Will the lessons of the 2024 US elections be applied to our 2025 elections?

[Litespeed]

Very true Nev.

 

GON is completely isolated from reality

 

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

The AEC stipulates 16kms round trip, I'm blowed if I'm gunna travel 74kms total.

 

If they could set up a polling booth for this bloke, they can surely bring one closer to my village.

 

[old man emu]

7 hours ago, Grumpy Old Nasho said:

The AEC stipulates 16kms round trip, I'm blowed if I'm gunna travel 74kms total.

 

If they could set up a polling booth for this bloke, they can surely bring one closer to my village.

 

You really don't expect us to believe that the photograph depicts reality, do you?

[facthunter]

  YOU think that's a REAL situation?  A  Dictatorship WANTs people to vote? You CAN'T vote in a dictatorship, OR else it's rigged.. 

[facthunter]

How many Australians would wish to move to somewhere else (That exists, Not a made up one). Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

You really don't expect us to believe that the photograph depicts reality, do you?

I thought that myself, but it's more than my village gets. Aboriginals in remote locations have helicopters fly in as mobile polling booths, and us whities in here in our villages don't count at all. We should paint ourselves black, then we might get something.

Edited March 12 by Grumpy Old Nasho

[Marty_d]

Or, you could just suck it up, plan to do your shopping in the same trip, and do your democratic duty that you only have to do every 3 years or so.

[facthunter]

I have to travel 55 Kms x 2 to get specialist treatment in Melbourne. Many times  each year. ALSO  I have an LPG car that I have to go 25kms at least to fill but I'd be worse off in GAZA. STOP feeling sorry for yourself. You might get 'happy' .....IF you look, You will always be able to find PEOPLE worse OFF than YOU are.  Nev

Edited March 12 by facthunter
more content.

[nomadpete]

Dreary Australian politics......

 

This article by Alan Kohler sums up the outlook for 2025.

 

So much is happening in the world around us and our politicians are squabbling over tired old paradigms.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-24/democracy-climate-change-ai-robotics-war/105085846

 

What do you think?

[old man emu]

We are going into an election and the Parties are still using the bread and circuses approach - trying to buy our votes. When was the last time you heard a Party stand up and describe its political philosophy - its manifesto? All we are hearing are promises to provide funding that eventually ends up in the coffers of Big Business.

 

I think GON might be right in refusing to vote. Whoever wins, the people will get screwed somehow.

[facthunter]

Silly suggestion. IF more of the USA people had bothered  to vote, we wouldn't have the situation there that we have now.  It's Possible that Under Trump they Won't geta free vote from now on. . Nev

[Marty_d]

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

We are going into an election and the Parties are still using the bread and circuses approach - trying to buy our votes. When was the last time you heard a Party stand up and describe its political philosophy - its manifesto? All we are hearing are promises to provide funding that eventually ends up in the coffers of Big Business.

 

I think GON might be right in refusing to vote. Whoever wins, the people will get screwed somehow.

I disagree.

 

If we don't participate in the process then we're as bad as all those idiots in the US who didn't vote to stop Trump.

[facthunter]

IF you can't be bothered to VOTE, don't whinge about the Outcome . APATHY Lets BAD things Happen. YOU are PART of the PROBLEM.  Nev

[octave]

In my opinion, the dreadful situation in the US is partly caused by the low voter turnout.  A non-vote is a vote for "I don't give a sh1t"   If you don't like the two-party dominance of our system then vote for an independent.  Even if your candidate does not win it still sends a message to the party analysts. In the US the Republicans benefit from a low voter turnout.

[onetrack]

It's a lot easier to manipulate a small turnout of voters, and it's even easier when you have multiple billions at your disposal. If we had a voting system like America has, Clive Palmer would already be our President - but with our better system, Clive has SFA chance of even having a say in running the country, and that has to be a very good thing.

[facthunter]

Clive's Pittance By Musk standards wouldn't matter a fig. SAUDI has a $#tload  of dough as does Australian Superfunds. Trumpet of PatRIOTS, Riotously funny. Silly B*gg*r, Nev

[old man emu]

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

I think GON might be right in refusing to vote.

I was being flippant.

[facthunter]

I would have to be clairvoyant to know when. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

7 hours ago, facthunter said:

IF you can't be bothered to VOTE, don't whinge about the Outcome . APATHY Lets BAD things Happen. YOU are PART of the PROBLEM.  Nev

This assumes people don't vote are apathetic. And I am sure for some, it is the case. But for others, it may be the case that they don't see an alternative that they want to vote for. It is for me. I have voted, but only when there is someone I would entrust my vote to. Even in Australia, I have cast blank ballots when there has been neither candidate nor party that I agreed with enough to vote. And one of the problems with an electorate based vote is you only get to choose amongst the candidates that stand in your seat. And sometimes, neither them not their parties were, IMHO, worthy of an endorsement. There is nothing wrong with this, and it is an equal expression of democracy as voting for someone.

 

This approach also assume democracy begins and ends with the ballot box. How many politicians have gone to the polls with policy and promises and failed to come close to living up to or implementing them. Democracy is continual participation - and just because one doesn't vote doesn't mean they can't complain.. because a politician or party may do something repugnant to what they stood for to attract that vote. Of course, if you voted for someone who did what they said they were going to do and it was bad, well, you can't really complain -that I get.

 

Thirdly, does apathy let bad things happen? Let's assume the, c. 40% who don't vote did actually vote.. Do you think there is any valid reason why that part of the electorate would vote materially differently to the way the rest of the voting public did? I would contend,. unless the demographics were materially different, that it would not be much different. And, as we have seen in the US elections were poor and depraved populations voted for Trump - why would you feel those that are apathetic would vote in different proportions to the rest of the population. In other words, it is probably likely Trump would have got in iv everyone were forced to freely vote. And bad things would still happen.

 

 

[old man emu]

31 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

How many politicians have gone to the polls with policy and promises and failed to come close to living up to or implementing them.

A person can ask for the job of representing an electorate, using their own reputation and support of a Party's plans and if they gain the majority of the support of the electorate get the job. Of course it's a job and they are paid to carry it out.

 

Isn't ironic that while the rest of the population is subject to annual performance assessments relating to their employment, politicians are only assessed at the time of the next election. Therefore, if the politician is a dud, there is no way the people of the electorate can either administer a warning for the politician to improve performance, or if the politician fails, to sack them before the end of the term.

[Marty_d]

It's pretty simple.

Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, you just start from the back, giving the last vote to the person/party you find most objectionable, working upwards til you give your first choice to the person or party you find least objectionable.

Even if you can't find anyone who aligns fully with your views, if you vote that way you're ensuring those you like least are put last.

[Litespeed]

Politics like is a participation sport.

 

If you don't get involved you loose.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

Regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, you just start from the back, giving the last vote to the person/party you find most objectionable, working upwards til you give your first choice to the person or party you find least objectionable.

I don't agree with that.. because it sends a false signal to the politicians that you approve of their policies and if they win enough, they don't unreasonably claim a mandate, which is not the intention of voting for the lest objectionable candidate, and nor shoudl the message be conveyed that they have a mandate.

 

I would love for one day, when there is only less objectionable rather than preferred candidates, that the vast majority of ballots returned are blank, and that gives the pollies pause for thought that they are not listening.

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

politicians are only assessed at the time of the next election.

At first I agreed, but on reflection, that's not entirely true. They are under constant public scrutiny by the media, and, should they lose support of the chamber, that chamber can expel them.

 

If enough political pressure is brought to bear, as in the case of Gladys Berijiklian, they will eventually resign from parliament. Generallky, the higher the profile, the more chance of either.

[facthunter]

The Speaker can remove them  from the chamber for a short time under certain conditions. The Electorate can dis endorse them. The Senate is another Matter. NOT as democratic.  Keating called them "Unrepresentative SWILL" Nev