Federal Election

[red750]

In church last Sunday a sweet elderly lady was overheard in the pew next to me saying a prayer.

 

It was so innocent and sincere that I just had to share it with you:

 

"Dear Lord: The past year has been very tough for me.

 

You have taken ...

 

My favourite actor - James Garner;

 

My favourite actress - Lauren Bacall;...

 

My favourite comedian - Robin Williams;

 

And finally, my favourite author -Tom Clancy.

 

I just wanted you to know that my favourite politicians are -

 

Bill Shorten, Chris Bowen, Jacki Trad,

 

Sarah Hanson-Young and Clive Palmer.

 

Amen!"

 

 

[willedoo]

Here's a slightly interesting fact check from the leader's debate. A word of warning - it's from the ABC, undoubtedly left wing, pinko propaganda.

 

Fact Check looked at key claims from the debate. This is what we found

 

 

[old man emu]

Oh! There was a televised debate between Shorten and ScoMo? I was so enthralled by the Test Pattern that I completely missed the debate.

 

 

[red750]

They still have test patterns?

 

 

[old man emu]

Someone has to test these patterns

 

[ATTACH]50047._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[Litespeed]

I don't think there is much relevance between Bill and Barnaby in the affair stakes.

 

Bill was honest from the start and did not make up excuses, misstruths and run about slandering even his girlfriend by saying it might not be his child.

 

Barnaby even used the press to make money from it but refused to speak with payment.

 

Barnaby was sleeping with a employee paid by the taxpayer. He was only months earlier campaigning on family values and the same sex marriage debate, at the same time as his affair.

 

It was these values he said was the difference between him and the rest. He was found to be a hypocrite.

 

 

[old man emu]

Does your opinion that no politician is worth voting for give you a valid reason for not voting?

 

In Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271, the High Court on appeal Chief Justice Barwick stated:

 

… However much the elector may say he has no personal preference for any candidate, that none of them will suit him,

he is not asked that question nor required to express by his vote that opinion.

He is asked to express a preference amongst those who are available for election

. That is to state (

say

) which of them, if he must have one or more of them as Parliamentary representatives, as he must, to mark down his vote in an order of preference of them. (Barwick did not express this final point in plain English)

This judicial statement opens another can of worms as the Chief Justice actually used the words " to mark down his vote in an order of preference of them." Does that mean that in order to comply with the legal precedent made by Barwick, one has to show an electoral official that you have marked you ballot paper? But we have the system of secret voting. How can you prove compliance with the requirement to mark the ballot paper, yet not disclose to whom you gave your vote?

 

Does attending a polling booth; having your attendance recorded and receiving a ballot paper, yet not making a mark on that paper still constitute compliance with the Electoral Act (Failure to vote in an election is an offence under subsection 245(15) of the Electoral Act)?

 

 

[Marty_d]

Look, the simple fact is, if you want to "break the law" and do a donkey vote, unless you're stupid enough to admit it under oath there's no way they'd be able to convict you of it.

 

Get your name ticked off, take your paper, go into the booth and do whatever the hell you like. But if you like democracy then take some personal responsibility for continuing it and vote for whoever you consider the least worst choice.

 

 

[spacesailor]

They only use your attendance as your compliance of marking your voting paper.

 

I asked at the last state election, ( I could not find an Animal to vote for )

 

what a wast of paper & time !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

Well, I voted today and if for nothing else I voted for democracy, the least worst system. I am not actually convinced the politicians are any worse than in the past.

 

 

[old man emu]

No, a "donkey vote" can only be expressed by actually marking the ballot paper. I meant that you get the paper, but do not pen to it, so that it is as free of marks as it was when you were given it.

 

A donkey vote is simply putting numbers in the boxes in counting sequence. 1,2,3,..... Most people do a donkey vote by numbering top to bottom, but a donkey vote can also be from bottom to top. I suppose one could call a "scattered aces" numbering a donkey vote. However, how do you distinguish a ballot paper numbered similarly to the described donkey vote formats from the ballot paper of a person who considered opinion resulted in a ballot paper numbered like a donkey vote?

 

 

[Marty_d]

No, a "donkey vote" can only be expressed by actually marking the ballot paper. I meant that you get the paper, but do not pen to it, so that it is as free of marks as it was when you were given it.

A donkey vote is simply putting numbers in the boxes in counting sequence. 1,2,3,..... Most people do a donkey vote by numbering top to bottom, but a donkey vote can also be from bottom to top. I suppose one could call a "scattered aces" numbering a donkey vote. However, how do you distinguish a ballot paper numbered similarly to the described donkey vote formats from the ballot paper of a person who considered opinion resulted in a ballot paper numbered like a donkey vote?

You don't. There is no difference. If the ballot is correctly filled out (ie enough boxes numbered) then it's a valid vote, regardless of the motivation of the voter.

 

I thought a "donkey" vote was any spoiling of the paper, or not filling it in at all. My mistake.

 

 

[willedoo]

old man emu is right, Marty. The term donkey vote only refers to marking the ballot paper in order -eg: 1,2,3,4,5 in preference from the top down. That's why pollies are happy when they draw the top spot on the ballot paper, as they pick up the donkey vote as well. Some might go from the bottom up as o.m.e. suggested, but from the top down is most common. What you're talking about is an informal vote - any ballot paper not marked or not marked correctly. A donkey vote is marked correctly in that all boxes are filled in.

 

 

[octave]

old man emu is right, Marty. The term donkey vote only refers to marking the ballot paper in order -eg: 1,2,3,4,5 in preference from the top down. That's why pollies are happy when they draw the top spot on the ballot paper, as they pick up the donkey vote as well. Some might go from the bottom up as o.m.e. suggested, but from the top down is most common. What you're talking about is an informal vote - any ballot paper not marked or not marked correctly. A donkey vote is marked correctly in that all boxes are filled in.

Yes, I was surprised to learn that but it does beg the question of how an individual ballot paper can be declared a donkey vote rather than a voter who genuinely wanted to vote for the candidates in the order that they happen to be printed.

 

 

[willedoo]

Have a listen to this garbage. Our great defender of the little Aussie battler.

 

This is the same person who's vote enabled the government to pass the social security reform bill a year ago. It screwed over widows, carers, the unemployed, and yes - those farmers needing centrelink assistance. The same ones she's pretending to shed tears over. It's disgusting. I've said it before to her fans - check her voting record if you want to see the real deal.

 

Save your tears Pauline. It’s all your fault

 

 

[old man emu]

Donkey votes may occur for several reasons, including voter apathy, protest voting, simplicity on How-to-vote cards, the complexity of the voting system, or voter ignorance of the voting system rules. Alternatively, what appears as a donkey vote may in fact be a genuine representation of a voter's preferences.

 

A ballot marked in this way is just as legally binding as a ballot paper that a voter has given real thought to where the numbers were placed. The term is basically an insult directed towards the order in which candidates' names appear on the ballot paper as a result of the names being drawn at random by the Electoral Officer. That means that if Mr Zimeroski, representing the "I'm alright mate, fvck you" party draws the top position on the ballot paper, the Libs and Labor candidates will say after the election that most of the votes for Mr Z were donkey votes.

 

However, watch the major parties suck up to the independent whose name is at the top of the ballot paper so that the independent's preferences will be directed to one of them.

 

 

[facthunter]

The donkey vote is significant as there's always plenty of donkeys.. Producing children has nothing to do with intelligence. Nev

 

 

[red750]

Secutiry Alert from the Dept of Home Affairs.

 

[ATTACH]50048._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

[old man emu]

Analyse the words used in that "Security Alert" and you will see that this is not written in Government style. Also, the Dept of Home Affairs doesn't deal with matters such as these. If any Government body was to be sending out a warning such as this, it would the the Australian Electoral Commission.

 

Although the origin of the message might be bogus, there's no denying that the warning to protect your ID is worthwhile.

 

 

[facthunter]

You are kidding us.... aren't you, Red? Nev

 

 

[red750]

Copied from bookface.

 

 

[old man emu]

A highly respected and accurate source at all times.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"t this is not written in Government style."

 

GOLDPLATED

 

Of course, payed by Taxpayers. LoL

 

spacesailoe

 

 

[willedoo]

It's been amusing watching some of the attack ads on tv and youtube. Both sides are good at it and they can be effective due to the fact that a large percentage of voters are inherently stupid, or if not, incredibly naive.

 

The latest Liberal one is good. They're pushing that same old rusty barrow with the flat tire carrying their mantra of don't trust Labor with the books; they can't manage money.

 

The most imaginative thing they can come up with is the fact that Labor has saddled us with 240 billion in deficits. That's the figure they get from adding together the deficits of six budgets delivered by the Rudd/Gillard governments. By their own reasoning, the Libs have saddled us with 146 billion in deficits. Over five budgets, that's an average of 30 billion per year compared to 40 billion per year under Labor. Factored in is the fact that the Libs had an easy run with no GFC meltdown to deal with.

 

The Liberals are master magicians when it comes to purposely confusing deficit and debt to suck in the unwary voters. As we all know, debt has doubled under the Libs, but you don't see scomo bragging about that one.

 

A government budget is similar to a household budget in that it's an expression of government earnings against outlays for that year. Our deficits are small fish in the scheme of things, and with global interest rates at record lows, are quite a good investment in the future to enable economy growing infrastructure to be paid for. Earnings and outlays per year are very close, with the difference being a budget surplus or deficit. Overall, a Labor deficit of 40 billion or a Liberal deficit of 30 billion is not that big with government earnings being in the vicinity of 480 billion. Most developed nations run deficits for a good reason. One problem with surpluses is that historically they can often be followed by recessions.

 

Another furphy is this bit about saddling your children and childrens children with debt. Countries all over the world will always carry debt; that's how they pay for things, just like we borrow to buy a car and house then pay it off. As countries and populations grow, they will always borrow. When one loan reaches it's end and is settled, another is taken out. It's been that way for generations and will be for generations.

 

On the subject of deficits, the only way to not have them is outlay less than incoming receipts. Government spending as a % of GDP has been quite constant around 25% or a little less going back to the 70's no matter whether the government has been Liberal or Labor.

 

I just wish these clowns would try being honest for a change. If the only shot in their locker is relying on the stupidity of voters, it's not a very good game plan.

 

 

[old man emu]

The most important consideration is whether the debt incurred is good debt or bad debt. Good debt is an investment that will grow in value or generate long-term income. Bad debt is debt incurred to purchase things that quickly lose their value and do not generate long-term income.

 

Debt need not indicate a weak economy. It’s important to understand that debt—money owed—is by definition negative, and can never be positive. As long as a country needs to finance anything expensive, whether it’s health, education or transport infrastructure, that country will need to issue some form of debt. As for deficit, it’s simply the negative version of surplus. Take a nation’s revenue, subtract its expenditures, there's its deficit.

 

Raising government revenue is relatively easy. Just apply force, by increasing taxes. Theoretically, it should be easy for national receipts to outpace spending, thereby “earning” a country a surplus. So, when the Conservatives crow about "bringing the Budget back into surplus" it simply means that either they have either jacked up the taxes, or have stopped spending tax income. It seems counter intuitive, but a balanced budget or a surplus budget are actually both no good for the population. A balanced budget means that the Government is maintaining the status quo, while a surplus budget means that it is reducing expenditure on its responsibilities.

 

Was it wrong for the Rudd/Gilliard governments to spend the government's surplus? Well, it did make us weather the Global Financial Crisis better than most other countries. The problem was probably that the money was spent not too wisely. Was it right for Howard to create a budget surplus? That was hording money contrary to the commonwealth of the people. Commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. The noun "commonwealth", meaning "public welfare general good or advantage" dates from the 15th century. "Commonwealth" was first proposed as a term for a federation of the six Australian crown colonies at the 1891 constitutional convention in Sydney. Its adoption was initially controversial, as it was associated by some with the republicanism of Oliver Cromwell (see above), but it was retained in all subsequent drafts of the constitution. So, in an Australian context, the term "Commonwealth" refers to the federal government, and "Commonwealth of Australia" is the official name of the country.

 

Interestingly, the Australian Government (Little Johnny's mob) decided in June 2003 that common branding would apply to all Australian Government departments and agencies. All references to the ‘Commonwealth Government’ or ‘Federal Government’ must now be to the ‘Australian Government’ in all cases and on all products.