Jerry_Atrick

I am not sure of the angle of the question.. The POSC is much more than just picking someone that alings to the platform. In fact, factional differences makes it a delicate job. It is (or was) a vetting process covering integrity, capability, stability, commitment, tenaciousness, etc. And then compromising for local factional fights. An MP works awfully hard, despite the reputations they have. The POSC is not designed for forming policy. But as a delegate to the national (and state) conference, I was involved in debating policy. By then, it is really tidying it up and rarely generates anything material; that is all done at executive committees and sub committees. It still didn't mean I was less engaged. But, I did become disillusioned and left..But amstill engaged.

One of the problems of this form of communication is that it misses the subtleties of communication without adding emoticons, so pls forgive me if I have misread the tone of this comment.. But, in the great words of one of the actors in The Young Ines, I detect some sarcasm in that.. I mean, I could hardly post: if it did matter to me, could I.. welll without being a hypocrite, which is something I try to avoid. Note,I was writing this in the context of a comment that a percentage (in this case, women) being in government is (by itself) a good thing.. But the reality is, I could really not give a stuff is there was no white person (male of female) in government. I honestly couldn't. An the rest of the post showed you misread my post, which was the fact, by itself, that Labor has 50% women does not automatically mean good. Back in the real world, I would expect good government to be drawn from the diversity of the nation - and not in proprotional numbers of the population.. but based on their merit amongst the people available. If there are 20 of the 23 cabinet ministers that are women, or Sikh, or whatever, great, as long as they are the most appropriate people available for the job. You're right - what is the best? It's a judgement call, but promoting someone incompetent to make up a number because thast person happens to have a diverse characteristic (and by your stats, everyone falls into a minority group because there is no majority group being > 50%) is, IMHO, wrong. Do you have evidence to back this up? I am not being funny, but that isjust a statement of intuition. How do you know this? If the group of men researches and consults widely, rationally and impartially, maybe they can come up with good decisions.For example, when I was doing Criminal law last year, we had to research the law of coercion in NSW. While the women wer advocating for more money for battered women shelters, a man argued that it is the batterer that should be forced toleave the home and protection be provided, and the battered, who normally has kids should have the benefit of the home. Yep.. a man. Funny how it has since been adopted by women as the right thing to do. I don't want this to be a debate aboutj the battle of the sexes though, but as D&I training teaches us, we should discard our confirmation biases. Also, what good would a women be to women's causes if she is incompetent? Would rather have a competent man than an incompetent woman to deal with womesn's affairs, right? I gave the Tanya Plibersek example to show that, yeah, here is a woman (part of that 50%) who is very competent. For whatever reason Albos sees fit, he knows she has to be in the cabinet due to the potential threat to his leadership if she is not in there. But he is deliberatly taking what seens a competent politician (notice, I don't use the gender, or race, or whatever, I am worried about the politician) and not utilising her talents. That to me is great she makes up 1 of the 12 or so femaie cabinet ministers; it is not great he doesn't have the best of them doing the jobs most appropriate to their skill set.

I have never been married 😉

Also I was a casual polling clerk at a polling booth.. All votes are then sent to the electoral office where they are recounted. so with ballots with other markings than the actual voting, they may take a different view on their eligibility. I hasten to add, I wasn't a member of a political party at the time.

If you can clearrly discern the voter intention (i.e. the numbers are clear and legible) and it would othrwise be valid (minimum numbers next to names, etc), it is a valid vote. Nothing wriong with writing on the top, or bottom or back of the ballot anything.. At least that's how it was when I was a polling clerk. Sometimes a scrutineer would argue with us about whether it was spoiled or not, in which cae the returning officer would review and sometimes separate them out for the central vote counting team to deal with. That was in Vic but was the same for the federal elections as well.

I can only go by Australia and according to Chat GPT, teh average long term percentage of spoiled or informal votes is 4% in the lower house and 6% in the senate. I would argue that is too statistically small given a 100% poll. Of course, you can write messages on valid ballots as well. I can only go on my experience as a polling clerk in Kensington, Mlebourne in the 90s - so still a lower income area by and large - with I recall a larger Vietnamese population, but still a strong non-immigrant population. I recall most of the ballots that had more than the numbers marked or were informal were in descending order, drawings (some almost adacemic quality) of human genatalia of both genders, and any written messages were expletive laden expressions of general dissatisfaction with politics, and not constructive or specific issues. So, I am not sure of what statistical value the parties would make of it. I am sure at other polling booths and in the central count, they would have better quality of comments.

Given I have lived in mandatory and optional voting jurisdictions, chances are yes 😉 In the UK, I vote regularly.. But not always. I have voted predominantly for the side of the divide that aligns with my values, but have swung.. less chance these days because of the way the parties have moved. I don't need to divulge much more than that unless you really want to know (if you haven't worked it out). Remember, as a youngster I was a member of one of the major parties in Australia; Was the president of my branch, a national conference delegate, and on the public office selection committee for the electorate of my branch. I consider myself pretty well politically engaged. The assumption you are making is deciding not to vote is inaction, and not a purposeful action. I agree, a lot of people who don't vote are likely to be disengaged, but a lot also are engaged - have looked at the options and decided none are for them. It does not make it inaction. It is an action to say what on offer is not what they want. I can't see what is wrong with that. I don't accept that it is better to vote for the one that won't serve your interests, but somehow is deserving your endorsement to be elected. If you feel neither of them would be good public servants. Uf you saw a bunch of plumbers to do some long term work and none of them were competent, would you retain them? I agree.. Deciding not to vote, however, isn't necessarily accompanied by whinging. Nor does it mean that someone doesn't try other ways to achieve outcomes. Or maybe they are just apathetic and don't care and don't whinge. Excpt for the whinge that neither is good.. Then yes, let your parties know they are putting up to you who are unelectable. I don't know the answer to your question. But the question I feel wrong. If only 10% of people voted, has the public given them a mandate to carry out their manifesto/policies? I would argue no (or at least, with such a low turnout, not without a huge risk to their next election chances). If I were just elected with such a low turnout (assuming an average of around 65% turnout in the UK), I would be very careful what I did in government, lest my time would be vry short. Also, parliamentary governments means that their leadership would be very weak and susceptible to takeover, so they would have to tread very carefullly. I am not sure where this comes from. There seems to be an assumption that where someone fails to vote because no one is going to doeverything that the viter wants. I can't speak for other people, bujt that has not factored into my decision not to vote. And while you can assume a certain percentage may have that approach, I would suggest that most who don't vote and aren't apathetic would not expect perfection and if there was a candidate that was likely to change things for the better for them, they wouild vote. We have seen this in the UK before with Tony Blair in 1997 that had the largest voter turnout in years, and with the previous election where people felt neither were really appropriate, where the voter turnout was the lowest since the early 1900s in the low 50%. I think this is evidence it is a ppositive action. Fair enough. I consider that every vote counts, so I take my vote and my decision not to vote equally seriously. The times I have decided not to vote have been considered choices bases on the candidates and parties' offerings at the time. If there are people se disengaged that they don't want to vote, then I don't want them to as they donot consider what they are voting for (some will decide to take interest) and will jujst follow whatever it is or do the donkey vote - as useless as not voting in that situation. And in fact can send the wrong message to someone who gets elected that they have a mandate when they don't. I consier this much more dangerous to democracy than a population of people deciding not to vote no matter their motivations. To use your 10% turnout scenario, there is clearly no mandate with such a turnout in free and fair elections. But if voting is complusory, and 90% didn't want to vote, there are two options: 1 - they spol the vote. Clearly again, no mandate so why bother turning up. Second option is a donkeyed vote. Well, the message could be interpreted as there being a mandate, as they took the time to endorse the first person on the list. That is much more dangerous to democracy to me than not turning up to vote.

Also, in politics, when you vote for someone, you are saying I want that someone to be elected. You arenot saying you are the least worst option. You are endorsing someone. Therefore, if there is noone you wish to endorse, you shouldn't be forced to even come to the booth to have your name struck off. It should be the default position.

I am not sure about the reasons for compulsory voting,but it being the best assurnce to stop a despot is absolute poppycock, in my opinion, and I have lived under both compulsory and voluntary voting. Australia had the most on the nose government for 13 years and they had, at least up until 2022. The LNP have since dropped further as a party - not government. Albo won power by a single seat because the LNP supporters who could not fathom a Labor govrnment could not bring themselves to vote anyone else. Think about it.. Across Austalia, all it would take is two seats not to flip, and the will of the majority of the people would not have happened and what had become close to the most despotic government in Australia would have remained In the UK in 2024, remarkably similar circumstances ended up with a Labour landslide. Why? Because the Conservative supporters that couldn't support a Labor government didn't turn up to vote. At the same time, the loony protest party, Reform got their first seats in the House of Commons - 4 of them on the same primary vote as the Lib Dems got their 15 or so seats. Now, if the LNP voters who couldn't fathom a Labor government turned up to vote - and Pauline had th run she was having now, who do you think they would have voted for? Suddenly, your despotic governent is more likely with compulsory voting. Of course,the UK is fist past the post v. Aus's preferetnal system, but if you want to guarantee one nation a look in while the LNP is still unelectable, force those LNP voters to vote. What is saving you is preferental voting, not compulsory voting. And some of those choices is to do nothing. And when you have that choice and its valid, why not to do it? And even with your analogy. if they occasionally f up,m but you are likely to get the outcome you want, then you will take them. .that is the same with political partes and anything else for which there is limited choice. But, using your airline analogy, if you had a choice of 10 airlines, and they promise to take you to your destination, but everything tellsyou you are likely to not even get off the ground, and even if you do, you are most likely to end up in a burning wreck or a destination so far away from where you want to be, it is not worth it, will you still book your flight because that's all that is available? If so, that is your choice. My choice would be to not bother.

I don't understand what th number of women, men, black, white, Muslim, jew, or swahili have to do with anything in terms of quality of government or workforce for that matter. You want the best team.. Tanya Plibersek is in the team, but I get the feeling Albo doesn't like her, so she is probably there because of her factional wars and not being utilised to her full talents (or what seems to be). So, that is a waste of a mministerial appointment. Claire O'Neil, in what I have seen seems to be completely useless. I could be wrong, of course, but from what I have seen, I wiould prefer someone better. If the minstry is 100% men or women, as long as they are the best for the job, is the important measure.

I am just catching up on this thread, so a looooong post... Because I can talk the leg off a chair. As RandomX said, I am not the only one. It is fair to say my son at 23 is politically engaged, and although not wedded to an ideology, is a little to the right of me (and I try and treat each issue on its merits - I rather than right or left). My som and I do have many thoughtful and deep conversations on may political, socological, and economic issues. Like me, he tends to treat each on its merits (or try to - because our values determine how we treat the merits, I guess). He gets all of his information from social media - mainly Youtube, but is careful to cross reference within that platform. I encourage him to at least go to the offical sources of information. On each issue, I steer him to review the purported facts. Where we disagree, and it is often, sometimes he brings me around to his way of thinking, sometimes I bring him around to my way of thinking, sometimes we agree to respectfully disagree.. But to his credit, he works to inform himself thoroughly and many discussions have ended up with me being thoroughly educated (even on aviation things - that did hurt). What he tells me of his friends though, is that in reality, it is a mix. There is one that is a reform voter, and one that is Greens. The reality is there are more leaning to the right at the moment, because the new left (Starmer) has failed them big time in what he promised versus is deliveriing.. And i am not talking handouts and an easy life, but a fair crack at it. That is what is letting the protest parties and votes, such as Brexit it. Also, immigration is an issue.. but that is another conversation.

Why endorse anyone if in your opinion they aren't up for the job?

I'll drink to that, except that drinks fizzy beer can give you gas

Yes I did see that this morning. Thankfully I am no longer a developer, but also coming up to retirement, anyway. I had a catch up with a friend of mine who is a developer and he is very concerned. They are required to use Claude (https://claude.com/), whichis a specialist software development platform. If they don't ring upa big enough biill in Claude, they are considered underproductive and not adept to change, and the door will be shown to them. Hi is absoltely gobsmacked at how far the paid for version has come. He can literally do in minutes what was done in days. And itis all highquality code and consider the edge cases without being prompted. We concluded that there will be far, far fewer, but higher quality developers managing the delivery by prompt. I have said for a while now that AI has hit critical mass and jobs are going to go.. Software development is a clear one. As are solicitors and even barristers (not baristas, though), accountants, even financial engineers (quants) are going to find it hard going. Project management, etc.. It is all Not to mention interviews are becoming more grulling as the questions are created by AI. Development interviws give you an AI set and a timelimit and you have to build a fully functioning app in the technology stack using the AI tools within an hour. I have said it before and will say it again.. Unlike other labour disruption technologies in whhich people could redeploy, AI will replace without the redeploy option for most.