Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

[GUMBLETRON]

We have been conditioned to dismiss protectionism despite the fact that much of the Western World is seriously struggling to absorb the loss of manufacturing jobs into other parts of our economies and that it has resulted in the breakdown of long term secure employment for the large numbers of people who were previously employed in manufacturing. The frightening thing is that I am yet to hear our politicians or the Americans talk about development of sectors which have the capacity to provide the gainful long term employment that manufacturing previously provided.

The challenge is developing an advanced manufacturing base behind the protectionism required to maintain a simple one.

 

[Lore]

So apparently we HAVE to vote on whether other people are allowed to get married, but how we vote on the people who represent us in the upper house is 'a matter for parliament'. Someone explain democracy to me.

(Or don't. Cynicism answers most questions.)

 

[eth-dog]

So apparently we HAVE to vote on whether other people are allowed to get married, but how we vote on the people who represent us in the upper house is 'a matter for parliament'. Someone explain democracy to me.

(Or don't. Cynicism answers most questions.)

Upper house voting is screwed. Ricky Muir was hilarious when it happened but he got less than 1% of the votes, which is a joke.

 

[Lore]

Upper house voting is screwed. Ricky Muir was hilarious when it happened but he got less than 1% of the votes, which is a joke.

The fact they can vote on changes to the electoral system without consultation is a joke. It's the principle, not the product, that bothers me.

 

[boncer34]

The plebiscite is dangerous.

If it gets up its brilliant but what if it doesn't?

 

[Lore]

The plebiscite is dangerous.

If it gets up its brilliant but what if it doesn't?

It shouldn't need to. Howard is the one who changed the marriage act to heterosexual marriage in the first place. Labor supported the changes.

 

[The Speaker]

I am very suspicious of plebiscites.

The fact they can vote on changes to the electoral system without consultation is a joke. It's the principle, not the product, that bothers me.

Consulting who?

 

[Lore]

I am very suspicious of plebiscites.



Consulting who?

Formal consultation of the voting public, i.e. via referendum or plebiscite. Preferably a referendum as changes in the electoral system should be laid out in the constitution, any changes to the constitution should be voted on through democratic processes, and the results of such processes should be binding.

Plebiscite is expensive and non-binding, which is why it is being used to delay the political hot-potato of ungendered marriage.

 

[The Speaker]

Formal consultation of the voting public, i.e. via referendum or plebiscite. Preferably a referendum as changes in the electoral system should be laid out in the constitution, any changes to the constitution should be voted on through democratic processes, and the results of such processes should be binding.

Plebiscite is expensive and non-binding, which is why it is being used to delay the political hot-potato of ungendered marriage.

Referendum is only for constitutional change.

This is not a significant change to the method of voting - certainly not to the point of being worth a public vote - and if we keep having plebiscites for slightly contentious legislation, you have to ask why we bother electing politicians at all. This is what they are elected to do. If we don't like what they do, vote for someone else.

The only nefarious part of a DD election will be the advantage the major parties get after 2019, not what they get at this election.

 

[Lore]

Referendum is only for constitutional change.

This is not a significant change to the method of voting - certainly not to the point of being worth a public vote - and if we keep having plebiscites for slightly contentious legislation, you have to ask why we bother electing politicians at all. This is what they are elected to do. If we don't like what they do, vote for someone else.

The only nefarious part of a DD election will be the advantage the major parties get after 2019, not what they get at this election.

I agree with almost everything you just said.

Changes to the voting system, as I stated earlier, bother me on principle, not product. It's not the outcome of the change that bothers me - its the fact that they can make changes that suit private or party agendas, rather than the national interest.

 

[BrunoV]

I am very suspicious of plebiscites.



Consulting who?

It's true. Plebs get their say every three years. That's enough.

 

[BrunoV]

I am absolutely fascinated by Trump's campaign and the response to it. I've been watching the recent debates and press conferences because I've learned to be immediately skeptical of the motivations of the "establishment" when opposing sides can find peace enough to demonise the same individuals. You only have to look at the extraordinary actions of the Republican party trying to stop Trump, who is the only electable Republican candidate, as strange as that might seem, to front a ******* like Ted Cruz (who espouses more extreme bigoted views than Trump and seriously ridiculous economic policy) to know that there is more to this than meets the eye.

Why would the Republicans undermine their best opportunity to take back the White House? The answer is that they can't control Trump and that they genuinely fear his willingness to negotiate broadly to secure deals which could potentially undermine the interests of what is essentially the ruling elite.

It seems to me that there is a disproportionate, and at times manipulative, focus on some of the more extreme things that Trump has said.

From the Australian perspective the dismissal of Trump seems to be based largely on an inaccurate assumption that the plights of Australia and America are the same. Australia, despite the stagnation of political debate and our economy, is light years ahead of America in terms of the infrastructure we have built and our capacity to look after our lower class, absorb migrants and dramatically evolve our economy if we chose to do so, for example.

It strikes me that there are certain realities about migration into America in 2016 which are ignored. They have a burgeoning poverty stricken lower class, which Trump is appealing to, which does not have access to even the most basic social and economic infrastructure to help make life livable and then provide these people with the opportunity to advance their respective positions (i.e. getting decent jobs that could see them one day re-join the middle class or become members for the first time). What is the point of adding to it?

I don't see why in these circumstances the notion of a moratorium on migration and securing borders is as reprehensible as is being made out by the intellectual snobs. For all of the "racist" comments about different aspects of illegal Mexican immigration he has also been giving the Mexican government some high praise for killing American politicians on trade deals (it is the same with China).

The economic criticism that can be made of the immigration policy is that the low cost labour of illegal immigrants helps to sustain industry and the service sector in America. This is not a criticism that I am aware has been given any serious air time and, funnily enough, reflects a tendency to avoid engaging Trump in relation to his economic views.

Then move onto the "oh you don't want a guy like Trump having the nuclear codes" drivel. Trump has called for George Bush to be tried for war crimes in respect of the invasion of Iraq. This is not the rhetoric of a maniac who cannot be trusted to make sensible decisions in relation to the use of force.

Trump and Bernie Sanders (with whom he actually shares similar views on economic policy even if they are expressed differently - all of which is ignored by the social progressives) are the only ones who are honest about free trade. We have been conditioned to dismiss protectionism despite the fact that much of the Western World is seriously struggling to absorb the loss of manufacturing jobs into other parts of our economies, and it has resulted in the breakdown of long term secure employment for the large numbers of people who were previously employed in manufacturing. The frightening thing is that I am yet to hear our politicians or the Americans talk about development of sectors which have the capacity to provide the gainful long term employment that manufacturing previously provided.

He supports the welfare safety net and the work of planned parenthood even if he is hamstrung by the right to lifers who he needs to keep on side. These are not the views of a conservative nut.

I don't know that I could vote for the guy but if the social progressives and leftist snobs are as smart as they like to think they are then they should really take the time to understand the campaign at something nearing its entirety rather than the soundbites which they are just as manipulated into obsessing over as the voters to whom the comments are intended to appeal. It's their outrage that results in the media's saturation coverage and the continued spreading of the negative parts of his message.

US$1.5 billion worth of free advertising in the form of obsessive media coverage and the left still wont accept that it is the side that is manipulated by Trump.

On another note, why continually dismiss the appeal of the anti-free trade speak to members of the rust belt? Why assume that they are all so stupid that the only possible appeal of Trump is his bigotry? Yes they like Trump because he is "not a politician" but what is the significance of his not being a politician. Unsurprisingly voters are not being asked these questions.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

The fact they can vote on changes to the electoral system without consultation is a joke. It's the principle, not the product, that bothers me.

There's been plenty of consultation, with full ALP, minor party and community participation.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary..._Matters/2013_General_Election/Interim_Report

Formal consultation of the voting public, i.e. via referendum or plebiscite. Preferably a referendum as changes in the electoral system should be laid out in the constitution, any changes to the constitution should be voted on through democratic processes, and the results of such processes should be binding.

Yeah, nah. A Constitutional guarantee of representation and a free and meaningful vote is plenty, the specific mechanics can far more efficiently be left in the hands of the Parliament. If that power is abused then the existing guarantees come into play in front of the High Court, as most-recently in the Roach and Rowe cases.

Changes to the voting system, as I stated earlier, bother me on principle, not product. It's not the outcome of the change that bothers me - its the fact that they can make changes that suit private or party agendas, rather than the national interest.

Sometimes party agendas and the national interest coincide. This is a good - and long overdue - reform.

 

[Lore]

There's been plenty of consultation, with full ALP, minor party and community participation.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary..._Matters/2013_General_Election/Interim_Report

Yeah, nah. A Constitutional guarantee of representation and a free and meaningful vote is plenty, the specific mechanics can far more efficiently be left in the hands of the Parliament. If that power is abused then the existing guarantees come into play in front of the High Court, as most-recently in the Roach and Rowe cases.

Sometimes party agendas and the national interest coincide. This is a good - and long overdue - reform.

Well, I disagree. But I can't be bothered arguing. So I'll leave it here.

 

[BrunoV]

The biggest problem with the propsed changes to senate voting is the potential for millions of exhausted votes which could see the intentions of millions of voters rendered obsolete.

Hard to view this as a win for democracy. Liberal and labour are not the constitutional bodies they like to think that they are.

Based on the quality of policy development I'm all for "keeping the bastards honest" even if the process which gets us to that point is a little bizarre.

 

[The Speaker]

Exhausted votes ARE the intention of voters. I would much prefer full preference voting though.

 

[BrunoV]

Intention was the wrong word.

The votes themselves are meaningless and count for nothing.

Channeling the preference to another candidate your preferred party did a deal with at least gives the vote some meaning (consistent with the views of the candidate you would have selected).

 

[The Speaker]

Intention was the wrong word.

The votes themselves are meaningless and count for nothing.

Channeling the preference to another candidate your preferred party did a deal with at least gives the vote some meaning (consistent with the views of the candidate you would have selected).

Historically true, but this whole issue came to a head because the tiny parties were colluding together to hoover up votes, including from other tiny parties that were ideologically opposed to them.

 

[BrunoV]

Historically true, but this whole issue came to a head because the tiny parties were colluding together to hoover up votes, including from other tiny parties that were ideologically opposed to them.

No doubt it is a problem but shouldn't this be put back on the parties to inform the electorate of what the votes could potentially mean?

 

[Lore]

No doubt it is a problem but shouldn't this be put back on the parties to inform the electorate of what the votes could potentially mean?

Last election I downloaded all the group voting tickets and then figured out how I would vote below the line. Postal vote for the win.

The information was available, but the average punter votes above the line and then there vote follows whatever that party decided... often leading someone to vote for a left wing party and end up with their vote going to a right wing party.

I can totally see the problem with that, even though I actually like independent MPs and senators. They think for themselves, which is really what they should all be doing. Each member should be representing their electorate, not their party, especially when toeing party line directly harms the needs of their electorate. I think despite the way the cross bench got elected and the way they've been treated in the media, they've actually done a pretty decent job. I wouldn't be surprised if next time around, some of them will be voted in on their own merits, rather than through preference deals.



The problem for me is that I think politicians have entirely too much power, and too much power to control how much power they can have. The point of a democracy is to fracture power over as many people as possible, so that nothing much can change without a majority of the effected population approving the measure - no one can just get into power and change everything to suit themselves. Somehow each member representing their electorate on each issue has become 'I'll vote for your issue if you'll vote or mine'... and then they changed it to full preferential voting in the lower house (so now you have to vote for one of the big two, making it even more-so a two party preferred system). The point of democracy is to prevent oligarchy, tyranny and dictatorship. 2PP in the lower house and 3PP in the upper house (ALP, LNP, Greens, by the look of it) takes us in the opposite direction.

The worst thing about them just changing the voting system is that they think its OKAY for them to just change the voting system. That is a huge conflict of interest in and of itself, and they should be holding a plebiscite or referendum on this issue. Consultation with the other parties (they're not opposing parties unless they oppose), who also stand to gain power from such a change, doesn't count.

And then they think that they absolutely HAVE to have a plebiscite on repeal the 2004 Marriage Amendment Act - which they enacted without a plebiscite just over a decade ago.
The text of that amendment is pretty straight forward. It is as follows:

An Act to amend the Marriage Act 1961, and for related purposes
[Assented to 16 August 2004]

The Parliament of Australia enacts:

1 Short title

This Act may be cited as the Marriage Amendment Act 2004.​

2 Commencement

This Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.​

3 Schedule(s)

Each Act that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms.​

Schedule 1—Amendment of the Marriage Act 1961

1 Subsection 5(1)

Insert:

marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.​

2 At the end of section 88B

Add:

(4) To avoid doubt, in this Part (including section 88E) marriage has the meaning given by subsection 5(1).​

3 After section 88E

Insert:
​

88EA Certain unions are not marriages

A union solemnised in a foreign country between:
(a) a man and another man; or
(b) a woman and another woman;
must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.​

​

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A01361

There is no legal need for a plebiscite to change either the marriage act or the voting system, but there is a definitive conflict of interest in the latter, while the former is the one they've decided to hold a plebiscite on.

It is contradictory to say the least. But that is politics.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

No doubt it is a problem but shouldn't this be put back on the parties to inform the electorate of what the votes could potentially mean?

Or we could just let people direct their own votes as they please. There were a few fundamental issues with the prior system.

a) Beyond a certain level of complexity, it's impossible to predict (and hence explain) what will happen. The WA contest at the last election hinged on 14 votes between the Australian Christians and the Shooters & Fishers at the 139th of 166 preference counts, with the resulting elimination determining which of two unrelated candidates, from the Greens and the Sports & Recreation Party, would win the final seat. Without perfect knowledge of the preferences of every other voter, you cannot know when preferences will be required and how they will flow, necessitating b).

b) If voters accept the system is a mess and that they have an "out", by numbering below the line, the state then places an unnecessary burden on them by demanding a sequential numbering of 100+ candidates, with any more-than-relatively-minor errors seeing the vote tossed out. Though never challenged, this potentially raises Constitutional problems - can a voter be said to have "chosen" when they are ranking micro-party candidates they know nothing (and should not be expected to know anything) about?

c) Because said parties and candidates are essentially unknown to voters, but preference harvesting allows candidates with miniscule support to pool preferences and essentially enter a lottery to win election, the system produces fundamentally non-democratic outcomes. Yes, after the "known" parties last election there was a 20-25 percent (depending how you class the Sex Party, Family First etc.) "Other" vote which will no longer be expected to return Senators, but "Other" doesn't automatically mean "Motoring Enthusiasts", "Sports & Recreation", or any other fluke winner. "Motoring Enthusiasts" means half a percent, against a Senate Quota of 14.29 percent.

If micro-parties can legitimately attract the free preferences of voters, more power to them, but elective democracy shouldn't be a lottery stemming from an overly-complex system that places unnecessarily-onerous requirements on voters.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Nor should the Parliament be running to the voters with plebiscites every time they make a mechanical change to electoral practice. It's their job to make these decisions, within the bounds allowed by the Constitution - if they aren't capable they shouldn't be in the Parliament.

We've had three plebiscites in our history - two on military conscription, and one for the national anthem, and the only contemporary issue I can think of that would necessitate a public vote is a change to the flag. Being plebiscites, all were within the power of the Parliament, but were deemed of national importance and hence sent to the voters.

This, though, is a functionally-minor change. The manner and level of representation remains the same, as does the fundamental voting system, but the necessity of full preferences is being removed. Once you start requiring electorate-wide votes for this sort of thing, it just gets thrown in the too-hard basket and necessary reform fails to happen. NSW for example has elements of its electoral system written into the State Constitution, and as such essentially unchangeable even when small tweaks would help.

A plebiscite on same-sex marriage is an equally unnecessary cop-out.

 

[Lore]

Or we could just let people direct their own votes as they please. There were a few fundamental issues with the prior system.

a) Beyond a certain level of complexity, it's impossible to predict (and hence explain) what will happen. The WA contest at the last election hinged on 14 votes between the Australian Christians and the Shooters & Fishers at the 139th of 166 preference counts, with the resulting elimination determining which of two unrelated candidates, from the Greens and the Sports & Recreation Party, would win the final seat. Without perfect knowledge of the preferences of every other voter, you cannot know when preferences will be required and how they will flow, necessitating b).

b) If voters accept the system is stuffed and that they have an "out", by numbering below the line, the state then places an unnecessary burden on them by demanding a sequential numbering of 100+ candidates, with any relatively-minor errors seeing the vote tossed out. Though never challenged, this potentially raises Constitutional problems - can a voter be said to have "chosen" when they are ranking micro-party candidates they know nothing (and should not be expected to know anything) about?

c) Because said parties and candidates are essentially unknown to voters, but preference harvesting allows candidates with miniscule support to pool preferences and essentially enter a lottery to win election, the system produces fundamentally non-democratic outcomes. Yes, after the "known" parties last election there was a 20-25 percent (depending how you class the Sex Party, Family First etc.) "Other" vote which will no longer be expected to return Senators, but "Other" doesn't automatically mean "Motoring Enthusiasts", "Sports & Recreation", or any other fluke winner. "Motoring Enthusiasts" means half a percent, against a Senate Quota of 14.29 percent.

If micro-parties can legitimately attract the free preferences of voters, more power to them, but elective democracy shouldn't be a lottery stemming from an overly-complex system that places unnecessarily-onerous requirements on voters.

I essentially agree with your post, but b isn't quite accurate. Most people don't know this but you can actually stop numbering the boxes early without it becoming an informal vote.

For a Senate ballot paper
18. A Senate ballot paper is informal if:

• the ballot paper has no vote indicated on it; or
• the ballot paper does not have the voter's first preference for 1 candidate and the order of his or her preferences for all the remaining candidates indicated.

19. There are some exceptions.

• A ballot paper will not be regarded as informal if the voter has voted 'above the line' by putting a mark in one of the squares above the line on the ballot paper (s. 269 the Act).
• A ballot paper will not be regarded as informal if the voter has voted 'below the line' and there are a minimal number of mistakes in the sequences of the numbers on the ballot paper as set out in s. 270 of the Act.

20. Section 270 is a 'saving' provision designed to allow for misnumbering of preferences on Senate ballot papers, which often have a very high number of candidates. This provision allows into the scrutiny, ballot papers where at least 90% of the preferences are expressed, but where some of the preferences are marked non-consecutively.

21. In these cases, in accordance with s. 270, the ballot paper will not be rejected from the scrutiny. However, the preferences on the ballot paper will only be allocated and counted up until the consecutive number sequence is interrupted. An example would be a ballot paper with 18 candidates on which the voter numbers all of the squares but repeats the number 16 or leaves out the number 16. In this case, the ballot paper will not be informal (that is, it will not be rejected from the scrutiny entirely), but only the preferences from 1 to 15 can be used in the scrutiny.

http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/backgrounders/informal-voting.htm

You DO have to number all of the boxes, but for example, you could:

1. Number your preferred candidates sequentially, starting from 1. (If there are 4 candidates you like, number them 1-4)
2. Give two non-preferred candidates the same number (so two people with 5)
3. Number all remaining boxes sequentially but without consideration (from 6 until all boxes are numbered)

This would still be a formal vote, but your vote would be exhausted after the sequence was interrupted.

 

[Lore]

Nor should the Parliament be running to the voters with plebiscites every time they make a mechanical change to electoral practice. It's their job to make these decisions, within the bounds allowed by the Constitution - if they aren't capable they shouldn't be in the Parliament.

We've had three plebiscites in our history - two on military conscription, and one for the national anthem, and the only contemporary issue I can think of that would necessitate a public vote is a change to the flag. Being plebiscites, all were within the power of the Parliament, but were deemed of national importance and hence sent to the voters.

This, though, is a functionally-minor change. The manner and level of representation remains the same, as does the fundamental voting system, but the necessity of full preferences is being removed. Once you start requiring electorate-wide votes for this sort of thing, it just gets thrown in the too-hard basket and necessary reform fails to happen. NSW for example has elements of its electoral system written into the State Constitution, and as such essentially unchangeable even when small tweaks would help.

A plebiscite on same-sex marriage is an equally unnecessary cop-out.

It's not a mechanical change if it affects the outcome of millions of votes across the country, and the make up of potentially a tenth of the senate (i.e. the balance of power).

If one needs a plebiscite, so does the other. They're picking and choosing issues to suit their own agendas (as is their wont). If they didn't have a plebiscite for either issue that would be fine too. But it is contradictory.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I essentially agree with your post, but b isn't quite accurate. Most people don't know this but you can actually stop numbering the boxes early without it becoming an informal vote.

I meant to say more-than-relatively-minor, but yeah, you can skip the occasional number and Langer votes are still legal on Senate papers too. Which, conveniently for where I'm coming from, means this is even less of a change, but voters will now actually be told their rights up-front and given an easy means to exercise them.

It's not a mechanical change if it affects the outcome of millions of votes across the country, and the make up of potentially a tenth of the senate (i.e. the balance of power).

Any mechanical change to electoral systems will impact millions of votes and potentially electoral outcomes - that's the nature of electoral policy.

If one needs a plebiscite, so does the other. They're picking and choosing issues to suit their own agendas (as is their wont). If they didn't have a plebiscite for either issue that would be fine too. But it is contradictory.

Welcome to politics. I would rather one unnecessary plebiscite than two, even if zero is optimal. Two wrongs, etc.