Thread: What influences your vote...?

Economic management.

My belief is that if the economy is well managed the effects will flow through to every other aspect of life.

A badly managed economy ala Whitlam, destroys any ability to provide real benefits to society.

Another key aspect for me is employment. Small businesses need to be able to employ people that fit in well with their staff. One bad egg that cant be dismissed can destroy a small business. Unfair dissmissal laws are critical to on going employment in the small business arena.

I lost a million dollar business simply because I could not fire anybody in the 80's when we lost a case in the disputes board without them even hearing the evidence. The rouge elements that we were forced to employ by the Unions simply did no work! Knowing full well we could do nothing about it. I may as well have shoved $90,000 a week down the drain.

Any one who has been on the recieving end of this type of union thuggery will know exactly what I mean.

This leaves a sour taste in your mouth for life.

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

but will make a few comments on the ballot. I understand all non offensive ballot comments have to be recorded.

Sorry mate but any marks other than the ticks or numbers asked for make the balot paper scrap ring you local electrol office and ask if you are still unsure

So after an age of small, insular, me focused politics some bods want to know where we're going?
come back paul all is forgiven!

astrid

All dogs can bite - I think I'll vote for the one with the bluntest teeth.

The intentional informal Voters and those who don't vote, who I know, annoy the P out of me - they whinge about every decision made by any level of government then claim no responsibity. Hypocrisy.

soth

Originally Posted by Big Shed

To do that we need proportional representation, not the anachronistic system inherited from the Poms, based on electorates. What is the sense of electorates, the elected member doesn't represent his/her electorate anyway, only votes the party line.

One vote, one value I say.

I have lived in electorates where you can run a donkey and it will get elected, first in a very safe liberal seat, now in a very safe labor seat.

Any system that results in a government getting elected with less than 50% of the vote is broke.

If it can be done for the senate, not quite proportional but at least per state it is, then it can be done for the lower house.

Phew, got that off my chest

My sentiments entirely. With a proviso: there has to be a mechanism to simplify the result by rolling up the votes given to parties that do not reach a cut off point, e.g. 5%, otherwise every government is to be made by a coalition of parties very likely to stay together or break apart on the basis of negotiated paybacks. Look at Italy to see the other side of the coin.
Until that happens, I agree with all those who said that the most intelligent thing to do is to vote against the sitting member, especially so in safe seats.

[quote=Sebastiaan56;588777]
I wont vote informal (waste of a precious opinion) but will make a few comments on the ballot. I understand all non offensive ballot comments have to be recorded.

quote]

Could you please confirm this? I was under the impression that any comments invalidate the vote.

[quote=Frank&Earnest;603327]

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

I wont vote informal (waste of a precious opinion) but will make a few comments on the ballot. I understand all non offensive ballot comments have to be recorded.

quote]

Could you please confirm this? I was under the impression that any comments invalidate the vote.

F&E - ANY and ALL marks, other than numbering, makes the Ballot Paper invalid. Of this I'm 99% certain.

soth

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

My sentiments entirely. With a proviso: there has to be a mechanism to simplify the result by rolling up the votes given to parties that do not reach a cut off point, e.g. 5%, otherwise every government is to be made by a coalition of parties very likely to stay together or break apart on the basis of negotiated paybacks. Look at Italy to see the other side of the coin.
Until that happens, I agree with all those who said that the most intelligent thing to do is to vote against the sitting member, especially so in safe seats.

F&E, only just saw your reply, have been away for a week or so (in your part of the world actually).
Whilst I don't disagree with your basic sentiment cut off points, 5% is a big ask. Remember that at present we can have members in the Senate that achieve a lot less of the overall vote. Brian Haradine springs to mind and the squilllions he was able to syphon of to Tasmania using simple blackmail techniques.
As for coalitions, there is nothing wrong with coalitions, we have one at present and we have had them before, where govts could not govern in their own right without independents or the Democrats etc. If you think about it, if one electorate returns an independent, happens all the time, then that member has achieved a lot less than 5% of the national vote.

Your example of Italy is a valid one, but there are likewise successful coalition govts, the Netherlands and Germany spring to mind.

With our current, very much outdated model, we can have a govt elected with less than 50% of the vote, I'd rather see a coalition where a wider cross-section of the population is represented.

Like I said before, if it can work for the Senate it can work for the lower house.

I can't see the point of venting on the ballot paper. No-one is going to read it, and it invalidates the vote.

woodbe.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/scrutin...y_of_votes.htm

Formality checks

There are two tests for formality of ballot papers. These are:

• whether the ballot paper is authentic and does not identify the voter; and
• whether the voter has performed his or her duty in marking the ballot paper sufficiently well for it to be accepted.

Authenticity tests

To be accepted as formal, a ballot paper:

• must be authenticated by the official mark or the initials of the issuing officer, or must, in the opinion of the DRO, be an authentic ballot paper;
• must not have any unauthorised writing on it that could identify the voter; and
• must, in the case of a declaration vote, have been enclosed in a declaration envelope.

Acceptable numbering

(a whole lot of stuff about different numbering plans that are valid or invalid)

.


Reading that, it looks lik as long as your "unauthorised writing" cannot identify you, they can't invalidate your vote.

Whether or not they record your rantings/venting/opinion is another matter...

Originally Posted by q9

Is that actually better or worse now? You need to remember that back then, the average loan was a lot less money - so to achieve the same effect, then interest rates had to be higher. They don't need to rise that high any more to have quite massive impacts on repayments.

To illustrate - 19% of $100,000 is $19,000

7.8% of $250,000 is $19,500

Yes, inflation and wage growth complicates things a bit, but you'd have to agree, focusing on the rate alone is rather pointless.

However you are comparing 1987 dollars to 2007 dollars. Due to inflation those old dollars are worth a lot more.

The housing boom in prices has got more to do with State Governments not releasing enough land. Demand is simply greater than supply. Federal Governments can't do that much about it.

Have to agree sort of with Honorary Bloke mandatory voting isn't all good for the system. You get the Donkey Vote as a result amongst other problems such as people who don't care and don't know either about the policies or the polliticians and will hinder the best one getting in.

Of course in places where there is optional voting the parties work really hard to get a message out there to inflame the populace into voting for them. I think in the US the Republicans used the Abortion laws as a means of getting their supporters out in a recent enough election. I don't think this is entirely good either. You could see people voting based on very minor and insignificant things and important things are overlooked. Very likely there isn't a very good sollution to the issue.

Something that bugs me a bit is the Media's huge influence. To succeed you have to be a real media bunny. Being a Journo yourself helps. Bob Carr was Mike Rann and Clare Martin too. Peter Beatie is a real media tart also. Kevin Rudd also is very good at producing the 5 second sound bite. This annoys me because I want more substance from our politicians.

Studley

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Brian Haradine springs to mind and the squilllions he was able to syphon of to Tasmania using simple blackmail techniques.

I think you made my point for me! To be fair, though, Harradine seems to have been a reasonably ethical person, for MP standards.

Your example of Italy is a valid one, but there are likewise successful coalition govts, the Netherlands and Germany spring to mind.

Again, you are supporting my point: Germany has the cutoff point I am talking about. This notwithstanding, they had a stalemate at the last election, and everybody was wondering if they were going the way of Italy.

Like I said before, if it can work for the Senate it can work for the lower house.

The Senate is muddled up by the non-proportionality of State representation. If you really want one person one vote, that would have to go also.

[quote=masher;605539]
To be accepted as formal, a ballot paper:

• must not have any unauthorised writing on it that could identify the voter;

Reading that, it looks lik as long as your "unauthorised writing" cannot identify you, they can't invalidate your vote.

[quote]

Every booth official will cover their posterior by invalidating any handwriting on the basis that it could be recognised by somebody. Maybe you could try gluing words cut from newspapers....

have been a scrutineer for years
as long as your voting intention is clear your vote is valid
you dont even have to fill all the boxes
votes in doubt are refered to the booth captain who is trained by the electoral office

this is to prevent scrutineers nit picking when the results are close
anything seriously disputed in a close call is refereed to the electoral office
astrid