Voted early - way to go.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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

---

BS as in Bill Shorten?

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

BS as in Bill Shorten?

---

Yeah, and Bloody Scummo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonto

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonto

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.

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 ?)

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

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:

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

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".