Thread: Voted early - way to go.

Originally Posted by Beardy

the timing of releasing the information was not a coincidence.

Well yeah, that's what any well planned operation does. Timing is everything. Planned for maximum impact. You never know, they may have one more little titbit before May 18.

Originally Posted by Beardy

I was more just intrigued that so much money and effort was put into discrediting a minority party like they did

I can't recall reading the following interpretation, but I hardly think it is my original thought: The media organisation concerned comes from an Arabic Islamic country. Maybe they are sheet off with a certain party's well known and well documented xenophobic views particularly towards Arabic Islamic countries, possibly since 1996, and decided to do whatever they could about it. It would seem they played a "long" game which (as I understand things) is characteristic of Arabic diplomacy (and I'm in no way being critical of it there).

When it comes to budgetary concerns, the cost would have been a mere drop in the oil well.

Originally Posted by Beardy

Some just get caught

Yup. Good, innit? They usually squeal like stuck pigs, so it's not really any different now. The shrillness of the squeal might vary.



They're dropping like flies at the moment. Isn't the Casualty List for the last few days something like:
2 K.I.A.
1 D.O.A
1 D.O.W
1 P.O.W. (sorry, couldn't resist )
2 mortally wounded, expected to be D.O.W.
1 critically injured
20+ Superficial Wounds


I must say that since half time this match has picked up considerably from the yawn of a first half which was just the forwards battering each other, softening up for the second half when the speedsters run around the exhausted forwards, scoring at will. We are seeing new plays, like in ~1975 AMCO Cup when Greg Brentnall kicked a penalty across the field for some dude to score a try untouched (that's a NSW memory).

It's a bit like the plethora of S44 casualties (was it 20 all up? More?). Suddenly they've all realised that scouring social media might be interesting. I think that's good - another check and balance measure that might clean up at least some people's acts, and may also give cause for "pause & think" for others in the future.

Hope so, anyway.

Yes FF you might be right about the media organisation involved but I just didn’t think they would be interested enough in such a small fish which is why I think someone else is behind it. I am sure it will be revealed in time.

i don’t mind that they get caught out when they do. Makes them all lift their game

I think we would have few members left in parliament if all of their dirty washing was aired.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

So one of the Mortally Wounded is now D.O.W. this morning.

This is extraordinary and unprecedented! I don't know if it makes it the worst election or the best election yet, but it's gotta be one of the two. It's certainly flushing out a few racists and religionists.

I think we can probably be assured that in future elections the parties will be doing a lot more due diligence on their potential candidates. They may even ask for a cash surety.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So one of the Mortally Wounded is now D.O.W. this morning.
This is extraordinary and unprecedented! I don't know if it makes it the worst election or the best election yet, but it's gotta be one of the two. It's certainly flushing out a few racists and religionists.

I doubt it's that different to the past.
In previous elections fewer people (especially older pharts - I can say that I'm one) would have had social media accounts and there would have been far less trawling for dirt. These days parties have teams of trawlers searching media for he/she said/wrote/posted. It's a bit like the so called increase in cancer rates which is really due to improved detection and greater life expectancy.

Interesting discussion on ABC radio about the doubling of pre-pollers since the 2016 election The consensus was an increasing numbers of voters have had a gut full and know what they want and just want to move on. Apart from those with a valid reason the other pre-pollers are most likely rusted on or don't like crowds/queues. This leaves an increasing number of undecided, uninformed, and "in denial" voters to have their vote further affected by their personal "peak and edge" experience. As Amanda Vanstone put it - these are the people who decided elections.

The body count is actually 5 down just for this week, and more likely to come. Annabel Crabb has a summary of the carnage. Even though that was posted only 3 hours ago at 6.30am EST it is already well out of date (one dead since, and another revelation in Qld looking very ill). I can't think of any election where there were more than one or two dropouts for the entire race let alone at least 5 for the week (coz today ain't over yet).

Originally Posted by BobL

It's a bit like the so called increase in cancer rates which is really due to improved detection and greater life expectancy.

Yes, and I think it is the same for Mental Health diagnoses.

Originally Posted by BobL

This leaves an increasing number of undecided, uniformed, and "in denial" voters

What's funny about that typo is that I always read "a number of uniformed Police attended" as "uninformed Police"

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

The body count is actually 5 down just for this week, and more likely to come.

And it won't make a difference. The candidates are still on the ballot papers, still have all the How to vote cards for their supporters to hand out and can still be elected.

And, if elected, in no time all will be forgiven for the party would want their support in parliament.

Peter.

It's all explained here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-...igned/11072830

There is one part that isn't explained, and that I'm not quite certain of: if a candidate resigns/is disendorsed, we know that they are still on the ballot paper for the party and can still be elected as presumably an independent. So just looking at the Lower House, surely that must mean that the party concerned is no longer contesting that seat because any substitute candidate isn't on the ballot paper. I can't see any way out of that bind.

That would be deeply troubling for the blue party who have lost candidates for Isaacs, Wills and Lyons - three seats out of their potential count just this week. They don't hold any of them currently, and probably had no hope in Isaacs, definitely no hope in Wills where red and green primary votes in 2016 were 68%, but they certainly thought they were in with a show in Lyons.



There is one electoral change that I think must definitely be made: if you resign from a party then you resign from the Parliament as well. For the Lower House this would mean they could stand at the subsequent by-election however they wish, but it would at least be a fair dinkum vote. What's been going on for the last few years is a joke. People getting elected with as little as 19 primary votes, and the rest by virtue of people voting for the party, then quitting the party before they are even sitting for the first time. That's morally corrupt.

Originally Posted by Beardy

Nothing to do with which side of the fence you are on........I am certainly not on his side. I was more just intrigued that so much money and effort was put into discrediting a minority party like they did, the timing of releasing the information was not a coincidence.

As far as politicians behaving badly, I think we would have few members left in parliament if all of their dirty washing was aired. Some just get caught

I have seen it reported that the algazeera "investigation" if you want to call it that was actually aimed at the NRA, but after years of trying to sting them to no effect they stumbled upon our trusty aussie pollies and managed to set them up. So it was a side show/accident. It's also interesting to note there seems to be a coalition of middle eastern governments who have been actively working against quatar for years. I don't understand why, I don't understand a lot about middle eastern politics, but quatar seem to be somewhat isolated, and algazeera has been shown to be just a propaganda machine.

I used to watch PNG politics closely because they were into all teh same corruption criminality nepotism etc as our mob but were far worse at covering it up. If you wanted to know what was happening in canberra look to port moresby. I don't bother anymore because our politicians have become so incompetent they can't even cover the dirt anymore. They have even lost their survival instincts getting so carried away with internal struggles they endanger the prime objective, get re-elected. So I guess the question is: is it better to have politicians so hopeless we have scandals on telly every night, or so sneaky they succeed in hiding it from us ? because that's the only difference between the major and minor parties...

I watched you can't ask that the other day, not very interesting. AV had her numbers a bit wrong. There are about 30% each of rusted on voters for the majors, about 7% green and about the same alt right, about 4% labor voters do a protest vote occasionally and vote green although that has been declining since BB retired. So there are about say 30% swing voters. The problem is only about 25% of seats are in play so it's only swing voters in marginals who's vote counts for the house of reps, which is where she gets 4%, although it can be as high as 6%. They elect our governments and if you profile them they are mortgage belt families and all they really care about is personal pork, interest rates, fuel costs. They tune in the week before the election, checks who is promising the sweetest deal, vote accordingly then go right back to driving the kids to sport in the prado. Politics isn't complicated...

2c...

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So just looking at the Lower House, surely that must mean that the party concerned is no longer contesting that seat because any substitute candidate isn't on the ballot paper. I can't see any way out of that bind.

Officially they won't be supporting that candidate but it would be unofficially.

Some do good-er from that party would help with money and resources and the party won't complain about their signs etc being used until they become aware after the polling booths have closed.

So if they win they will be an independent whatever for a while and then quietly rejoin after having been in the sin bin for a while.

May be I'm cynical but that is the probable scenario.

Peter.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

So just looking at the Lower House, surely that must mean that the party concerned is no longer contesting that seat because any substitute candidate isn't on the ballot paper. I can't see any way out of that bind.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Officially they won't be supporting that candidate but it would be unofficially.

Perhaps, but there is something more immediate than that. It's common these days for the Govt to often be 1 or -1 majority. If it was the case this time that they missed forming govt (without the need for extra support in the house) by one seat I think they'd be somewhat entitled to call "we was robbed". Especially if that candidate got up or only just missed out (so lost enough votes to lose because of the scandal).

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

There is one electoral change that I think must definitely be made: if you resign from a party then you resign from the Parliament as well. For the Lower House this would mean they could stand at the subsequent by-election however they wish, but it would at least be a fair dinkum vote. What's been going on for the last few years is a joke. People getting elected with as little as 19 primary votes, and the rest by virtue of people voting for the party, then quitting the party before they are even sitting for the first time. That's morally corrupt.

There are lots of cases where I disagree that a sitting member should be required to stand down if they resign from a party.
For example
If they are elected on a substantial party policy but after the election that policy is dropped or substantially altered.
The other is leadership change - electors largely vote for directions, policies and leaders - eg if the leadership changes and especially if they take the party in a substantially different direction
Another example would be if the party or certain party members maltreat a specific community group which is a significant component of her/his electorate. Your electorate should usually come before your party.
In these cases I would have no hesitation in supporting a sitting member to stay on as an independent supporting the original policy/electorate.
In practice it's just too hard to disentangle all these thing so I would say leave it as is.

I don't agree with the domino effect used in the senate. If a member resigns from the senate their place should not automatically go to the next joe/josephine on the ballot. I would rather that position be left vacant until the next senate half election.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

The body count is actually 5 down just for this week, and more likely to come.

Yep, make that 6. Red jellybean this time.