Nov 24th Election

Vote lib and be permabanned ;)

OD

**** voting for Labor. :p

Jonny wants Telstra to pay for the fibre to node and let the other providers use it.

Unrealistic. He deserves the sack just for that. The future fund money should be spent.

liberal here

Not interested in voting at all here.

would you be interested to skip a fine?

Quote from Wrathlon;324716:
Not interested in voting at all here.

Just put in another vote for the rest of us then so you can avoid getting fined. Just vote for Labor. That way you don't have to think about it. ;)

To be perfectly honest Id happily pay the $50 fine if it meant I didnt have to say I want to vote for someone I dont want to vote for. I dont want to vote for anyone. It would simply be voting for who I dont like the least as opposed to who I want.

Quote:
All Australian citizens 18 years and older are required by law to enrol and vote in federal elections, including older Australians.

Quote:
I haven't been enrolled for the last XX years. Will I be penalised?

If you fill in an enrolment form now, you won't be penalised.

Where a person may have overlooked the responsibility to enrol and vote, the AEC's main interest is to ensure that eligible people do actually enrol.

Section 101 (7) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 states,

"Where a person sends or delivers a claim for enrolment, or for transfer of enrolment, to a Divisional Returning Officer or an Australian Electoral Officer, proceedings shall not be instituted against that person for any offence - committed before the claim was so sent or delivered."

This means that once a person gives the AEC a completed enrolment form, we cannot prosecute the person for not enrolling before, no matter how long he or she has technically been in breach of the law.

Therefore you can be assured that anyone who may have overlooked correct enrolment in the past and who decides to now enrol to vote a federal elections may do so without any fear of incurring a penalty.

http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Enrolment.htm

Quote:
Voting is Compulsory
? The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, under section 245(1), states:
?It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election?.
? Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling
place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and
take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it
in the ballot box.
? It is not the case, as some people have claimed, that it is only compulsory to attend the polling place and have your name marked off, and this has been
upheld by a number of legal decisions:
􀂙 High Court 1926 ? Judd v McKeon (1926) 38 CLR 380
􀂙 Supreme Court of Victoria 1970 ? Lubcke v Little [1970] VR 807
􀂙 High Court 1971 ? Faderson v Bridger (1971) 126 CLR 271
􀂙 Supreme Court of Queensland 1974 ? Krosch v Springbell; ex parte
Krosch [1974] QdR 107
􀂙 ACT Supreme Court 1981 ? O?Brien v Warden (1981) 37 ACTR 13
http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/voting/compulsory_voting.pdf

Quote from Wrathlon;324720:
To be perfectly honest Id happily pay the $50 fine if it meant I didnt have to say I want to vote for someone I dont want to vote for. I dont want to vote for anyone. It would simply be voting for who I dont like the least as opposed to who I want.

Don't think of it as voting for people, think of it as voting for policies. It really is quite important that you do vote and take it in mind how it'll affect your future. It's downright stupid to say you don't want to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party

arrr!

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/files/vote-a-matic2.html

See who you're beliefs suggest you should vote for.

Not particularly interested in either party.

I like the libs economic management and IR laws. I can't stand their retarded xenophobic immigration and terrorism policies. I also can't stand their social conservatism on things like gay marriage and stem cell research. I ****ing hate Tony Abbot.

Rudd doesn't seem too bad, but whether or not he sticks to the centrist image he's projecting at the moment if he wins is another matter. Rolling back the IR laws won't be good, though it's definately going to happen. Hopefully he sticks to his word about economic management.

I don't give two shits about the broadband issue, in my opinion it should be handled by the private market... or if the government is strongly compelled to build a fibre network, auction the contract to the lowest bidder. But I don't think it's particularly needed.

I think it's pretty clear Rudd will win.

Oh and that quiz is fairly simplistic =)

Quote:
Rolling back the IR laws won't be good, though it's definately going to happen. Sorry, are we even remotely thinking about the same IR laws here?

My problem is neither party has a full group of policies that I support. I support some from both sides and definately do not support some others. It's a double edged sword and Id rather remain undecided than to put my name to something I object to.

Try and prioritise rather than be an undecisive prat. You're going to end up with a majority party control of the country either way so you may as well vote for what you see would benefit the country the most.

Fence sitting pretty much means you should have no right in future to have an opinion (whinge) on any way the country is run.

if someone doesn't want to vote that's their call, and to call someone stupid and a prat for not voting is just downright ignorant, you can quote all the crap you want - there are literally tens of thousands of people that don't vote in australia; some because they cbf and some have valid reasons - get over yourself

Quote from Wrathlon;324731:
My problem is neither party has a full group of policies that I support.

Welcome to the real world.

Quote from Wrathlon;324720:
To be perfectly honest Id happily pay the $50 fine if it meant I didnt have to say I want to vote for someone I dont want to vote for. I dont want to vote for anyone. It would simply be voting for who I dont like the least as opposed to who I want.
you know that you can go there, write nothing on the paper and put it in the box.

Quote from mepm;324739:
if someone doesn't want to vote that's their call, and to call someone stupid and a prat for not voting is just downright ignorant, you can quote all the crap you want - there are literally tens of thousands of people that don't vote in australia; some because they cbf and some have valid reasons - get over yourself

Just because thousands of other ignorant hypocritical people do, it makes it right?

I'm yet to hear someone who would rather bury their head in the sand and not whinge and complain later on when the government makes changes that they don't agree with.

Quote from Hitokiri Kensuke;324704:
**** voting for Labor. :p

**** being serious - permabanned.

:D

Quote from Jay;324727:
Sorry, are we even remotely thinking about the same IR laws here?

surely we are.

I'm still betting Howard wins another election on seats, even tho more people voted for labor.

Rudd looks like a baby and howard looks like a retired grandpa. I wonder what would happen if Peter Garrett was head of labor? and if labor wins will he do his crazy dance for the nation?

i would totally vote for garrett just to see him dance :P

Quote from mepm;324739:
if someone doesn't want to vote that's their call, and to call someone stupid and a prat for not voting is just downright ignorant, you can quote all the crap you want - there are literally tens of thousands of people that don't vote in australia; some because they cbf and some have valid reasons - get over yourself

I'm sorry but that's just not how it works. Voting is a responsibility you have for being a citizen of this country (and as it turns out a perminant resident after so much time, which is fair). It's your obligation to vote, because while we pay for it in some part, it helps to keep out country running. The last thing we want is another America where it's not compulsary and then everybody whines and bitches when the 'guy' gets in we don't like.

Also Wrathlon, your arguement is flawed. The voting system is anonymous. You're not putting your name on anything, except letting them know you did vote. That's how the system works.

For once I agree with mepm; if someone doesn't want to vote, they shouldn't be forced.

If an individual has no interest in politics, no understanding of the parties and policies, and aren't willing to learn, then we shouldn't be making them vote. If they are just choosing someone for the hell of it, we're in big trouble and it's going to do more damage than good. It's going to make a vote for the opposite party by someone who actually has a clue and opinion completely void.

I have always thought of the government as a HUGE business! The idea of a business is to generate wealth and with the extra $$ in the bank to pump out where ever they want.

For a LONG time the Libs have generated a very successful business with most of Australian's benefiting. I dont understand why people always want a change when we have something so profitable to Australians.

All I really care about it the economy of Australia as if we start running into too much debt, shit can hit the fan like it did approximately 10 years ago.

Quote from Jay;324748:
Just because thousands of other ignorant hypocritical people do, it makes it right?

I'm yet to hear someone who would rather bury their head in the sand and not whinge and complain later on when the government makes changes that they don't agree with.

And if I pick a side and vote for them then bitch about their policies "Don't complain, you voted for them". You can't win in that scenario.

You can say "Well if you dont like any of it run your own party" well thats great and all, except I have no desire to and probably couldnt do any better - however that doesnt void my right to disagree with them all.

I agree with Jay. We have the right to vote and people who don't use that right deserve to go live in extremist countries where you have no say at all.

See how you like it then?

Its a case of I refuse to stand for what I dont believe in.

The way I see is that people are manipulated by the media, they don't reason their decisions themselves anymore. Hence our new world of stupid voting.

To be fair, just because there are some policies you can't agree with it doesn't make that party a completely irrelevant choice. Think about the policies you don't really agree with and try and figure out who benefits from them. The ones you don't like won't seem so uncertain afterall.

In the real world, you can't have all of the cake to yourself. You're not the only person who has to live in the country after all. ;)

Regarding IR Laws. If you support them. **** you.

the cake is a lie anyway

Quote from Jay;324802:

Regarding IR Laws. If you support them. **** you.

you make a compelling argument

just so i can understand, how are the IR laws bad?

The problem with non compulsory voting, is that it opens the potential for swaying of results by underhanded, technically "legal" means.

In London, a person I knew who lived there, always voted for the party that picked her up, drove her to the polling booth, and supplied lunch afterwards.

IMO this is worse than someone voting for someone they randomly choose, or voting informal. It's a BOUGHT vote. That's not democracy.

Quote from brownie;324805:
just so i can understand, how are the IR laws bad?

Yeah id like to see this answer aswell.

I'd also like to know what percentage of Australias workforce were actually impacted upon by the changes in IR laws.

I've been on an individually negotiated contract for years, so they have no impact on me whatsoever.

Quote from UnSCaRReD;324806:
IMO this is worse than someone voting for someone they randomly choose, or voting informal. It's a BOUGHT vote. That's not democracy.

Isn't democracy based on buying votes? =)

"I'll make this shiny thing happen IF you vote for me"

the benefit of the above is at least you get your cake up front. personally, I have sangger sandwiches from all the party's BBQs out front of the polling joints - "mmm yummy sammich! I'm voting for you for sure.. what was your name again?" .. move to next BBQ and repeat

Quote from UnSCaRReD;324809:
I'd also like to know what percentage of Australias workforce were actually impacted upon by the changes in IR laws.

I've been on an individually negotiated contract for years, so they have no impact on me whatsoever.

statisically speaking - from what i can gather from Peetz 2005 (work choices)

the difference between AWA and Collective Bargaining is AWA's give you approximately 2% less than Collective Agreements. The only instance where AWA's outweigh Collective Agreements is in Male Full time workers who can normally negoiate a better wage.

BTW - females on AWA's get approximately 5% less than if they were on collective agreements.

From what i can gather with these work choices of 2005 is that you cannot be put on an AWA if you have already signed an agreement (commenced work), but the government basically wants YOU to bargain by yourself to determine your own wage.

This imagination from being 'sacked' for no reason at all is complete bullshit as i know from experience and you can get complain to the fair trading act and sue your employer.

Quote from rec;324789:
For once I agree with mepm; if someone doesn't want to vote, they shouldn't be forced.

If an individual has no interest in politics, no understanding of the parties and policies, and aren't willing to learn, then we shouldn't be making them vote. If they are just choosing someone for the hell of it, we're in big trouble and it's going to do more damage than good. It's going to make a vote for the opposite party by someone who actually has a clue and opinion completely void.

In principle I agree with this, people shouldn't be forced to vote if they don't want to, if they have no knowledge of the candidates/policies/etc... unfortunately one of the outcomes of this (law of unintended consequences, anyone?) is that it shifts the balance of power towards vocal minority groups and away from the largely silent, or less vocal majority middle-ground.

Case in point, the USA. The political arena there is dominated by interest groups, lobbyists and extremely vocal minority groups because they can demonstrate the ability to get people to vote. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you, it matters how many people agree with you enough to get their lazy ass off the couch and into the polling booth. That's why it's often said whoever controls the evangelical christian vote in the states will win the election because they are a very motivated political group and they make up around 25% of the population (from memory).

And that is the last thing I would ever want to see in Australia =(

Quote from Jay;324802:
Regarding IR Laws. If you support them. **** you.

Well I'm glad that we could have a civilised conversation about them, anyway =)

Quote from UnSCaRReD;324809:
I'd also like to know what percentage of Australias workforce were actually impacted upon by the changes in IR laws.

I've been on an individually negotiated contract for years, so they have no impact on me whatsoever.

Approximately 4% of the workforce are on AWA's

I completely understand why voting in Aust. is compulsory, not that I like it.

I will be Donkey Voting again this year.
Not because I don't agree with any parties or have a particular bias, but moreso because I don't follow politics (and have no interest in it at all) and have absolutely no idea what they (the parties) stand for.

Id rather make a non-vote, than an uninformed one :)

Quote from uber tard;324813:
Well I'm glad that we could have a civilised conversation about them, anyway =)

Naturally. That's how politics is. ;)

Case in point about compulsory voting, people not voting gives particular groups more power.

Milenko must be part of those crazys that write Jesus onto the ballot and vote him number 1 :P

He actually writes Ragnaros [1]

Nah, Lady Vashj [1] =)

Vote 1 Morogrim. :(

Quote:
THE Government has unleashed its first big hit of the federal election campaign, announcing a plan to restructure the tax system to lower tax rates and raise the tax-free threshold.

Prime Minister John Howard and Treausurer Peter Costello have made their first joint appearance of the campaign to announce the plan, which would take effect over five years - well into a second term if Mr Costello became prime minister.

The plan would see the tax-free threshold raised to "4,000 next year, while the lowest tax rate would kick in on earnings over $34,000. Taxpayers would pay 30 cents in the dollar once they earn $80,000 a year and 40 cents at "80,000.

In following years, the top tax rates would be lowered while the tax-free threshold would be lifted again.

Mr Costello has said the goal of the restructure was to arrive at a tax-free threshold of $20,000 and for there to be only four marginal tax rates, with the top rate set at 40 cents in the dollar. However the Treasurer has only outlined precise numbers for the first three years.

Mr Costello has said the plan would see all Australians playing less tax, but would also keep the Budget in surplus. He said the tax cuts would cost about $34 billion over three years.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, who stumbled over the precise details of the marginal tax rates in a press conference before the official campaign began, has said Labor's tax policy will be released later in the campaign.

Questioned about the timing of the announcement - one day into a federal election campaign, Mr Howard said: "It's a very sensible, conservative, logical thing to do."

He said the tax reforms will help working mothers. "By the year 2010, 65 per cent of women with children in the part time work force will face a top marginal tax rate of no more than 15 per cent."

Mr Costello has said the Coalition's goal was to have 98 per cent of taxpayers paying no more than 35 cents in the dollar.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22587585-2,00.html

Good news, but still not good enough. Australians pay nearly 30% more tax than they paid under Keating, even adjusting for GST, inflation and population growth.

this is the tax reform australia had to have

I'll have to work twice as hard now to make my ax as blunt as possible when the poll runs this November... Johny is getting it for quite a number of reasons, but I'm still not confident of Kev's ideas. Kev has to work harder (at least in principle), to get his name on my ballot.

Quote from OverG;324842:
I'll have to work twice as hard now to make my ax as blunt as possible when the poll runs this November... Johny is getting it for quite a number of reasons, but I'm still not confident of Kev's ideas. Kev has to work harder (at least in principle), to get his name on my ballot.

I'm keen to know what makes you believe liberal is better for our future, rather than just the immediate now.

Some of the religious nutters I know have pretty much said as you have, without much validation for "howard" let alone just going "I don't like Kev's ideas".

As far as I've seen these sort of people don't really have a clue about policies and without much farsight into how the current progress will affect our future. They're just going "oh my other friends (religious-nuts) said so."

Just to see how the other side really thinks rather than just "oh well..."

I hate voting as much as the next guy - but not voting is a vote against democracy. that's about as simple as it gets.

actively choosing not to make your own choice as to who you want representing you, just means you're actively letting others decide your future.

considering the freedoms we have, explain to me again how that isn't hypocritical?

*shrug*

how is not voting against democracy?

voting is not a duty, its a right.

there is only a handful of countries that enforce mandatory voting, are you calling all these other democratic countries "un-democratic"?

this includes the UK, you remember them right? the ones that run the commonwealth that we are members of....

mandatory voting = lots of donkey-votes

but go ahead keep on believing that, as that is you opinion and i respect that. i'm not about to go and call you "stupid" just because i believe different, unlike some people

That we have the right to vote is enough to stipulate that it's our duty to vote to preserve our method of democratic. People ****en killed other people just to get the right to vote in places around the world.

Where it isn't mandatory to vote, notably further media wrought countries like America there's a disturbing trend that votes are literally bought. By everyone having to vote it works to make it unreasonable to throw money at people to vote.

Originally, everybody gave a shit about being able to vote. People easily had reason to vote. People not voting because they don't feel like it breaks a number of checks and balances.

Commonwealth. The British do not "run" the commonwealth anymore. It's simply a bunch of independent countries that were once under British rule. There's lots of legacy legislation in commonwealth countries that include "The Crown" and so forth, but there's hardly anything run by them. Hell countries can leave at any time.

Meanwhile I fail to see how the commonwealth comes into your poorly justified argument. Monkey? Pineapple?

For reference, our political/legal system was modeled off both Britain and America.

Quote from mepm;324884:
voting is not a duty, its a right.
imo, voting is a right and a duty.

it's your right because by being australian, you're granted certain freedoms. privileges that include having a say as to the direction of how you want to live your life and who should govern it. and it's your duty to ensure the continuance of those freedoms.

you're not just voting for your own future - you're voting for the continued preservation of the same principles other australians have already laid down their lives to preserve for you.

edit: and its undemocratic in this sense;
you have the freedom to vote, to choose. and by not voting, you're giving up that choice.
it's no skin off my nose if people donkey vote.

by giving up your choice to vote, you're willingly placing the direction of your future into unknown hands. you're condoning a course of action that leads to others making decisions about your life for you. and what's worse, you don't seem to care ;)

It's our right for freedom of religion as well, doesn't mean we have to exercise that right.

Just because we have a right to do something, doesn't mean we have to do it.
That's kinda the whole idea behind rights, you have a RIGHT to exercise them and that same RIGHT to not.

As for the commonwealth, it was quite simply the fact that the UK does not have mandatory voting, i fail to see how stating that our legal system is based of both the UK and the US helps your argument, considering both of them don't enforce mandatory voting...

and no, countries cannot just "leave" at any time, there are processes involved and the countries that have left in the past have either done so via force, or in more recent years with England's blessing.

Monkey? Pineapple?

garbage. there are many religions. but there's only one australian government.

picking a religion is mandatory. even an athiest chooses not to believe.

you don't choose not to have a government.

bs mate

Amazing google images powers you have there.

Countries can leave at any time. It's a voluntary association.

By wanting to not exercise your right, you're allowing the more active groups gain over represented power.

The reason I mentioned the UK/US as where our legal system was based off is because their legal systems are more mature and without mandatory voting, it gives us an idea what happens if everybody's ideals are not represented in voting.

Quote from doyen;324913:
picking a religion is mandatory. even an athiest chooses not to believe.

just a sidenote (i disagree quite strongly with mepm actually) - religion is definitely not mandatory. there are many agnostics out there. actually there are plenty of people who simply don't have an opinion as well.

Isn't Agnosticism a religion also?

Well the name of anyway.

i thought it was pretty much the belief that nobody can possibly know if there is a greater power, so why worry?

anyway sort of derailing the thread here.

yeh, I used the term mandatory pretty broadly :)

but as far as I know, even an agnostic makes the conscious choice to dismiss the possibility of a greater power.

simply put, the act of voting may be mandatory here, but you still have the choice not to vote. there's just consequences if you get caught. I just happen to believe that forcing people to exercise their freedom of choice is a great way to ensure we don't slip into apathy.

if you apply the same thinking to religion; you choose or don't choose a faith, and if its the wrong choice - you get to find out if there's consequences at the other end.

anyway, no more mixing politics/religion debating for me - it's way too hard to maintain an argument :p

The 'right' to religious freedom includes your right to not be religious. Something that will get you killed in many parts of the world. So simply put whether you are religious or not you are practicing your freedom of religion 'right'.

Quote from El Presidente;324840:
Good news, but still not good enough. Australians pay nearly 30% more tax than they paid under Keating, even adjusting for GST, inflation and population growth.

yes but Australia was also in heaps of debt due to poor governmenting. The CLP party may have raised the taxes but it helped our economy.

The things I have a problem with is

- Middle class is disappearing. The rich are getting richer and the middle class are streaming towards poverty. The dream of owning your own home is drifting further and further away.

- The hideous amounts of money being spent on government advertising. Why can't it be like America and they have to pay their own ways (get company sponsership etc) I heard on the radio it was something like 111 million dollars for the workplace ads 4 million a week on trying to make us think they were good. (I never had an issue with them but I didn't care about the ads)

Surely that money could have gone to sometime else?

political parties here do have to pay for their own adverts etc, but informational stuff relating to policy put into play by the ruling party is through federal coffers - pretty sure that's the same in the states.

raising taxes rarely, if ever helps the economy.

Quote from doyen;324928:

but as far as I know, even an agnostic makes the conscious choice to dismiss the possibility of a greater power.

no. agnostics come to the conclusion that there may or may not be a greater power, but they'll never know one way or the other. its the ultimate in fence sitting.

but they still come to that conclusion based on a conscious decision.

people can be ignorant of politics, but just about every culture or country in the entire world has some form of religion that can't really be ignored because its belted into you as a child. although thats not really happening as much as it once did.

i was taking exception to the definition of agnosticism, not the method by which that belief system is arrived at.

Quote from paladin;325008:
no. agnostics come to the conclusion that there may or may not be a greater power, but they'll never know one way or the other. its the ultimate in fence sitting.
fair enough ;)

I'd still argue that by not making a choice however, you already have.

NO ITZ NOT U R LIAR

srsly stop lieing.

Quote from uber tard;325005:
raising taxes rarely, if ever helps the economy.

Raising taxes and taking money off us lowers our spending, which puts downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. Fairly simplistic view but basically true, so it can help the economy. Plus if the extra money is spent in the right way on the right things that can also help our economy.

not really. well the part about spending it the right way (infrastructure) is isn't too far off the mark.

trying to lower consumption to ease inflationary pressures by raising taxes is probably one of the worst ways you could go about it. firstly, raising taxes increases the leakage of money out of the economy. so when the inflationary pressures have gone, the economy won't be running as effectively as it did before the taxes were introduced. and sooner or later the government is going to have to spend that money. increased government expenditure crowds out private investment. lower investment means a lower gdp growth rate over the long term = bad.

secondly, higher taxes mean lower business confidence which means less investment which means lower gdp growth which means everybody is worse off even after the inflationary pressures are gone.

thirdly, trying to influence the macroeconomic conditions of a small open economy through fiscal policy (tax, g'ment expenditure) is usually not effective and destabilising. i won't go into a technical explanation why but if your interested look up the IS-LM-BP or Mundell-Fleming models. monetary policy is much more effective and it's results much easier to predict in an open economy.

that's why we have a reserve bank conducting inflationary targetting and monetary policy.

edit: oh and taxes require legislation which takes time. by the time the taxes are introduced the pressures will likely have gone, or changed. then you have to take into account the time lag between policy intervention and its effect on the economy. it's difficult enough to do this with monetary policy, trying to do it with fiscal policy ends in tears as clearly seen by the collapse of keynesian economics which was the mainstream view through the 60s-70s.

heh, i realise you meant on a fairly simplistic level, but im an economics student and can't help myself =)

I agree with mepm on this voting is a right and we have the right to not vote hense why were considered a free country.

As for it beening maniditory thats just what some party decided to make a policy NOT the general population of Australia and to all those that say its our duty to vote answer me this how is it our duty?

Inorder to leave the commanwealth you have to go through set processes so yes you can leave but you can't just do it over night takes an extended period and lots of paper work.

... my head asplode.

We need a catz photoshop genius here....

I'm in ur economees,
stealin ur dollarz.

with the face of Rudd or Howard ? :p

Quote from Frenzy;325137:
We need a catz photoshop genius here....

I'm in ur economees,
stealin ur dollarz.

Some already!

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22600608-5012863,00.html

well i did it in paint, hope its alright :)

Well I know who Im voting for now :p

Quote from neoblazer;325135:
I agree with mepm on this voting is a right and we have the right to not vote hense why were considered a free country.

As for it beening manidtory thats just what some party decided to make a policy NOT the general population of Australia and to all those that say its our duty to vote answer me this how is it our duty?

Inorder to leave the commanwealth you have to go through set processes so yes you can leave but you can't just do it over night takes an extended period and lots of paper work.

Forget to pass Year 5 English? Also given the context of what you've said, it shows you have a complete lack of understanding how our political system works let alone about the Commonwealth.

Why is it people who are interested in politics feel the need to talk down to those of us who dont give a ****? Sure it affects us but doesnt mean we have to involve ourselves.

Say we run out of power and need to build a new powerplant but the government says OK lets put it to a vote - should the people that dont vote at all now be disallowed electricity because they didnt care?

Sure its a hyperbole but the logic is the same.

That's fine, just don't blame the government for every little problem in your life :P Obviously an exaggeration, but if you don't care about the government that gets voted in, then you don't care what that government does.

I never said i had the best grammer or english jay so keep the personal attacks to yourself because it only makes you look ignorant.

I understand politics I just don't care to involve myself in them I still vote just means like the majority I donkey my vote unless a party truely has something to offer.

Quote from Wrathlon;325153:

Say we run out of power and need to build a new powerplant but the government says OK lets put it to a vote - should the people that dont vote at all now be disallowed electricity because they didnt care?

yes.

^^
Agreed and also the people who said no.

OK let me put it another way:

Party 1 says "Free chocolate to everyone who votes for us"
Party 2 says "Free ice cream to everyone who votes for us"

51% vote party 1
49% vote party 2

Should party 2 then be denied any of the benefits of party because less than not care they actively voted against it.

I commented on your spelling because your post was painful to read, let alone try and decipher what you were trying to say.

You may say you understand politics but the way you comment on things shows that you aren't even able to grasp the base concepts such as the checks and balances in place.

Quote from neoblazer:
As for it beening maniditory thats just what some party decided to make a policy NOT the general population of AustraliaFunnily enough the decision to pass mandatory voting was made by the party in power at the time, the party in power was representative of the general population.

Quote from neoblazer:
and to all those that say its our duty to vote answer me this how is it our duty?If you had read through the thread, you'd see that it was already explained. If those aren't in enough detail, there are many textbooks out there justifying well and clearly the reasons for it. If you had even just simply googled yourself you'd know this already.

Quote from neoblazer:
Inorder to leave the commanwealth you have to go through set processes so yes you can leave but you can't just do it over night takes an extended period and lots of paper work.The Commonwealth has no real exertion of power over any of its membership countries (except one or two minor developing nations possibly). There's paperwork in everything, by saying that you're grasping at straws to come up with some excuse to rebut the point that a country can't leave the commonwealth at any time. In practicality, they can leave at any time.

Quote from Wrathlon;325171:
OK let me put it another way:

Party 1 says "Free chocolate to everyone who votes for us"
Party 2 says "Free ice cream to everyone who votes for us"

51% vote party 1
49% vote party 2

Should party 2 then be denied any of the benefits of party because less than not care they actively voted against it.

So everybody's voted and made a choice? No problem. It's majority rules.

Just means you have to have chocolate whether you like it or not.

Quote from Jay;325172:
Funnily enough the decision to pass mandatory voting was made by the party in power at the time, the party in power was representative of the general population.

So if labor gets voted in, and say 2 years in they decide to tax everyone by 50% and abolish the tax free threshold completely then everyone who voted for them clearly supports that as they are representative of the general population.

Sure extreme but the logic still stands.

Quote from Wrathlon;325175:
So if labor gets voted in, and say 2 years in they decide to tax everyone by 50% and abolish the tax free threshold completely then everyone who voted for them clearly supports that as they are representative of the general population.

Sure extreme but the logic still stands.

If you voted, then you get the right to have a say (whinge).

Just because you voted for them doesn't mean you have to support every single policy they bring forth. In that situation it'd be a breach of trust and it'd be suicide for the political party in power.

If you don't vote, then you should take it like the bitch you are.

Quote from Jay;325178:
If you voted, then you get the right to have a say (whinge).

Just because you voted for them doesn't mean you have to support every single policy they bring forth. In that situation it'd be a breach of trust and it'd be suicide for the political party in power.

If you don't vote, then you should take it like the bitch you are.

Well aside from proving that political fanatics are just as self important and ****ed in the head as religious fanatics with that last comment, my example might be extreme but you said:

Quote from Jay;325172:
Funnily enough the decision to pass mandatory voting was made by the party in power at the time, the party in power was representative of the general population.

And thus implied they voted so they support it. Im not saying it wasnt supported but pointing out that isnt necessarily the case.

yes but by voting for your prefered party mean you are therefore intrusting them the future anyway jay.

So lets say you vote for johnny he promises a bunch of bull but doesn't do it (as all polititions do) he makes the decisions not us yes we chose him but in the end its not our duty its still a RIGHT because we don't have the final say johnny does. Yes he chosen by us once he is in office he decides.

I'm not sure I understand the argument any more :p

We're a society based on a simple principle (or atleast we were) - a fair go.

Now, if people aren't willing to vote - chances are they're exactly the people dealing with the problems that need to be addressed by government.

They're either under hardship, or feeling the pinch, or scraping by, or deposed by circumstances (to steal a page from Pres's book).

You either make it mandatory for them to vote, or you let them continue to spiral down the rabbity hole, concerns unheard.

If you still get up to the booth and donkey vote - then that's your own problem, imo. The government's given you a pretty ****en fair go at trying to voice your opinions.

Scrooge MacCat!

Quote from doyen;325187:
I'm not sure I understand the argument any more :p

We're a society based on a simple principle (or atleast we were) - a fair go.

Now, if people aren't willing to vote - chances are they're exactly the people dealing with the problems that need to be addressed by government.

They're either under hardship, or feeling the pinch, or scraping by, or deposed by circumstances (to steal a page from Pres's book).

You either make it mandatory for them to vote, or you let them continue to spiral down the rabbity hole, concerns unheard.

If you still get up to the booth and donkey vote - then that's your own problem, imo. The government's given you a pretty ****en fair go at trying to voice your opinions.

Yes the goverment has but time and time again they have proven they don't listen so no matter what we do were up the shitcreek because we vote them in and in the end we will still suffer.