Is it just my or does Howard look like he's about to crack and breakdown.

Doesn't he always?

I am playing Rudd bingo! So many cliches - so little time...

This is just a f***ing joke.

As soon as Howard talks the worm drops even before he gets to his response... then Rudd goes "now in response to the question" and the worm jumps off the f***ing chart.

Such a bias worm it's bulls***.

i dont know why specifically, but i cant stand kevin rudd, and im not convinced that labour will do as good a job as the coalition has.. yet it seems almost inevitable that they will win if the worm is anything to go by.

also: CHUB - completely agree. the worm moves to the roof before rudd has finish saying the second word, and vice versa when howard speaks. seems a bit dodge.

How does the worm work anyway?

They are both full of s***. Where is Nigel FreeMarijuana when you need him?

How does the worm work anyway?

80 random people mashing buttons on keypads

lol pretty much.

just then ->

rudd: "on the question of .." (worm hits roof).

The worm is irrelevant really. As one journo pointed out Johnny Howard has lost the last 3 'worm debates' but he still managed to win the last 3 elections.

The worm is an ass

Howard looks like he is about to have a heart attack

another $0.02 is that if Labor loses this election they might as well give up imo

bahaha, Rudd is getting his ass handed to him. Keeps arguing like a child, losing his cool etc.

and he got busted lying about the OECD report.

^ yeh

It's all about who can shovel their bulls*** best. Personally I think Howard is an arrogant liar and he is riding on all the benefits of the mining boom. But on the flipside I'm sure Rudd wouldn't be any better.

donkey vote++

how much does howard love the prestigous US and A.

Can anyone clarify something for me, If you do donkey vote...is it true that your vote automatically goes to the current party in government?

lol.

that is not true.

Howard looked old and tired for the first half (probably exacerbated by nerves etc) but it made me think he needed to call a short campaign because he'll struggle to keep the pace up for an extended period of time.

As for the worm, 'it' seemed to favour positive discussion of policies rather than negative attacks on the other side. I wish that's how the electorate voted, but based on track record that seems unlikely.

Can anyone clarify something for me, If you do donkey vote...is it true that your vote automatically goes to the current party in government?

Kind of defeats the purpose of a donkey vote don't you think.

This is why our voting system needs an "against" vote
If their are no candidates that you prefer, you should be able to cast your vote in such a manner that it counts as a negative to the end total

EG:

Liberals get 200,000 votes in favour
Labour get 200,000 votes in favour
Greens get 150,000 votes in favour
Democrats get 100,000 votes in favour

Negative votes are then counted (none of this preferential horses***)

Liberals get 120,000 votes against
Labour get 95,000 votes against
Greens get 5,000 votes against
Democrats get 1,000 votes against

Using that system, the final tally would be:

Liberals get 80,000 votes
Labour get 105,000 votes
Greens get 145,000 votes
Democrats get 99,000 votes

And then the country would be run by the true Democratech choice of the nation

The only thing i'd vote for is a dictatorship.

Iron Fist stylez.

If their are no candidates that you prefer, you should be able to cast your vote in such a manner that it counts as a negative to the end total

Like Big Brother.

^ If you mean Orwell's version, sok
The s*** by Channel 10 (an the rest of the world) could end up in a world of painful misuderstanding

f*** we'll end up with casey donovan as pm.

bad enough her being minister for workplace relations.

it's not that hard a job...

Can anyone clarify something for me, If you do donkey vote...is it true that your vote automatically goes to the current party in government?

Nah, as someone who's done the vote counting many times, donkey votes just get discarded. Basically a "null vote".

They're easy enough to do, just don't mark anything.

This is why our voting system needs an "against" vote
If their are no candidates that you prefer, you should be able to cast your vote in such a manner that it counts as a negative to the end total

this is a dumb idea because you can already do this by using prefrences.

They're easy enough to do, just don't mark anything.

thats not a donkey vote, a donkey vote is counted.

this is a dumb idea because you can already do this by using prefrences.

Way to miss the point of what's wrong with the current method

Negative votes are then counted (none of this preferential horses***)

a donkey vote is just "1 2 3 4 5" down the page right

how could that not be counted

Amazing, over 30 posts in this thread and no sign of SFB yet..

Way to miss the point of what's wrong with the current method

you win an election by having 50% of the vote +1. if you give your final preference to who you want to give a "negative vote" to this means that you have given your vote to anyone but them, hence applying a negative vote.

learn how the system works before bagging it.

^ thank god you can't vote

guess who aint voting!

suck it down

i can't vote?

certainly stressful for both leaders the old worm

wont matter though

johnny is done

bring on my better education/computar and kiddy care tax rebates!!!!

GOOOOooooOOOO KRUDD!!!!

This is why our voting system needs an "against" vote
If their are no candidates that you prefer, you should be able to cast your vote in such a manner that it counts as a negative to the end total

EG:

Liberals get 200,000 votes in favour
Labour get 200,000 votes in favour
Greens get 150,000 votes in favour
Democrats get 100,000 votes in favour

Negative votes are then counted (none of this preferential horses***)

Liberals get 120,000 votes against
Labour get 95,000 votes against
Greens get 5,000 votes against
Democrats get 1,000 votes against

Using that system, the final tally would be:

Liberals get 80,000 votes
Labour get 105,000 votes
Greens get 145,000 votes
Democrats get 99,000 votes

And then the country would be run by the true Democratech choice of the nation

I know that is just an example but the thought of the Greens getting substantial votes truly terrifies me. If you hate the environment then vote Greens because they will f*** it up faster then anyone else.

I think the worm is actually damaging Rudd.

Everybody is hammering the morning shows, they see through the bulls***, they're reading emails such as "Rudd says 'ahhh, well.... now' and the worm skyrockets".

Nobody is fooled by the bias audience.

yeh chub because the morning shows are a notorious beacon of unbiased journalism

you win an election by having 50% of the vote +1.

Umm, no you don't!

Regardless, it was bias and the large majority on the phone polls believe it was (these are the same ones that always prefer Rudd/Labor as leader).

Next time they should get a better audience, it was ridiculous.

Bloody people giving Rudd 5+ for talking about how good union officials are, FOAD you noob.

and he got busted lying about the OECD report.

Howard got busted 5 times lying about the interest rate not rising.
And he also got busted lying about not introducing IR reforms.

and gst

who cares if the worm is biased

it's not like anyone is going to base their votes off the worm

... right?

Howard got busted 5 times lying about the interest rate not rising.

Wrong and wrong, actually. Howard never said interest rates wouldn't rise. He said they would always be lower under the Coalition because he was committed to a balanced budget.

Secondly, Howard has always run a platform of more IR reform. It is his number one priority and the Coalition had introduced a bill to exempt small business from unfair dismissal rules on at least a dozen occasions.

Re GST it's a good thing for Australia, and Labor know it. Why won't they wind it back if it's so bad.

last edited by infi at 09:15:58 22/Oct/07

Howard will be PM again, Labor will finally realise that they can't govern and the worm will be dropped to the bottom of a Tequila bottle.

.. that's right folks, you heard it first on QGL.

you win an election by having 50% of the vote +1. if you give your final preference to who you want to give a "negative vote" to this means that you have given your vote to anyone but them, hence applying a negative vote.

learn how the system works before bagging it.

The ironic part of this post is, that isn't how the system works.

You win by having a majority of seats, you can do that even when you have a minority of primary and 2 party preferred votes.

This happens when you win seats with less voters and lose seats with more voters.
Super simplified (and extreme example)

3 seats.
Seat A 2000 people
Seat B 2000 people
Seat C 2000 people
Seat D 3000 people
Seat E 3000 people

2 parties X and Y

Seat A 1001 X 999 Y
Seat B 1001 X 999 Y
Seat C 1001 X 999 Y
Seat D 0 X 3000 Y
Seat E 0 X 3000 Y

Party X won the election with 3 seats! even tho they had 3003 / 12000 votes.

ps. that's an extreme example and hopefully could never happen here, but it was taken to an extreme so that you might better understand how voting works.

That's why marginal seats get all the pork barrelling. They are the only ones that matter. Safe seats are barely worth a letter box drop.

Senate is different again but has similar weaknesses, that's why Tasmania has a much large representation from the small parties (it takes less votes to become a senator in Tasmania).

Learn how the system works before being a fan boy.

hes not a fanboy, hes one of them

Liberal mate's windfall

oh russ, what have you done :(

Russell Egan Jr, a Brisbane Liberal branch chairman, last month secured 94 taxpayer-funded bed licenses for a yet-to-be built nursing home on vacant land at Merrimac on the Gold Coast.

It was the second-biggest allocation in the state. But a "bed-ready" facility in the same aged-care planning region at nearby Carrara was refused funding.

Mr Egan wrote on his weblog that securing 94 bed licences was a "massive asset to receive from taxpayers".

"I hit the jackpot with my block of land," he said. "Keep in mind that these places can be on sold on the free market for up to $40,000 each."

you win an election by having 50% of the vote +1.

Umm, no you don't!

yes you do. note, i said an election, not government.

The ironic part of this post is, that isn't how the system works.

again, i was talking about an election. ie, a seat, not how government is won.

no one person wins government. they only win seats.

likewise, no one votes for a government, they only vote for their local member (in the house of reps)

last edited by ara at 11:02:33 22/Oct/07

infi involved in irl incident!

in a bit of s*** for saying something on the net? i hope for his sake courier mail doesnt find out about this place.

hes not a fanboy, hes one of them

if someone from here tipped the courier mail, of all places, off about his blog that is pretty weak.

edit: oh dears i cant read dates

last edited by taggs at 11:24:27 22/Oct/07

nobody needed to be tipped off, google search found it. try it.

nobody needed to be tipped off, google search found it. try it.

Link please

nobody needed to be tipped off, google search found it. try it.

yeah, and im sure they just google people out of the blue all the time.

HAHAHAHA

REAL LIFE DRAMA ON QGL.

infi is just one example of what is wrong with the liberal party.

yeah, and im sure they just google people out of the blue all the time.

are you kidding? thats modern journalism right there.

google and facebook searches. his blog has his name on it, its not like he was keeping it a secret.

Link please

google.com

last edited by nF at 11:51:26 22/Oct/07

Question mark


http://www.grods.com/post/1094/

asians shouldn't be allowed to drive?

Russell Egan Jr, a Brisbane Liberal branch chairman

At least it explains why your one eyed view of John Howard and many topics that have been discussed here. You should have announced your political affiliation when entering political discussions here... so we could viewed (ignored) it as party rhetoric

again, i was talking about an election. ie, a seat, not how government is won.

no one person wins government. they only win seats.

likewise, no one votes for a government, they only vote for their local member (in the house of reps)

Back pedal all you like ... Most people in reality, vote for a party, not a person. There are exceptions (usually celeb or outstanding candidates but most of the time, people wouldn't even know who the local reps are. And in the senate you can actually directly vote for a party.

An election when called is all the lower house and half the senate (unless its a double dissolution). A government wins an election (I believe its technical term is a legislature). A by-election is a single seat outside of a normal election.

50%+1 will not win you an election (remember to win an election you must be able to form an effective government, it can even be a minority just as long as it is "effective" ie. can pass bills relating to budgets I believe *shrug*).

For instance the 97 election
Labor got 51% of the vote 2 party preferred, and 40% of the primary (Libs and Nats got 39% of the primary)... And Labor lost.

lofl, that's old news and the journos were proven to have cocked up (again). nothing political at all to do with it. it ain't no crime to be a member of a political party last time i checked.

focus more on the policy and less on the people, people.

Labor got 51% of the vote 2 party preferred

2 party preferred means s***. you need 50% of all the votes in the seat + 1.

get over 2 party preferred already, it means nothing as it completely ignores the votes of those who have given their primary vote to a smaller party.

what i said was completely factual. an election is won with 50% of the vote +1 no matter what the election is for. this is how our system works and what i said about using the current system to cast a "negative" vote is completely valid.

you can go into how government is won all you like but that isn't what i was talking about.

modern political campaigning is a contest for marginals. there will be quite large swings in safe seats but in marginal seats expect the swings to be very small.

2 party preferred means s***. you need 50% of all the votes in the seat + 1.

But an election is not about a seat, its about a government.
Candidates win seats (based on how many votes they get) and as such are elected to represent that electorate, but Governments win an election (based on how many seats the win). And it has already been shown that 50% +1 will not win an election.

get over 2 party preferred already, it means nothing as it completely ignores the votes of those who have given their primary vote to a smaller party.

Um, no. 2 Party preferred is the basis for our entire system. 2 party preferred is what wins seats. This is the result after preferences are distributed. In fact all that matters is 2 part preferred. That's why the minor parties preferences are so important to the major parties.

what i said was completely factual. an election is won with 50% of the vote +1 no matter what the election is for. this is how our system works and what i said about using the current system to cast a "negative" vote is completely valid.

An election is for a government, not a seat. The number of votes is not directly important.

you can go into how government is won all you like but that isn't what i was talking about.

But it is ... It is a the federal election for the Government of Australia ... not 150 elections for unrelated seats.

In fact if no party wins an election and forms an effective government, then we go back to the polls.

50%+1 means nothing.

haha we were just talking about you discharging the other day

Um, no. 2 Party preferred is the basis for our entire system. 2 party preferred is what wins seats.

For example when counting votes, where a minor party is voted 1 the counters will simply find whether Labor or Coalition placed as the higher preference then allocate that vote to the major party.

Obes is right.

As for the 50% + 1 that is not totally correct. In Qld government where we have optional preferential system, it is really first past the post, because preferences will exhaust making it impossible to reach 50% + 1.

obes, your name requires an ity on the end

you are so far off on a tangent it isn't funny.

my OP was about how the current system can already be used to cast a "negative vote" in a seat because of the way the preference system works.

your post have been about what? how 50%+1 isn't how governments are won. this isn't lost on me but how is it relevent to my OP?

give up obes, you misinterpreted my OP and now trying to spin it in a different direction. you were wrong, suck it up and move on.

In Qld government where we have optional preferential system

the option of using it is still there, hence by using prefernces you can cast a "negative vote" if you choose to. which is what my OP was all about.

what is your actual point, ara? that by preferencing the opposing major party, one is in fact casting a negative vote?

in a compulsory preferential system one must ultimately preference Labor or Coalition so every voter is contributing to the 2PP even if they don't want to.

My favourite bit was when John Howard saved those kids from the Tampa that had been thrown overboard by evil terrorists.


That...was...awesome.

Your original post

this is a dumb idea because you can already do this by using prefrences.

While I agree the negative voting system like Australian Idol is a dumb idea (if only because well Idol is dumb), I don't agree that you can cast a negative vote. We have a positive voting system. No matter how you play silly buggers with your preferences there are 3 outcomes you will be voting for 1 of 2 people/parties, or not voting at all. Putting the jedi party 1 on your ballot has no effect on anything, all that matters is which of the final 2 parties is higher on your ballot.

ie. 3 options
1. party[1].votes = party[1].votes + 1 (or party[1].votes++)
2. party[2].votes = party[2].votes + 1 (or party[2].votes++)
3. self.vote = nil
There is no party[3] in the final stage of counting
At no point can you go
party[x].votes--

A negative vote would totally change how things worked, as not everyone who voted party1 would negative vote the same party. And where negative votes got applied (ie. pre or post preferences) would also have a huge effect. Not to mention would cause more time wasted counting, and more recounts etc etc.

you win an election by having 50% of the vote +1

As previously stated this is an incorrect if popular opinion, or at the very least a huge simplification of the system. You can win even a seat after losing the primary for that seat. And can win an election and form government with a minority primary and 2 party preferred votes. You win a seat by have the majority of 2 party preferred votes (ie. >50% excluding informal votes).

give up obes, you misinterpreted my OP and now trying to spin it in a different direction. you were wrong, suck it up and move on

I am sorry but I don't think I misinterpreted you, feel free to give specific examples of where I and others have misudnerstood you, and I am pretty sure I am not wrong. But feel free to give a specific example of how you can using preferences give a negative vote to z, while voting for x.

You can keep telling yourself that others need

learn how the system works

, but I question whether you have taken your own advice or not.

*edit* lawls didn't close a tag properly

hi clipto

The post i was replying to

This is why our voting system needs an "against" vote
If their are no candidates that you prefer, you should be able to cast your vote in such a manner that it counts as a negative to the end total

i said this was dumb. if you only want to vote against someone, then by placing them last in your prefernces you give your vote to anyone but them, therefore increasing their opposition vote count by 1 whomever is still running against them after the lowest count opponents are removed and their prefrences are redistributed.

note i highlighted the portion of the post i was replying to implying i was talking about a single candidate.

now, we could go round and round all day long but i tire of it. we have the system that we have and it works. if you are unhappy about it, run for election and change it from the inside because crying on a forum about it isn't going to change anything.

Taking an apple from Jim is different to giving an apple to Term.

I don't cry about the system. I think our apple maximising system is great. Better then America where some people don't have apples, or the poms where people get apples cos their daddy had apples.

My only gripe is their should be a current affairs and IQ test before you get the right to have an apple.

If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade!

f*** clipto sucked.


on topic: I decided not to enrol when I was 18, so I've never voted heh. cbf. As soon as I care I'll enrol and vote...

Howard or Rudd...? a 'crisp indifference' would best describe my thoughts on the matter. heh.

Preferences flow they aren't prejudged in the way infi seemed to be suggesting.

From my vast experience (as a scrutineer in Primary School elections)

1. First preferences are divided among candidates
2. The candidate with the lowest number of first preferences is redistributed based on preferences
3. Rinse and Repeat

That is why a candidate with an incredibly low 1st preference count (i.e. 20% or so) could still theoretically win provided they don't have the lowest after the first counting. Because the lowest candidates preferences might flow to them entirely. This is why minority candidates 2nd preference are actually very important.

Yes, I agree. The process I explained is done in order to get a quick guesstimate of 2PP for phoning back to breaking news.

My only gripe is their should be a current affairs and IQ test before you get the right to have an apple.

Amen Obes, 3 simple T/F questions, would flush out the ignorant voters which skew the opinions of the informed population.

Q's like like Year of Federation, Date of Anzac Day, First Prime Minister, Number of Timezones in Australia (Excluding D.S), Name the Political Party founded by Don Chipp.

My only gripe is their should be a current affairs and IQ test before you get the right to have an apple.

well i sure hope they wouldnt let you vote :p

fade, I hope you don't pick the questions...

seems like johnny and his crew really dont like the worm eh?

i get the feeling that its mutual

this thread sung to the tune of 'Jive Talking' - Bee Gees

plz remix/mash this tune Strex

fade, I hope you don't pick the questions...

Why not?

They were general Australian history and society. Admittedly very easy, but the job is just to weed out the deadbeats.

Q's like like Year of Federation, Date of Anzac Day, First Prime Minister, Number of Timezones in Australia (Excluding D.S), Name the Political Party founded by Don Chipp.

Year of federation? No idea... I don't even know what that means. Anzac day, I *should* know... 25th or 26th of some month I think? No bloody idea who the first prime minister was, Captain Cook? :D Number of timezones? All I know is there's 24 hours in a day... and to top it off, WHO THE FARK IS DON CHIPP?

1901

lollll

^^^ HAHAHA
That is truly bizarre, why would you do that :)

ewww

That is truly bizarre, why would you do that :)

Well he has glasses so we can presume that his eyesight is not as strong a sense as say, taste may be. :O Its about survival of the fittest and hes adapted his taste in order to detect life threatening ear conditions....

Do these people forget that parliament is broadcast? I think that id find it hard to forget. Sure, survivor or big brother contestants say they forget the camera is there but when its your JOB to be viewed by the public and win popularity contests every 4 years, what are you thinking :(

(Obviously most normal people dont pick their ears and then bring their hands to their mouths but youve gotta be pretty stupid to give up possibly lucrative private careers for politics in the first place :P)

Q's like like Year of Federation, Date of Anzac Day, First Prime Minister, Number of Timezones in Australia (Excluding D.S), Name the Political Party founded by Don Chipp.

Year of federation? No idea... I don't even know what that means. Anzac day, I *should* know... 25th or 26th of some month I think? No bloody idea who the first prime minister was, Captain Cook? :D Number of timezones? All I know is there's 24 hours in a day... and to top it off, WHO THE FARK IS DON CHIPP?

Federation = year Australia became Australia = 1901.

Anzac Day = 25 April (1915)

First PM = Edmund Barton

Time zones = 3 (AEST, ACST, AWST)

Don Chipp = Democrats ... he founded them "to keep the bastards honest"



f*** me, is that how low the respect for history has slipped?

i keep your mother honest

Quit it with the mum jokes already.

Don Chipp = Democrats ... he founded them "to keep the bastards honest"

this question is totally irrelevant, just like the party itself.

I never took notice of what he said anyway, he's just an ambulance chaser.

Federation = year Australia became Australia = 1901.

Anzac Day = 25 April (1915)

First PM = Edmund Barton

Time zones = 3 (AEST, ACST, AWST)

Don Chipp = Democrats ... he founded them "to keep the bastards honest"



f*** me, is that how low the respect for history has slipped?

I believe the point was to have people understand who and what they are voting for, not if they know anything about history. Not one of those questions would prove that someone voting has basic knowledge of their local candidates and their policies.

The questions should be more along the lines of, what are the names of the candidates for your local seat and their associated parties, name a major policy for each party campaigning for your local seat, ect. It'd have to be multiple choice though so a machine can mark it.