Go Back   AFA Forums > Secularism and Social Issues > Politics

Politics Political issues which help or hinder our society

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #161  
Old 23rd March 2016, 05:35 PM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 703
Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

Quote:
Blue Lightning said View Post
I think it's unlikely the new Senate voting rules will lead to a Coalition-dominated Senate.
I sincerely hope so.
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 23rd March 2016, 05:38 PM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 703
Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

Quote:
WesternGeo said View Post
Abbott has been claiming Turnbull is running on the achievements of his government this morning, which is precisely the image Turnbull doesn't want. I really think that Abbott and the like are that hard on the right that they cannot let any challenge to their honour or ideology go unaddressed. I think they genuinely believe that their opinions (marriage equality, safe schools etc) are held by the 'silent' majority of Australians. Due to this they do not see their behaviour as being detrimental to the coalition re-election chances. They will not stop.
I hope you are right. time will tell. maybe I am giving them too much credit.
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 23rd March 2016, 06:46 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,867
Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

@wadaye -

Quote:
wadaye said View Post
... i suppose its the benefit of a handful of random independents to counter the deadness of the party hacks
As others have pointed out, it's a lottery. In almost every respect! I venture to say that, sometimes, even the deadness of the hacks would have been better than, for example, some of the Brian Harradine* years.

(* - Even accepting WAS's comments about quotas in Tasmania, etc.)
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Blue Lightning; 23rd March 2016 at 06:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 23rd March 2016, 06:49 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,867
Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

@DBD -

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
The preference voting system gives the voter a more detailed/nuanced way to express their preferences.
Since everyone has that privilege, then it is not a case of "double-dipping' ...
The new above-the-line system is “optional preferential”, with the result that you still have everything you previously had, as well as a new option.

If you want to follow a party's preference recommendations above-the-line, under the new system, you can. If you do not wish to, you can deliberately exhaust your above-the-line vote if you wish.

You can still go the whole hog below-the-line, exactly as you used to.

In fact, in terms of error tolerance, the below-the-line option is just slightly more flexible than it used to be.

The thing which has been lost are the opportunities of the parties and “preference whisperers” to determine all above-the-line preference flows. That is a good thing.

The system might have gone for compulsory fully preferential voting above-the-line, but that would have led to a greater level of informal voting, and it's well arguable that that might disenfranchise some of the poorest and weakest.

The minor “error margin” changes aside, my main criticism is that the new system doesn't give enough flexibility below-the-line.

As a matter of legality, this is where Senator Day's High Court challenge to the new laws is likely to focus.

As a matter of merit, I think that if the system is going to be optional preferential above-the-line, it should optional preferential below-the-line, too. That way, for example, at the last election, one might have chosen to vote Coalition in the Senate in South Australia, but not for Cory Bernardi! Or, indeed, one could have chosen to vote Labor in Western Australia, but not for an equally bigoted Shoppies' Catlick hack.

That is to say, IMO, it's well arguable that the present reforms haven't gone far enough.

Still, I don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
... Say I mainly like Labor, and some Greens policies. But say I wanted to punish Labor, for say corruption, like some politician spending somebody else's money to wet his dick in a brothel.
The preferential voting system gives me an option.
If the member with the wayward member get my primary vote, that might be taken as my endorsement of him being a dick. But I don't give him my primary vote, I give it to a greens or independent. Say the green or independent does not reach quota, so MR Dick, and hence the labor party get in on my secondary or subsequent preferences.
In other words, I have still voted labor, but put the party on notice that although I approve their platform, I do not endorse a particular member, and this is reflected by the reduction in his primary vote by one.
Now of course, not everybody does this, but if they did, the parties and candidates [provided they are not totally clueless hacks], might [especially if they happen to lose] get some insight as to why they lost and how to improve ...
You can do all that, under both the current and previous below-the-line systems.

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
... No doubt the liberals think their industrial 'reforms" are essential for the country … I can sympathize with their frustration ... I can also understand why they want to change the voting system, so that they are less troubled by skeptics in the cross-benches. But their desire to "reform" voting system is not [in itself] a reason to think that the voting system is broken.
The system is not broken for that reason.

It is broken because it's a lottery gamed by major and minor parties alike, leading to the election of First Dog's “UESDs”.

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
... inane voting "reforms".
IMO, you'll have to make a very much better case than any you have to date, to sustain “inane” as a proper descriptor of the current reforms.
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 23rd March 2016, 06:50 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,867
Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

@ Stub King -

Quote:
Stub King said View Post
Quote:
Blue Lightning said View Post
I think it's unlikely the new Senate voting rules will lead to a Coalition-dominated Senate.
I sincerely hope so.
I think that we are on reasonably solid ground. Lots of analysis at these links -

Would Electoral Reform Deliver the Coalition a Senate Majority at a Double Dissolution?

Quote:
Could voting reform lead to the Coalition winning a Senate majority at a double dissolution?

It is a claim that has set the dogs running this morning after analysis by the Renewable Energy Party claimed it would. (See Sydney Morning Herald article here.)

The claim is the Coalition would win 7 of the 12 vacancies in three states delivering the Turnbull government a Senate majority.

It is a claim that doesn't stand up to analysis ...
See also -

On Senate Electoral Reform and Blocking Majorities

Quote:
... Under the new system parties are likely to preference like-minded parties over political opposites. The sorts of preference flows we see below-the-line between like minded parties is likely to be replicated on party how-to-vote material.

As parties will no longer need to preference every other party, the Coalition may find itself freed from having to choose between Labor and the Greens in Senate contests.

The final seats in each state will still be determined by preferences, and parties can still influence preferences with how to votes. But voters will now control the preferences on their ballot papers, not the parties.

The result is certain to be more reflective of voter wishes than the current results produced by enginerered preference deals.
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman
Reply With Quote
Like DanDare liked this post
  #166  
Old 23rd March 2016, 08:20 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,061
Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

Quote:
Blue Lightning said View Post
@DBD -



The new above-the-line system is “optional preferential”, with the result that you still have everything you previously had, as well as a new option.

If you want to follow a party's preference recommendations above-the-line, under the new system, you can. If you do not wish to, you can deliberately exhaust your above-the-line vote if you wish.

You can still go the whole hog below-the-line, exactly as you used to.

In fact, in terms of error tolerance, the below-the-line option is just slightly more flexible than it used to be.

The thing which has been lost are the opportunities of the parties and “preference whisperers” to determine all above-the-line preference flows. That is a good thing.

The system might have gone for compulsory fully preferential voting above-the-line, but that would have led to a greater level of informal voting, and it's well arguable that that might disenfranchise some of the poorest and weakest.

The minor “error margin” changes aside, my main criticism is that the new system doesn't give enough flexibility below-the-line.

As a matter of legality, this is where Senator Day's High Court challenge to the new laws is likely to focus.

As a matter of merit, I think that if the system is going to be optional preferential above-the-line, it should optional preferential below-the-line, too. That way, for example, at the last election, one might have chosen to vote Coalition in the Senate in South Australia, but not for Cory Bernardi! Or, indeed, one could have chosen to vote Labor in Western Australia, but not for an equally bigoted Shoppies' Catlick hack.

That is to say, IMO, it's well arguable that the present reforms haven't gone far enough.

Still, I don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.



You can do all that, under both the current and previous below-the-line systems.



The system is not broken for that reason.

It is broken because it's a lottery gamed by major and minor parties alike, leading to the election of First Dog's “UESDs”.



IMO, you'll have to make a very much better case than any you have to date, to sustain “inane” as a proper descriptor of the current reforms.
Fuck, did the puppy "screw the pooch?" Not possible!

Oh well, much obliged to you for rescuing me from my delusions BL! Thanks goodness there are people here with brains to stop the puppy from wetting the floor!
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifyable hypotheses to destruction.

Last edited by Darwinsbulldog; 23rd March 2016 at 08:23 PM. Reason: ETA: My disgust at the Liberals severely compromised my cognition and "analysis". I simply assumed anything the Libs dish up
Reply With Quote
Like Blue Lightning, DanDare liked this post
Thank Blue Lightning thanked this post
  #167  
Old 23rd March 2016, 10:28 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,867
Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
...Thanks goodness there are people here with brains to stop the puppy from wetting the floor!
Hush, now! - Hush Puppy !! The Puppy is not short of brains, and it's OK to wet the floor every now and then !
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Blue Lightning; 23rd March 2016 at 10:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 23rd March 2016, 10:34 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,061
Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

Quote:
Blue Lightning said View Post
Hush, now! - Hush Puppy !! The Puppy is not short of brains, and it's OK to wet the floor every now and then !
Liberal reforms? Sounds like an oxymoron to me, but I will have to accept it!
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifyable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 23rd March 2016, 10:56 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5,867
Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
... Liberal reforms? Sounds like an oxymoron to me, but I will have to accept it!
Obviously, , Mr Skeptic Dog , you should form your own view .

LNP reform? It may be a Black Swan, but click on the video in this link, sometimes, rarely, it happens, and when it does ...
__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Blue Lightning; 23rd March 2016 at 11:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 24th March 2016, 11:22 AM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,061
Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

Quote:
Blue Lightning said View Post
Obviously, , Mr Skeptic Dog , you should form your own view .

LNP reform? It may be a Black Swan, but click on the video in this link, sometimes, rarely, it happens, and when it does ...
Well, TBH, I have spent little time studying the detail of the reforms, so I will go with the opinions of those who contradicted me, at least for the moment. And watch the vid. But a party like the libs who even tolerate the likes of a Tony Abbott or a Cory Bernardi will have to work REAL hard to get me even to listen to them. So I will go with the opinions of folks here who have a proven track record of critical thinking.
The other factor in my change of opinion is that I know Scott Ludlum of the Greens personally, and I respect his opinion too, and the posts here have reassured me that there is merit in the reforms.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifyable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.