.

The other left leaning party has international affiliations and a local leader who apparently lacks the ability to tie his own shoe laces as well.

[FenceFurniture]

Yes but these stooges were employed by Al Jazeera for three years preparing this information, creating false aliases and organisations for the sting. Kinda think they have taken it to a new levelYes, that is one view, and I can certainly see why people who may be on that side of the fence might see it that way. In fact I think I've only heard that view from people on that side of the fence. I read quite a few journo's reports and opinions of it and I think the closest that one or two got was "it may have been close to entrapment, but we needed to know this stuff". When I say "journo" I mean proper fair minded journos, not those that might bolt away and talk a whole lot of devine crap only for the sake of ratings in their limited news outlets.

"I'm sorry I did it" is quite different to "I'm sorry I got caught".

OTOH, it would seem that a great many more people were glad to see it revealed, one way or another. Personally I can't see any moral difference between recording it secretly and having (say) two corroborating witnesses independently reporting it. They said those things, and most certainly dreamt of the money to buy testicles. At a very minimum, and given that everyone involved has blamed alcohol for these not-really-real-indiscretions-coz-I-was-pieced, do we really want people in power who drink so often and behave that way when they do? All that would change is the quality of the sauce consumed would rise.

Do we want people of that calibre with the Government's testicles in their hands? I bloody don't.

Really, the bottom line is that their views and thoughts and desires were exposed for what they are, and nothing can change that. The recordings are what they are, and I didn't see too much evidence of fancy editing. Much of it was uninterrupted. There was enough evidence ten times over, so you could take out a huge part of it and it would still be just as damning. None of the people recorded said "I didn't say that". The best they could come up with was "taken out of context", but each part was damning within itself.

The overall view of it will be known soon enough: their % of the vote has been on the increase for a while, so if it stabilises or goes backward at the erection we will then have our answer as to what the broader public thinks of it.

[doug3030]

do we really want people in power who drink so often and behave that way when they do?

Well, we've got them now, we've always had them. Even our very first Prime Minister was famous for his love of a cold beverage on a hot day. Another famous PM was a university drinking champion. Who was it who was found drunk in a hotel lobby without his pants on?

I would rather elect someone who drinks like a fish out of the public eye and can balance a budget than someone who is sober and cannot balance a budget or prioritize.

[BobL]

Over the last week I have been working my way through Prof. Yuval Noah Harari's best-selling 'Homo Deus'. Harari is a historian/philosopher and this book is a look at future history of humans. Form what I can tell he has most technical things well under his belt so he's not just waffling on. It's actually a very challenging books- do we really expect to be in charge of cyborgs or AI and if not do we expect them to treat us any better than the way we treat animals today. The fact that currently Google knows most people better than any other person including a partner, and very soon is likely to know you better than you know yourself. He's not just writing science fiction but presenting a range of prospective future directions based on what's happening today. I'm rating this book as the second best best of some 60 books I have got through so far this year.

One of the sections on the current chapter deals with decision making including voting. It appears that humans have a skewed way of making decisions that prioritises what is called the "peak", and the "edge" or" latest" experience. The most extensive testing has been done on pain perception. We remember/report average pain over a period of time based largely on the worst pain we experience during the period and the latest pain we experience and tend to average the two for an overall pain perception.

So if over a zero to 10 pain scale you are asked to average pain over the last weeks, you remember your worst pain (say 8) and your most recent pain (say 1) and you will report an overall average of around 4 even though you might have had all days, except the last, around 6. so your average should be ~6. If you experienced say 2 for all other days then your average should be around 2. The same applies to voting. If you vote on the actual polling day you will remember the most painful event during the parliamentary term and most of the recent raft of dubious promises made by politicians during the final media storm days of an election campaign and make a decision based on those.This is not done for fun its done deliberately. Hence the vast majority of people will make a poor decision. A better more representative decision (even for discerning voters) is made if you vote BEFORE the media crap storm kicks off. You cannot beat this - it's hardwired into humans.

The book goes into much more detail than this about decision making. It appears we have very little to ZERO free will to make decisions. Some of the future scenarios are seriously bleak and we appear to be blindly heading into some of these futures without being aware of it. No amount of conservatism or back peddling will prevent this and if anything make things worse for most folks.

[BobL]

I would rather elect someone who drinks like a fish out of the public eye and can balance a budget than someone who is sober and cannot balance a budget or prioritize.

I also don't worry about a pollies personal habits, religions etc as long as they are not then telling me how to live my life - once they do that they go to the end of the ballot paper.
I'm not convinced by basic balancing a budget - anyone can balance a budget, lop a zero or two off here and add a zero or two there - it's not rocket science rather it's how it's done that really matters. The same applies to funding health and education etc. And when they're not balanced there're endless excuses available.

[FenceFurniture]

Well, we've got them now, we've always had them. Even our very first Prime Minister was famous for his love of a cold beverage on a hot day. Another famous PM was a university drinking champion. Who was it who was found drunk in a hotel lobby without his pants on?

I would rather elect someone who drinks like a fish out of the public eye and can balance a budget than someone who is sober and cannot balance a budget or prioritize.I don't disagree Doug, BUT...
do we really want people in power who drink so often and behave that way when they do?It's the second part that is the critical bit.

The goose that was caught is neither the first nor last, however, when there is a chance of exposing it then I think it's fair enough to take it up. Certainly you'd have to think that the whole sordid affair will be some kind of lesson to people in public life, and perhaps will make them think twice about behaving like that (except that alcohol increases bravado and risk taking).

I can't think of any real down side to come out of this exposure as far as the general public is concerned.

[doug3030]

I can't think of any real down side to come out of this exposure as far as the general public is concerned.

Remember which party the goose is running for?

Do you think these revelations will change the opinion of someone who was going to vote for him in the first place?

[BobL]

Remember which party the goose is running for?

Do you think these revelations will change the opinion of someone who was going to vote for him in the first place?

I Agree. Even criminal offences/convictions are unlikely to swing dies hards. Unless the party leader has sufficient sway to knock them out of the election, this is why factional or minority party reprobates are able to get away with so much. Their supporters say, " He/she may well be a goose but she's/he's our goose".

[doug3030]

Their supporters say, " He/she may well be a goose but she's/he's our goose".

Politics aside, within a group, people get away with picking on the "goose" of the group, but when an outsider has a go, the group steps up and defends them.

[FenceFurniture]

Do you think these revelations will change the opinion of someone who was going to vote for him in the first place?Well I think it probably might change some people's minds, particularly those who are considering voting that way for the first time. It wouldn't change a die-hard's mind.

[BobL]

Well I think it probably might change some people's minds, particularly those who are considering voting that way for the first time. It wouldn't change a die-hard's mind.

Given that bad publicity is sometimes better than none, I reckon it might also convince a few macho/butchy type doubters who might have vote informal or donkey or for someone else.
Their rationale might be they think most pollies are too PC and should harden up a bit.
It will be interesting to see the how many first preference votes he gets.

[FenceFurniture]

Anyway - nothing that WA does electorally influences the election outcome anyway - so we might as well not vote.So -ve! But apparently on the contrary according to tonight's news.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-02/federal-election-2019-western-australia-key-for-liberal-labor/11064150

"Both sides see WA as a major battleground"

"the west is regarded as being "in play" at this election campaign on a scale not seen for some years"

[Beardy]

Yes, that is one view, and I can certainly see why people who may be on that side of the fence might see it that way. In fact I think I've only heard that view from people on that side of the fence. I read quite a few journo's reports and opinions of it and I think the closest that one or two got was "it may have been close to entrapment, but we needed to know this stuff". When I say "journo" I mean proper fair minded journos, not those that might bolt away and talk a whole lot of devine crap only for the sake of ratings in their limited news outlets.

"I'm sorry I did it" is quite different to "I'm sorry I got caught".

OTOH, it would seem that a great many more people were glad to see it revealed, one way or another. Personally I can't see any moral difference between recording it secretly and having (say) two corroborating witnesses independently reporting it. They said those things, and most certainly dreamt of the money to buy testicles. At a very minimum, and given that everyone involved has blamed alcohol for these not-really-real-indiscretions-coz-I-was-pieced, do we really want people in power who drink so often and behave that way when they do? All that would change is the quality of the sauce consumed would rise.

Do we want people of that calibre with the Government's testicles in their hands? I bloody don't.

Really, the bottom line is that their views and thoughts and desires were exposed for what they are, and nothing can change that. The recordings are what they are, and I didn't see too much evidence of fancy editing. Much of it was uninterrupted. There was enough evidence ten times over, so you could take out a huge part of it and it would still be just as damning. None of the people recorded said "I didn't say that". The best they could come up with was "taken out of context", but each part was damning within itself.

The overall view of it will be known soon enough: their % of the vote has been on the increase for a while, so if it stabilises or goes backward at the erection we will then have our answer as to what the broader public thinks of it.

Nothing to do with which side of the fence you are on........I am certainly not on his side. I was more just intrigued that so much money and effort was put into discrediting a minority party like they did, the timing of releasing the information was not a coincidence.

As far as politicians behaving badly, I think we would have few members left in parliament if all of their dirty washing was aired. Some just get caught

[BobL]

So -ve! But apparently on the contrary according to tonight's news.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-02/federal-election-2019-western-australia-key-for-liberal-labor/11064150

"Both sides see WA as a major battleground"

"the west is regarded as being "in play" at this election campaign on a scale not seen for some years"

Yeah saw that but I don't think it will happen.

[FenceFurniture]

the timing of releasing the information was not a coincidence.Well yeah, that's what any well planned operation does. Timing is everything. Planned for maximum impact. You never know, they may have one more little titbit before May 18.



I was more just intrigued that so much money and effort was put into discrediting a minority party like they didI can't recall reading the following interpretation, but I hardly think it is my original thought: The media organisation concerned comes from an Arabic Islamic country. Maybe they are sheet off with a certain party's well known and well documented xenophobic views particularly towards Arabic Islamic countries, possibly since 1996, and decided to do whatever they could about it. It would seem they played a "long" game which (as I understand things) is characteristic of Arabic diplomacy (and I'm in no way being critical of it there).

When it comes to budgetary concerns, the cost would have been a mere drop in the oil well. :;




Some just get caughtYup. Good, innit? They usually squeal like stuck pigs, so it's not really any different now. The shrillness of the squeal might vary.



They're dropping like flies at the moment. Isn't the Casualty List for the last few days something like:
2 K.I.A.
1 D.O.A
1 D.O.W
1 P.O.W. (sorry, couldn't resist :D)
2 mortally wounded, expected to be D.O.W.
1 critically injured
20+ Superficial Wounds


I must say that since half time this match has picked up considerably from the yawn of a first half which was just the forwards battering each other, softening up for the second half when the speedsters run around the exhausted forwards, scoring at will. We are seeing new plays, like in ~1975 AMCO Cup when Greg Brentnall kicked a penalty across the field for some dude to score a try untouched (that's a NSW memory).

It's a bit like the plethora of S44 casualties (was it 20 all up? More?). Suddenly they've all realised that scouring social media might be interesting. I think that's good - another check and balance measure that might clean up at least some people's acts, and may also give cause for "pause & think" for others in the future.

Hope so, anyway.

[Beardy]

Yes FF you might be right about the media organisation involved but I just didn’t think they would be interested enough in such a small fish which is why I think someone else is behind it. I am sure it will be revealed in time.

i don’t mind that they get caught out when they do. Makes them all lift their game

[AlexS]

I think we would have few members left in parliament if all of their dirty washing was aired.

You say that like it's a bad thing.:D

[FenceFurniture]

So one of the Mortally Wounded is now D.O.W. this morning.

This is extraordinary and unprecedented! I don't know if it makes it the worst election or the best election yet, but it's gotta be one of the two. It's certainly flushing out a few racists and religionists.

I think we can probably be assured that in future elections the parties will be doing a lot more due diligence on their potential candidates. They may even ask for a cash surety.

[BobL]

So one of the Mortally Wounded is now D.O.W. this morning.
This is extraordinary and unprecedented! I don't know if it makes it the worst election or the best election yet, but it's gotta be one of the two. It's certainly flushing out a few racists and religionists.

I doubt it's that different to the past.
In previous elections fewer people (especially older pharts - I can say that I'm one) would have had social media accounts and there would have been far less trawling for dirt. These days parties have teams of trawlers searching media for he/she said/wrote/posted. It's a bit like the so called increase in cancer rates which is really due to improved detection and greater life expectancy.

Interesting discussion on ABC radio about the doubling of pre-pollers since the 2016 election The consensus was an increasing numbers of voters have had a gut full and know what they want and just want to move on. Apart from those with a valid reason the other pre-pollers are most likely rusted on or don't like crowds/queues. This leaves an increasing number of undecided, uninformed, and "in denial" voters to have their vote further affected by their personal "peak and edge" experience. As Amanda Vanstone put it - these are the people who decided elections.

[FenceFurniture]

The body count is actually 5 down just for this week, and more likely to come. Annabel Crabb has a summary of the carnage (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-03/federal-election-annabel-crabb-newsletter-fallen-candidates/11074730). Even though that was posted only 3 hours ago at 6.30am EST it is already well out of date (one dead since, and another revelation in Qld looking very ill). I can't think of any election where there were more than one or two dropouts for the entire race let alone at least 5 for the week (coz today ain't over yet).


It's a bit like the so called increase in cancer rates which is really due to improved detection and greater life expectancy. Yes, and I think it is the same for Mental Health diagnoses.


This leaves an increasing number of undecided, uniformed, and "in denial" voters :roflmao2: What's funny about that typo is that I always read "a number of uniformed Police attended" as "uninformed Police" :D

[Sturdee]

The body count is actually 5 down just for this week, and more likely to come.

And it won't make a difference. The candidates are still on the ballot papers, still have all the How to vote cards for their supporters to hand out and can still be elected.

And, if elected, in no time all will be forgiven for the party would want their support in parliament.

Peter.

[FenceFurniture]

It's all explained here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-03/how-you-can-vote-when-federal-election-candidate-has-resigned/11072830

[FenceFurniture]

There is one part that isn't explained, and that I'm not quite certain of: if a candidate resigns/is disendorsed, we know that they are still on the ballot paper for the party and can still be elected as presumably an independent. So just looking at the Lower House, surely that must mean that the party concerned is no longer contesting that seat because any substitute candidate isn't on the ballot paper. I can't see any way out of that bind.

That would be deeply troubling for the blue party who have lost candidates for Isaacs, Wills and Lyons - three seats out of their potential count just this week. They don't hold any of them currently, and probably had no hope in Isaacs, definitely no hope in Wills where red and green primary votes in 2016 were 68%, but they certainly thought they were in with a show in Lyons.



There is one electoral change that I think must definitely be made: if you resign from a party then you resign from the Parliament as well. For the Lower House this would mean they could stand at the subsequent by-election however they wish, but it would at least be a fair dinkum vote. What's been going on for the last few years is a joke. People getting elected with as little as 19 primary votes, and the rest by virtue of people voting for the party, then quitting the party before they are even sitting for the first time. That's morally corrupt.

[damian]

Nothing to do with which side of the fence you are on........I am certainly not on his side. I was more just intrigued that so much money and effort was put into discrediting a minority party like they did, the timing of releasing the information was not a coincidence.

As far as politicians behaving badly, I think we would have few members left in parliament if all of their dirty washing was aired. Some just get caught

I have seen it reported that the algazeera "investigation" if you want to call it that was actually aimed at the NRA, but after years of trying to sting them to no effect they stumbled upon our trusty aussie pollies and managed to set them up. So it was a side show/accident. It's also interesting to note there seems to be a coalition of middle eastern governments who have been actively working against quatar for years. I don't understand why, I don't understand a lot about middle eastern politics, but quatar seem to be somewhat isolated, and algazeera has been shown to be just a propaganda machine.

I used to watch PNG politics closely because they were into all teh same corruption criminality nepotism etc as our mob but were far worse at covering it up. If you wanted to know what was happening in canberra look to port moresby. I don't bother anymore because our politicians have become so incompetent they can't even cover the dirt anymore. They have even lost their survival instincts getting so carried away with internal struggles they endanger the prime objective, get re-elected. So I guess the question is: is it better to have politicians so hopeless we have scandals on telly every night, or so sneaky they succeed in hiding it from us ? because that's the only difference between the major and minor parties...

I watched you can't ask that the other day, not very interesting. AV had her numbers a bit wrong. There are about 30% each of rusted on voters for the majors, about 7% green and about the same alt right, about 4% labor voters do a protest vote occasionally and vote green although that has been declining since BB retired. So there are about say 30% swing voters. The problem is only about 25% of seats are in play so it's only swing voters in marginals who's vote counts for the house of reps, which is where she gets 4%, although it can be as high as 6%. They elect our governments and if you profile them they are mortgage belt families and all they really care about is personal pork, interest rates, fuel costs. They tune in the week before the election, checks who is promising the sweetest deal, vote accordingly then go right back to driving the kids to sport in the prado. Politics isn't complicated...

2c...

[Sturdee]

So just looking at the Lower House, surely that must mean that the party concerned is no longer contesting that seat because any substitute candidate isn't on the ballot paper. I can't see any way out of that bind.



Officially they won't be supporting that candidate but it would be unofficially.

Some do good-er from that party would help with money and resources and the party won't complain about their signs etc being used until they become aware after the polling booths have closed.

So if they win they will be an independent whatever for a while and then quietly rejoin after having been in the sin bin for a while.

May be I'm cynical but that is the probable scenario.

Peter.

[FenceFurniture]

So just looking at the Lower House, surely that must mean that the party concerned is no longer contesting that seat because any substitute candidate isn't on the ballot paper. I can't see any way out of that bind.
Officially they won't be supporting that candidate but it would be unofficially. Perhaps, but there is something more immediate than that. It's common these days for the Govt to often be 1 or -1 majority. If it was the case this time that they missed forming govt (without the need for extra support in the house) by one seat I think they'd be somewhat entitled to call "we was robbed". Especially if that candidate got up or only just missed out (so lost enough votes to lose because of the scandal).

[BobL]

There is one electoral change that I think must definitely be made: if you resign from a party then you resign from the Parliament as well. For the Lower House this would mean they could stand at the subsequent by-election however they wish, but it would at least be a fair dinkum vote. What's been going on for the last few years is a joke. People getting elected with as little as 19 primary votes, and the rest by virtue of people voting for the party, then quitting the party before they are even sitting for the first time. That's morally corrupt.

There are lots of cases where I disagree that a sitting member should be required to stand down if they resign from a party.
For example
If they are elected on a substantial party policy but after the election that policy is dropped or substantially altered.
The other is leadership change - electors largely vote for directions, policies and leaders - eg if the leadership changes and especially if they take the party in a substantially different direction
Another example would be if the party or certain party members maltreat a specific community group which is a significant component of her/his electorate. Your electorate should usually come before your party.
In these cases I would have no hesitation in supporting a sitting member to stay on as an independent supporting the original policy/electorate.
In practice it's just too hard to disentangle all these thing so I would say leave it as is.

I don't agree with the domino effect used in the senate. If a member resigns from the senate their place should not automatically go to the next joe/josephine on the ballot. I would rather that position be left vacant until the next senate half election.

[FenceFurniture]

The body count is actually 5 down just for this week, and more likely to come. Yep, make that 6. Red jellybean this time.

[damian]

You are both forgetting one thing, political parties are not mentioned in the constitution. When you vote for your house of reps rep you are voting for an individual. Yes the parliaments have introduced legislation to accommodate the reality of party affiliation, mentioning them on the paper and allocating party funds and resources, but the parties are not actually part of our democratic system.

Same deal with PM. You don't elect a PM, you don't elect a party. You elect members. A group of members "pledge" to work as a government and they appoint a head to petition the Governor.

So for example after the election any random group in the parliament could form a government regardless of party affiliations and there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional in that. It is the EXPECTATION of the electorate that the party with the most members will form government and that they will be lead by the person proclaimed as leader before the election.

Also the Governor does not have to accept the petition and can rescind their charter at any time. Witness '75.

[doug3030]

You are both forgetting one thing, political parties are not mentioned in the constitution. When you vote for your house of reps rep you are voting for an individual. Yes the parliaments have introduced legislation to accommodate the reality of party affiliation, mentioning them on the paper and allocating party funds and resources, but the parties are not actually part of our democratic system. ...

Yes, that's a very good and concise explanation of the rules.

Rules and reality aren't always the same thing. If you don't believe me take a short drive on Melbourne's roads sticking rigidly to the rules and see how long you last.

As you say the Party system is not in the constitution but there is an expectation that governments will be formed and run along party lines.

The parties create an expectation of who will support potential PM's in the newly elected parliament. Where things go astray is situations like Malcolm Turnbull, who was originally an ALP member but could not get preselection for a seat so he quit and joined the Liberal Party, eventually becoming PM. How would anyone know what to expect form someone whose affiliations can change like that?

[Beardy]

The two major parties both learnt a lesson from the public when they ousted the elected leaders mid term. Regardless of the rules the public’s mindset is that they voted for an individual to be leader

[cjbfisher]

For the first time in my life, I am considering an informal vote. I have a choice of six candidates. 4 fringe/lunatic parties and the 2 mainstream. Ultimately, it will come down to one of the 2 mainstream parties, so the fringe/lunatic candidates are really out of the question. Not that I would vote for them anyway.
The sitting member belongs to the party that, in my mind is very marginally the lesser of two very bad choices. However, the member himself is nothing more than an antagonistic, loud mouthed twit that is full of hot air and vague promises that don't eventuate. I couldn't bring myself to vote for him, even if it was my single vote that decided the outcome of the entire election.
The other mainstream candidate is a first time runner, so I don't know a lot about him, and he doesn't have a track record. Also, he belongs to the party that I believe is least capable of running this country. Not that I really believe that any of the current bunch of nincompoops could do it anyway.
What's a bloke supposed to do?
I want to cast a vote and make it count, but have less than zero faith in any of the candidates.

Edit: I am going to vote early.

[FenceFurniture]

When you vote for your house of reps rep you are voting for an individual.True, but the vast majority of people only vote for that person because of the party colour. If that wasn't the case then it would be impossible/pretty hard for a no name like Luke what'shisface to get elected. Furthermore, that is why the majors spend such unbelievable money on a campaign - brand awareness, followed by individual awareness (whomever that individual happens to be). Really what they are doing when they go out to electorates with previously unelected people standing for them is saying "if you want to vote for our party then you need to vote for this particular d!ckhead that we've chosen this time". The Party has absolutely no interest in the electorate whatsoever - they just want numbers to form Govt. Perhaps I'm stating the bleeding obvious there.

It will be interesting to see what the blowflies at the school gates do in the electorates where they have disendorsed someone or that person has resigned. It sounds like the Bigot of Lyons is still going to run as an Inde. Presumably the party machine has to either reprint their how to vote propaganda or just destroy it. Actually they can't really reprint it because they can't nominate someone else now. Do they even bother showing up? What can they do if they do show up? They can't champion (even verbally) the resigned person, but nor can they say to vote against them. OTOH if they don't show up they are giving free kicks all round to the other parties in that electorate race. Fascinating stuff!

[FenceFurniture]

double post

[FenceFurniture]

For the first time in my life, I am considering an informal vote. I guess there are a few things for you to consider. There are local issues and federal issues.
Is the current guy doing anything about local issues? From what you have said, apparently not so that would suggest voting for some change.
OTOH, you have indicated your (very slight) preference for his side to run the country, so that would suggest voting for Andrew. (you're in Bowman right?)

You could vote informal, and that is a legitimate vote, IMO. It sends a msg to all, but you have to make sure it looks like a deliberately informal vote, such as numbering each square with 6 (or even 7) and/or writing some message (which may or may not penetrate).

However, if I was in your position, and felt as you do, I'd be tempted to vote 1 Red, and 2 Blue, and then whatever else. The vote in 2016 was 50% Blue, 32% Red, so apparently pretty safe. I think that sends a fairly strong msg to the incumbent, actually. "I voted against you, but only up to the point where the loonies might get my vote". I think it would be interpreted as "I think you are crap, but not as crap as the other crap". Certainly I think it would say more than voting 1 Blue, and then whatever. So you'd have voted for his oppostion, but they probably won't get up, and his majority will be reduced - they don't like that much. It's probably quite humbling to lose a safe margin, and certainly means they know they have to work harder locally.

Preferential voting can be a powerful tool if used properly.

Here's a couple of links that may provide some more info for you.
Link 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Laming)
Link 2 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/bowm/)

[fxst]

I usually did the pre-poll thing and now get a postal vote. I don't listen to the rubbish they spout and have made up my mind and once the poll is declared I wait for my envelope, mark it as I wish, get it witnessed and sent off. Pity the ads don't stop then also.

[BobL]

There was a story on abc radio a yesterday on early voting. The bloke they interviewed from the EC was cagey about those who vote early without a "valid reason" but said every vote cast before election day took significant pressure of EC staff during the big day.

[AlexS]

I prefer to vote on the day at the local school, get my democracy sausage and a cake to support the P&C.

[doug3030]

I prefer to vote on the day at the local school, get my democracy sausage and a cake to support the P&C.

At the rate people are pre-polling by the time the actual election day comes along, Alex, you can have all the sausages and all the cakes. :oo:

I voted on Friday and had to queue for 45 minutes. There was nowhere to sit while in line and by the time I got there my back was aching something fierce. It undid all my Chiropractor's good work and I had to lie down for a couple of hours when I got home.

There are two pre-poll venues near me and they are both open two days per week - yes you guessed it - the same two days. If you can't get to the pre-poll on a Monday or a Friday you miss out. You would think they could be clever enough to stagger them to make it more available at more times.

[BobL]

I prefer to vote on the day at the local school, get my democracy sausage and a cake to support the P&C.

As it's on the way to the hardware I might drop by the local booth on the day and get a sausage or two,
Same as the Bunnings sausages, I don't actually eat them but the dogs like them and the buns as well.
The dogs salivate and drool if I pull up too close to the BBQ tents.

[Bohdan]

I must live in a totally safe seat as I have never even smelt a sausage in all of my years having to choose which offering is the least representative of my desires.

[BobL]

I must live in a totally safe seat as I have never even smelt a sausage in all of my years having to choose which offering is the least representative of my desires.

At the 2013 election instead of the local primary school polling booth I went to one at a local child care centre. Now they had the right idea with a full on foodie thing happeneing; Gourmet sausages, wholemeal as well as the usual white sponge rubber buns, pies, other savouries, heaps of cakes, biscuits, preserves, pickles etc, All for a price of course, I think I spent about $40 all up. Not quite as good at the 2016 election - must drop by again this time

[damian]

Yes, that's a very good and concise explanation of the rules.

Rules and reality aren't always the same thing. If you don't believe me take a short drive on Melbourne's roads sticking rigidly to the rules and see how long you last.


It's terrifying when I'm accused of doing something right. You are clearly not my wife...

I wasn't commenting on reality, just addressing the previous few posts that seemed to imply there was something illegal/immoral/unconstitutional about disendorsed candidates continuing on the ballot.

BobL has the right idea. I think I might pop down for a sausage on the day as unlike Bob I quite like them. I have the very great pleasure of living in an area where everyone half knows each other and I have the best neighbours imaginable. I am very happy to support local community groups.

For what little it's worth:

My political opinions have not changed an ounce since I was young. I have alway believed with great certainty that whichever party forms government we get mightily shafted. Since we can't stop the flow of sewage our way our only hope is to slow it, and our only method is the hung parliament. The more time they spend doing deals and knifing each other the less they have to interfere in our lives. Cynical ? Yes. Tell me I'm wrong...

So since I was 18 I've always voted independent or minor party. Doesn't really matter who you pick as none will ever get any real power, except the greens who are genuinely dangerous. Because I've alway lived in safe seats I have sometimes had no one but lib/lab/grn in thee reps and then with a tear in my eye and clenched teeth I have wasted my vote. It hurts because I want to believe in our democracy, but I can not bring myself to put a number above 0 in any of those boxes. I love optional preferential voting and wish we could number fewer squares than we do. I do love the new senate voting options. I spent a few hours prior choosing which raisins I'd pick out of the fruit cake. Quite amusing reading the policies and mission statements of some of them.

Remember while life is not perfect ours is pretty good. Most people in the world would love to have our problems as would most of the humans who have lived throughout our species existence. That we eat every day, have some small say in who governs us and are unlikely to get blown up or shot today make us very lucky indeed.

That was too much optimism. I need a nap...

[Chris Parks]

An election story that might amuse some here. Back in 1973?? when Whitlam got the sand shoe out of government I was wandering through Caringbah shopping centre with my mate on the eve of the election and lo and behold who should pull us up but Tom Uren. For those who are not aware of him he was a minister in the Whitlam government and thought that the Liberals were a scourge put on this earth but he could never figure out what the reason was that they existed, to put it in a few words he hated them. Anyway he starts his spiel and it soon became obvious that we were not really happy with the Labor Party due to their performance in government so he started to literally abuse us and it stopped most of the pedestrians walking by in their tracks because they could not believe what they were seeing. Tom was the salt of the earth but I think he had had enough by then in an election Labor was never going to win.

[ian]

An election story that might amuse some here. Back in 1973?? when Whitlam got the sand shoe out of government
it was 1975 when the "great man" got booted by the then GG -- the one that was characterised by "Well may he say 'God save the Queen', because nothing will save the Governor General."

[Beardy]

They seem to have rewritten history on Whitlam as a great leader of this country. I can only remember the time as the hardships and despair he brought to us.

[ian]

They seem to have rewritten history on Whitlam as a great leader of this country. I can only remember the time as the hardships and despair he brought to us.
I always understood that the "great man" attestation referred more to Whitlam's height and intellect than his ability to run the economy.

Then again, his predecessor (Billy (big ears) MacMahon) wasn't great shakes as an economic manager either.

[doug3030]

Whitlam got elected, then spent the accumulated budget surplus of 30+ years of responsible financial management of the economy.

Not satisfied with that they then tried to borrow more money to squander in what became known as the Khemlani Affair.

[wheelinround]

I prefer to vote on the day at the local school, get my democracy sausage and a cake to support the P&C.Alex I'm shocked you'll upset the Greens by supporting meat lovers & polluting the environment with gases produced after eating said sausage & onion sanga. Will the cake be Vegan?

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[BobL]

Alex I'm shocked you'll upset the Greens by supporting meat lovers & polluting the environment with gases produced after eating said sausage & onion sanga. Will the cake be Vegan?

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

The childcare centre BBQ had Veggie burgers in 2013 and we're in a fairly conservative electorate

[damian]

I suggested some time back that the best way to respond to radical animal rights activists invading private property would be to invest in substantial quantities of australian meat products and consume them with smug delight in the company of family and friends.

Australians vote for staibility above all else. In 76 Fraser was the most hated man in australia but he didn't just win that election it was one of the biggest landslides in our federal history. The people could put up with Whitlam's communist inclinations, but not the utter chaos his government brought. He literally couldn't... manage a business transaction with a lady of the night.

What amuses me more is the left's relentless attempts to reinvent the Hawke years. He led the most radical right wing government in our history and their fanatical embrace of economic rationalism tore our society apart. Poverty and extreme wealth both doubled between 1984 and 1994 (BOS). Real wages went backwards, the unions amalgamated and became less representative and a small group of "entrepreneurs" were let loose on us to pillage the country leaving the middle and working class to pay the bill when the music stopped.

Perception is a remarkable thing. I know intelligent and articulate people who actually believe labor is the friend to the working class and protector of the vulnerable and others who actually believe the coalition are better economic managers. If you account their track records, what they have done rather than what they claim, there isn't a cigarette papers width between them.

South park summed it up best, but it's too rude to type here...

[doug3030]

What amuses me more is the left's relentless attempts to reinvent the Hawke years. He led the most radical right wing government in our history and their fanatical embrace of economic rationalism tore our society apart. Poverty and extreme wealth both doubled between 1984 and 1994 (BOS). Real wages went backwards, the unions amalgamated and became less representative and a small group of "entrepreneurs" were let loose on us to pillage the country leaving the middle and working class to pay the bill when the music stopped.

Hawke taking his party so far to the right is what we have to blame for the Greens getting any traction at all in the political sphere.

In the Hawke era we had the choice of two Liberal parties and no Labor party. The true "Lefties" who did not follow Hawke's Labor to the right on the back of Bob's "charisma" jumped ship and got behind the Greens.

[AlexS]

So since I was 18 I've always voted independent or minor party.

Likewise, for similar reasons. I live in a blue ribbon Liberal seat. When the liberals are in power we are ignored because they think they are never going to lose it. When Labor is in, they know they'll never win it. the only hope is to make the seat marginal. I always vote for an independent or minor party, with 2nd preference to Labor, not because I necessarily want them in, but to try to reduce the Liberal margin.

[doug3030]

. .

[FenceFurniture]

Now that's unfair Doug. The Skipper didn't wear glasses and Gilligan wasn't a wingnut.

[woodPixel]

Political threads are frowned on

3.5 - Incitement to commit breach of any Commonwealth or State law or regulation.



Bummer. And here I was just about to tell everyone to have a collective uprising over Section 43 of the Trade Practices Act....

[woodPixel]

You were able to get a sausage at the pre-poll place!

Exactly. The Democracy Sausage is important!

Who would deny the masses the chance to get the Democracy Sausage forcibly jammed in them by a politician!

Take the Sausage, Citizen!

[doug3030]

Bummer. And here I was just about to tell everyone to have a collective uprising over Section 43 of the Trade Practices Act....

You might as well tell us. We're all going to Hell for this thread anyway. :rolleyes:

[BobL]

Peronally I'd like to stick roughly to the original topic which is about "early voting". If too much politics creeps in the mods will shut it down.

[Glider]

I think early voting is terrific. Why the majors leave their campaign "launch" three weeks after the circus starts, goodness only knows. OK so I miss out on a sausage but I can always get one at Bunnies. BTW I did have a valid reason to pre-poll.

I suspect the result is going to be closer than the media seem to think.

mick

[woodPixel]

You might as well tell us. We're all going to Hell for this thread anyway. :rolleyes:

Section 43 of the Trade Practices Act.... Member of Tribunal ceasing to be available.

Just like our politicians ceasing To Be :)



My joke was perhaps too esoteric. I'm like that.....

[Chesand]

I voted yesterday. The voting place was in an otherwise vacant shop so the leaflet "hander outers" had to stand near the gutter and it was possible to avoid them and take only the one of interest. Way to go. :2tsup:

[damian]

I think early voting is terrific. Why the majors leave their campaign "launch" three weeks after the circus starts, goodness only knows. OK so I miss out on a sausage but I can always get one at Bunnies. BTW I did have a valid reason to pre-poll.

I suspect the result is going to be closer than the media seem to think.

mick

Oh that's easy, the rules change once your elections campaign has officially started. The parties have to pay for more stuff themselves. From memory they can book travel to the taxpayer until the official launch and probably things like flyers and advertising come out of our pockets not theirs. I can't remember the details but no doubt someone will find an online reference...

[BobL]

How to find your democracy sausage
https://democracysausage.org

[ian]

... nothing that WA does electorally influences the election outcome anyway - so we might as well not vote.
Not according to last night's "the Drum"
up to 5 WA seats are in play at this election -- that's almost 1/3 of all WA seats. Unless the "we've had a gut full" delivers a resounding victory to one party, then WA could well determine the outcome of the election.

[BobL]

Not according to last night's "the Drum"
up to 5 WA seats are in play at this election -- that's almost 1/3 of all WA seats. Unless the "we've had a gut full" delivers a resounding victory to one party, then WA could well determine the outcome of the election.

Yeah I saw that and other similar claims. My reading of the tea leaves is that if anything the most likely scenario in WA will be some seat swapping.

[damian]

How to find your democracy sausage
https://democracysausage.org

Good to see we are putting resources into what really matters. :D

[FenceFurniture]

We get B&E rolls with some excellent relish which is also for sale. :2tsup: