Stop, I want to get off

[Footy Smarts]

What and vote for the islamaphobe xenaphon?

I voted informally because I oppose the refugee policies of both Parties. I can't see that changing while both support offshore indefinite detention.

It's pretty simple. If there are 501 people in the electorate then your preferred candidate needs 245 of the other 500 people to get in if you vote formal. If you vote informal they now need 246 of the other 500 to get in.

Basically everyone who votes informal means their preferred candidate needs an extra 0.5 votes from the rest of the population to get to 50%. All you're doing is make it harder for your preferred (or least disliked) candidate to get in.

 

[pjcrows]

Well if you're voting informal you're making it harder to get rid of the major parties which is apparently what you're trying to do. I'd say that's pretty ignorant and moronic.

I'd say it's ignorant and moronic to think that the system will change by voting for parties led by Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott.

 

[pjcrows]

It's pretty simple. If there are 501 people in the electorate then your preferred candidate needs 245 of the other 500 people to get in if you vote formal. If you vote informal they now need 246 of the other 500 to get in.

Basically everyone who votes informal means their preferred candidate needs an extra 0.5 votes from the rest of the population to get to 50%. All you're doing is make it harder for your preferred (or least disliked) candidate to get in.

We know the maths. I've voted properly in every election except for 2013. This one was different. Least disliked? They both didn't deserve my attention let alone my democratic vote.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It's pretty simple. If there are 501 people in the electorate then your preferred candidate needs 245 of the other 500 people to get in if you vote formal. If you vote informal they now need 246 of the other 500 to get in.

Basically everyone who votes informal means their preferred candidate needs an extra 0.5 votes from the rest of the population to get to 50%. All you're doing is make it harder for your preferred (or least disliked) candidate to get in.

This is the whole point - I don't have a preferred candidate - I don't even have a least disliked candidate any more. Never been at this point, I've always had a redeeming something about someone.

I despise them all and would rather not participate.

FFS. The Libe wouldn't know the first thing about the economy. Abbott and Hockey? Christ. And social justice? WTF do Labor do? Lock up innocent people on deserted islands for years without trial? Introduce new taxes on everyone when they could make the same money by cracking tax dodging corporations and the wealthy and making them pay their share? You know, the ones who don't vote for them anyway?

They're all *in useless.

The problem for me with minor parties is the preferences.

As for the goose who suggested informal voting was "cool", grow up. It's very, very uncool.

 

[Footy Smarts]

I'd say it's ignorant and moronic to think that the system will change by voting for parties led by Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott.

We know the maths. I've voted properly in every election except for 2013. This one was different. Least disliked? They both didn't deserve my attention let alone my democratic vote.

I thought you were smarter than to vote informal based purely on 2 terrible party leaders.

So you don't care about the $2.50 in electoral funding you denied your favored local candidate? Both major party candidates were so terrible that neither were worth voting for? You didn't care about the impact your ALP candidate might have on the party considering Rudd was never going to hang around as opposition leader?

There's a whole lot of reasons to vote and putting ALP above the coalition or visa versa in no way means you're voting for the leader of that party. Either Abbott or Rudd was going to be PM anyway, no need to get all honorable about it and pretend that if you vote informal that somehow makes it all ok. All it does is make it more likely by making your preferred candidate (obviously not from the majors) less likely to get in.

 

[Footy Smarts]

This is the whole point - I don't have a preferred candidate - I don't even have a least disliked candidate any more. Never been at this point, I've always had a redeeming something about someone.

If you can't find anything positive about any of the candidates for your seat then you either have ridiculously high standards or aren't trying.

 

[pjcrows]

I thought you were smarter than to vote informal based purely on 2 terrible party leaders.

So you don't care about the $2.50 in electoral funding you denied your favored local candidate? Both major party candidates were so terrible that neither were worth voting for? You didn't care about the impact your ALP candidate might have on the party considering Rudd was never going to hang around as opposition leader?

There's a whole lot of reasons to vote and putting ALP above the coalition or visa versa in no way means you're voting for the leader of that party. Either Abbott or Rudd was going to be PM anyway, no need to get all honorable about it and pretend that if you vote informal that somehow makes it all ok. All it does is make it more likely by making your preferred candidate (obviously not from the majors) less likely to get in.

I understand what you say and always respect your posts as we are often on the same page.

Look I consider myself more engaged in politics than most. But in 2013 I honestly didn't give a s**t. It was that dire. If that makes me ignorant for one electoral cycle then fine.

 

[Maggie5]

If you can't find anything positive about any of the candidates for your seat then you either have ridiculously high standards or aren't trying.

Unless they are Independents, then irrespective you are voting for a party that you don't like.
What is the point then of finding anything positive about the individual, says too much about the party they are supporting?

 

[Gough]

I thought you were smarter than to vote informal based purely on 2 terrible party leaders.

So you don't care about the $2.50 in electoral funding you denied your favored local candidate? Both major party candidates were so terrible that neither were worth voting for? You didn't care about the impact your ALP candidate might have on the party considering Rudd was never going to hang around as opposition leader?

There's a whole lot of reasons to vote and putting ALP above the coalition or visa versa in no way means you're voting for the leader of that party. Either Abbott or Rudd was going to be PM anyway, no need to get all honorable about it and pretend that if you vote informal that somehow makes it all ok. All it does is make it more likely by making your preferred candidate (obviously not from the majors) less likely to get in.

With preferential voting my vote would have ended up with either the ALP or the Libs and both have policies towards refugees that I can't endorse. I don't like voting informally, many have died for what I frittering away but as it stands it's my only option.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Unless they are Independents, then irrespective you are voting for a party that you don't like.
What is the point then of finding anything positive about the individual, says too much about the party they are supporting?

They could be any number of parties that the person might like despite hating the majors. If you hate the majors but like PUP then voting informal makes it harder for PUP to with the seat. Same for any other party or independent.

There are plenty of major party members who defy the norm. In 2013 I had Cath Bowtell standing in my seat who was a very fine candidate despite the party being a shambles with Rudd as a terrible leader. In the recent Victorian election I had a young, intelligent, capable, female Liberal candidate in my seat so I put her ahead of the Labor candidate who I didn't know much about. There are often candidates who will alter the makeup of the party if they're elected and often if the party is terrible at that point in time these are great people to put in.

Just saying "both leaders are s**t so I'm voting informal" is incredibly juvenile and ultimately counter-productive.

 

[Maggie5]

They could be any number of parties that the person might like despite hating the majors. If you hate the majors but like PUP then voting informal makes it harder for PUP to with the seat. Same for any other party or independent.

There are plenty of major party members who defy the norm. In 2013 I had Cath Bowtell standing in my seat who was a very fine candidate despite the party being a shambles with Rudd as a terrible leader. In the recent Victorian election I had a young, intelligent, capable, female Liberal candidate in my seat so I put her ahead of the Labor candidate who I didn't know much about. There are often candidates who will alter the makeup of the party if they're elected and often if the party is terrible at that point in time these are great people to put in.

Just saying "both leaders are s**t so I'm voting informal" is incredibly juvenile and ultimately counter-productive.

Just saying "both leaders are s**t so I'm voting informal" is incredibly juvenile and ultimately counter-productive.
I never said that!

 

[Footy Smarts]

With preferential voting my vote would have ended up with either the ALP or the Libs and both have policies towards refugees that I can't endorse. I don't like voting informally, many have died for what I frittering away but as it stands it's my only option.

And what have you achieved by voting informal? If you'd voted for the Greens (just picking them since they're the best known party who oppose the current refugee policy) then they'd get an extra $2.50 in funding to fight for causes like changing the refugee policy. If 1 in 10 of the people who voted informal last election did so for your reason then that's about $200k that should've gone to parties promoting alternative refugee policies that didn't. That sort of reasoning costs causes people care about a lot of money.

And what did you achieve? Nothing. We've still got those refugee policies and the people trying to fight them have less money to do that with.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Just saying "both leaders are s**t so I'm voting informal" is incredibly juvenile and ultimately counter-productive.
I never said that!

No but it's the sentiment of a bunch of people in this thread.

 

[pjcrows]

Just saying "both leaders are s**t so I'm voting informal" is incredibly juvenile and ultimately counter-productive.
I never said that!

I did.

 

[madmug]

I voted informally because I oppose the refugee policies of both Parties. I can't see that changing while both support offshore indefinite detention.

We have Wilkie as an independent. Its been decades since either party has paid attention to the seat of Denison. So its a nice change to be bribed by the party hacks on both sides!

 

[The Speaker]

Keep voting for minor parties and independents.

The more first votes they get, the more people will pay attention to them and stop treating them as surprises.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

If you can't find anything positive about any of the candidates for your seat then you either have ridiculously high standards or aren't trying.

It's the preferences

 

[Bunk Moreland]

No but it's the sentiment of a bunch of people in this thread.

It's not the policies. It's a complete and utter lack of leadership and policies. The leaders are just symptomatic of it.

 

[Footy Smarts]

It's not the policies. It's a complete and utter lack of leadership and policies. The leaders are just symptomatic of it.

They're so bad that you're forced to help them stay in power by voting informal. Makes sense to me

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Vote Greens

 

[Gus Poyet]

I do share the sentiment to a large extent Bunk. We are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils constantly.

No you aren't.

 

[Gus Poyet]

What is the sex party up to these days?

Libertarians.

 

[Gus Poyet]

The only way any kind of message can be sent to the major parties is if compulsary voting is given the arse.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No you aren't.

Not literally forced. If you want to stop a policy you don't like, you can't do that by voting independently. You have to vote for the government's biggest rival to have a chance of stopping it. We need someone else to start getting 25% of the vote and have them looking over their shoulders.

 

[Gus Poyet]

Not literally forced. If you want to stop a policy you don't like, you can't do that by voting independently. You have to vote for the government's biggest rival to have a chance of stopping it. We need someone else to start getting 25% of the vote and have them looking over their shoulders.

Change will never come about if people just think and act as you've described. That's what the majors want us to do.

It means the cycle is never broken.

The last election 25% of the population didn't vote for the majors.