Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Skyring]

Re: Where will you be election day (September 14th)

Also worthy of note (at least it was to me, since I didn't know) is that you can vote both above and below the line, with the below the line vote taking precedence.

Antony Green's Election Blog: Voting Below the Line in the Senate

Thanks for this useful contribution. Antony Green might be a voting geek, but he's good value. He also slid in a bonus boustrophedon. One thing he didn't mention is that a certain percentage of the votes will exhaust, thereby making those votes useless in electing anybody, no matter how carefully the squares might be numbered. The reason for this is that a quota is (1/(number of seats+1))+1, so in a single seat election (i.e. a normal House of Reps seat) the quota is (1/(1+1))+1 = (1/2)+1 = 50% + 1 vote.

In the ACT and NT, where two Senators are elected, the quota is 33%+1, and in a State it is (1/7)+1, or about 14.3%. Only six Senators will be elected in a State, so that leaves just shy of 1/7 of the votes that exhaust before they get to a winning candidate.

So if you put the big parties and Greens dead last on your ballot, and vote for all the independents and minor parties first, chances are good that with each recount, your ballot will be pushed onto the next minor candidate still standing, and may not get to the last six numbers on the ballot by the time six candidates have been elected.

I'll be following Antony's advice. Mostly.

 

[MartinMemo]

Re: Where will you be election day (September 14th)

Thanks for this useful contribution. Antony Green might be a voting geek, but he's good value. He also slid in a bonus boustrophedon. One thing he didn't mention is that a certain percentage of the votes will exhaust, thereby making those votes useless in electing anybody, no matter how carefully the squares might be numbered. The reason for this is that a quota is (1/(number of seats+1))+1, so in a single seat election (i.e. a normal House of Reps seat) the quota is (1/(1+1))+1 = (1/2)+1 = 50% + 1 vote.

In the ACT and NT, where two Senators are elected, the quota is 33%+1, and in a State it is (1/7)+1, or about 14.3%. Only six Senators will be elected in a State, so that leaves just shy of 1/7 of the votes that exhaust before they get to a winning candidate.

So if you put the big parties and Greens dead last on your ballot, and vote for all the independents and minor parties first, chances are good that with each recount, your ballot will be pushed onto the next minor candidate still standing, and may not get to the last six numbers on the ballot by the time six candidates have been elected.

I'll be following Antony's advice. Mostly.

Ill be mostly following his advice too. I know the 5 parties I want at the top, and the 5 at the bottom, and one of those sites helped me fill out the middle based on what i like and then "shuffling" them.

 

[Pushka]

For someone who likes to have a dig at me you sure haven't read much of what I've posted.

Not lately no. I can't get past the personals.

 

[medhead]

Not lately no. I can't get past the personals.

I'm not referring to anything recent.

And I reject the implication of your "personals" comment. I'm unable to think of anything more personal that the accusations of being a looney leftie, not ever paying taxes and not having any savings from one of your mates. Plus whatever else has been thrown at me for daring to point out the faults of tony Abbott.

Moral of the story: don't start something if you don't like it coming back.

 

[Pukka]

I'm not referring to anything recent.

And I reject the implication of your "personals" comment. I'm unable to think of anything more personal that the accusations of being a looney leftie, not ever paying taxes and not having any savings from one of your mates. Plus whatever else has been thrown at me for daring to point out the faults of tony Abbott.

Moral of the story: don't start something if you don't like it coming back.

Nobody has ever accused you of not paying taxes or not having any savings.

 

[Pushka]

I'm not referring to anything recent.

And I reject the implication of your "personals" comment. I'm unable to think of anything more personal that the accusations of being a looney leftie, not ever paying taxes and not having any savings from one of your mates. Plus whatever else has been thrown at me for daring to point out the faults of tony Abbott.

Moral of the story: don't start something if you don't like it coming back.

Pushka I'm sorry if you can't understand simple concepts.

It's dirty little digs like this. You do them to me and others all the time. But this is just the one from yesterday.

You can say you don't agree with me, that's perfectly fine but no, instead of that you always presume you are right and do that with a put down. You know I've commented on these before.

Just state your case without the digs.

I've never called you a loonie leftie. Never said you didn't pay taxes. Couldn't care less about your savings.

 

[medhead]

Nobody has ever accused you of not paying taxes or not having any savings.

Besides you.

 

[medhead]

It's dirty little digs like this. You do them to me and others all the time. But this is just the one from yesterday.

You can say you don't agree with me, that's perfectly fine but no, instead of that you always presume you are right and do that with a put down. You know I've commented on these before.

Just state your case without the digs.

I've never called you a loonie leftie. Never said you didn't pay taxes. Couldn't care less about your savings.

Might be good if you tried to include my entire post instead of quoting something out of context.

I'm sorry if you think it is a dirty little dig to expect someone who has been a strong advocate for Abbott to know his policies. It is a shame you didn't bother to include your post to which I was replying. I asked about Abbott's policies you chimed in with the post below, trying to pretend that the personal plans of an individual should be known by all in the same way policies should be known. These are vastly different bits of information. My comment was about the fact that you seem to support voting for someone who has a secret hidden policy agenda. You seem to support the view that information the public has a right to know should be hidden. That simply is not how democracy is supposed to work. In addition the voter is suppose to fully inform themselves on their choice. The post from you indicates that you are not interesting in finding out the policies of who you will support. You don't seem interesting in the voter being informed of policy and you also seem to think that personal choices of candidates is somehow the same as being informed about policiy. My comment was a statement that democracy doesn't work like that, that future personal choices are not the same as policy that is supposed to inform voting intentions.

If you feel insulted by someone calling you on blindly voting for someone without bothering to find out their policies, that would seem to be a problem with you. I'll maintain my view that personal choices are not the same a party policies - That is a simple concept, which you seem to continue to ignore.

That's like asking Rudd supporters if he plans on resigning if/when Labor loses, then bagging them for not responding, when they cant respond as they simply don't know! Then bagging them again but it shows they don't know his policies (or in this case, his intentions)

There's not been one report of this except, on your word, the SMH which I don't read.

As far as quests for power goes, I think history will show the last five years have been nothing but exactly that.

 

[Pushka]

No medhead. All it shows is that I'm no longer responding to your discussion points.

 

[medhead]

No medhead. All it shows is that I'm no longer responding to your discussion points.

Except when you selectively quote out of context to make a false claim.

 

[Pushka]

As long as I don't comment about you personally, ie comment about your intelligence, personality, appearance etc etc then all you need to do is discuss what I've said and agree or disagree.

But you don't do that. You add a little comment about my ability to comprehend, or my intellect etc.

It's actually irrelevant what I posted (with the caveat above) and hence I did not requote it. I simply pointed out to you the way you attempt to put others down by the manner in which you post.

 

[medhead]

As long as I don't comment about you personally, ie comment about your intelligence, personality, appearance etc etc then all you need to do is discuss what I've said and agree or disagree.

But you don't do that. You add a little comment about my ability to comprehend, or my intellect etc.

It's actually irrelevant what I posted (with the caveat above) and hence I did not requote it. I simply pointed out to you the way you attempt to put others down by the manner in which you post.

I've simply pointed out to you that I reject your interpretation. I have not commented about your intellect. I've just commented about the analogy that you posted. That analogy demonstrates a level of confusion between public information and private information, that suggests you don't seem to understand the difference. That is absolutely not a comment about your ability to understand the difference. It is a comment about the understanding you have presented with your analogy. Personally I think you deliberately tried to present a confused analogy to distract from your lack of knowledge about Abbott's policies. In any case, you are wrong to claim I've commented about your intellect.

 

[Pushka]

How is

"Pushka. I am sorry if you can't understand simple concepts"

NOT commenting on my intelligence?

 

[medhead]

How is

"Pushka. I am sorry if you can't understand simple concepts"

NOT commenting on my intelligence?

As I said:

I have not commented about your intellect. I've just commented about the analogy that you posted. That analogy demonstrates a level of confusion between public information and private information, that suggests you don't seem to understand the difference. That is absolutely not a comment about your ability to understand the difference. It is a comment about the understanding you have presented with your analogy. Personally I think you deliberately tried to present a confused analogy to distract from your lack of knowledge about Abbott's policies. In any case, you are wrong to claim I've commented about your intellect.

To provide the answer you desire. I disagree, and have outlined why above.


If you also bothered to quote the rest of my post you'll see that I also explained the difference between personal and private information originally. Out of context verballing - something else I disagree about.

 

[Pukka]

Besides you.

You need to take a chill pill, I've been accused of not paying my fair share despite paying several hundred grand of tax in a year.

 

[medhead]

You need to take a chill pill, I've been accused of not paying my fair share despite paying several hundred grand of tax in a year.

Do I? The implication of your question to me below wrt the deposit tax seems pretty clear.

You have called me a loony leftie. And you have questioned whether I pay any tax. I'm certainly not bothered to go back and find the quotes. But the are there. Your suggestion of a chill pill is laughable.

Because it will affect you?

 

[Pukka]

Do I? The implication of your question to me below wrt the deposit tax seems pretty clear.

You have called me a loony leftie. And you have questioned whether I pay any tax. I'm certainly not bothered to go back and find the quotes. But the are there. Your suggestion of a chill pill is laughable.

Yes the implication was that you didn't like the tax because it affected you ie you have savings. My fault I didn't realize you were calling me ludicrous not the tax.

Anyway important news from Tony I'm looking forward to turning back on the swimming pool heater with a discount on the current ludicrous price of electricity

 

[cirqueboy]

Just caught up on KRudds performance on Q&A. What a corker! That was awesome!

 

[Pushka]

Just caught up on KRudds performance on Q&A. What a corker! That was awesome!

It was an excellent come back.

 

[cgichard]

Re Senate preferences, this is the most useful site I have found so far:
The race for the Senate: see the preference allocation of every party | World news | theguardian.com
This is on the Guardian (UK) website but it may be available on a local site too.