Swingers Regret Poll

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
Thread starter #1
Please only answer this if you are a genuine "swinger". Neo-cons and ultra left stay out!!!! Or you will shatter the relevence.

In fact I'm not going to set up a "Poll" as that can be manitpulate with silent voters.

Please answer ONLY if you are a swinger:

Are you glad that your "swinging" vote has likely given the Liberal Party a majority in the SENATE... Or would you like your vote back now you know it was such a landslide?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dr nick

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 22, 2002
Posts
13,523
Likes
25
Location
Dee Why, NSW
AFL Club
Sydney
#2
If i had my time again i still would vote the same - but i noticed someone in another thread said he voted Liberal because he thought it was going to be so close, and would have lodged a protest vote if he was more confident that the Libs would regain power.
 

Leper

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Posts
3,285
Likes
517
Location
E106o44' S06o17'
AFL Club
Richmond
#3
I think all the swinging that happened, particularly in the 1970's, probably caused the end to a lot of marriages. Like those parties they had where the guys all put their car keys in a bowl and the ladies went home with whoever's keys they pulled out of the bowl.

Maybe swinging was stopped a lot by AIDS, or maybe people are more faithful these days.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
Thread starter #4
Leper said:
I think all the swinging that happened, particularly in the 1970's, probably caused the end to a lot of marriages. Like thoae parties they had where the guys all put their car keys in a bowl and the ladies went home with whoever's keys they pulled out of the bowl.

Maybe swinging was stopped a lot by AIDS, or maybe people are more faithful these days.
:D
 

Squeak

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Posts
6,935
Likes
9
Location
Lexus Centre Parma Bar
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Milwaukee Beers
#5
Many silly people out there. I'm a non-swinging Liberal voter but even I didn't vote for them in the Senate. Need some sort of check on them or else its hardly a democracy.
 

agitator

All Australian
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Posts
795
Likes
0
Other Teams
salisbury serial killers
#6
dont be so squeaky, what are you a man or a mouse??

if your going to vote for someone then go all the way, dont vote for one of these minor parties. they just obstruct the passage of legislation and lead to bad governance when compromises to gov legislation is needed.
 

Mead

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 2, 2002
Posts
6,795
Likes
1,080
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Eagles
#8
I'm pretty soft right.

If I got to vote again I would definitely still go liberal in the house of reps, but I would be tempted to vote differently in the senate just because I don't think it is particularly healthy for any party to have total control of the system.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#11
Squeak said:
Many silly people out there. I'm a non-swinging Liberal voter but even I didn't vote for them in the Senate. Need some sort of check on them or else its hardly a democracy.
So you want to vote Liberal but dont want them to be able to introduce alot of their policies due to minority parties in the senate? If you dont want their policies introduced why vote for them? So by your definition Australia will cease to exist as a democracy if the libs control the senate?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#12
funkyfreo said:
Are you glad that your "swinging" vote has likely given the Liberal Party a majority in the SENATE... ?
No. Not looking forward to the full sale of Telstra. Should never have been sold in the first place.

Or would you like your vote back now you know it was such a landslide
Yep, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. had I had my time agian with hindsight I would have voted ALP. But then again if others also had hindsight too there would be the risk of too many people changing their vote and Latham winning.

Definitely prefer the Coalition not to have power in the Senate but am satisfied that I did the right thing with what knowledge I had at the time.
 

skipper kelly

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
28,728
Likes
3,869
Location
far queue
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
NSW Blues
#13
I am satisfied with my choice not to vote for either the ALP or Coalition. I am also satisfied with my choice not to vote for a minority party. So in essence my vote was a swing away from the Coalition, but a swing towards no one. Thats how I saw it and Im satisfied that the people have spoken.

Now we can sit back and see if Howard is one of our greatest PM's. How he handles total power is the real test.

I only ask one thing of Howard. See out the full term.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
Thread starter #15
bunsen burner said:
No. Not looking forward to the full sale of Telstra. Should never have been sold in the first place.

Yep, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. had I had my time agian with hindsight I would have voted ALP. But then again if others also had hindsight too there would be the risk of too many people changing their vote and Latham winning.

Definitely prefer the Coalition not to have power in the Senate but am satisfied that I did the right thing with what knowledge I had at the time.
I wonder if it would be a good tweak to our democracy, although it would cost $$ to run a second election, to vote on the Senate a month after voting vor the lower house. So we elect a government, and then decide how much unbridled power to give them in the senate once the dust has settled.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#16
funkyfreo said:
I wonder if it would be a good tweak to our democracy, although it would cost $$ to run a second election, to vote on the Senate a month after voting vor the lower house. So we elect a government, and then decide how much unbridled power to give them in the senate once the dust has settled.
Unfortunately it can't really be done. You can't take seats off people who won them fairly and give them to people who lost the fairly.
 

teams

Cancelled
Joined
Apr 9, 2004
Posts
3,992
Likes
5
Location
victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
#17
funkyfreo said:
I wonder if it would be a good tweak to our democracy, although it would cost $$ to run a second election, to vote on the Senate a month after voting vor the lower house. So we elect a government, and then decide how much unbridled power to give them in the senate once the dust has settled.

This would be more in keeping with the constitution. It is the state governors who issue the writs for senate elections. They are fixed term offices and I think it is only done the way it is because the Commonwealth foots the election bills.

Method of election of senators
9. The Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws prescribing the method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be uniform for all the States. Subject to any such law, the Parliament of each State may make laws6 prescribing the method of choosing the senators for that State.

Times and places.
The Parliament of a State may make laws6 for determining the times and places of elections of senators for the State.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
Thread starter #18
bunsen burner said:
Unfortunately it can't really be done. You can't take seats off people who won them fairly and give them to people who lost the fairly.
No - in the 1st election you ONLY vote lower house on the lower house ballot paper.

Then a month later you ONLY vote for the senate on the senate paper.

So you don't artificially take seats off people, you just vote for both houses at different times. You may still get a senate majority, just qould let people really consider the two houses differently.
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#19
medusala said:
So you want to vote Liberal but dont want them to be able to introduce alot of their policies due to minority parties in the senate? If you dont want their policies introduced why vote for them? So by your definition Australia will cease to exist as a democracy if the libs control the senate?
Was interesting seeing an interview with Fred Chaney last night - as a former Liberal Senator he was fairly scathing of the situation we have where the Coalition could have full control of the Senate. The key to his opposition was that without full control of the Senate a government is required to slow down and think of the legislation they put forward from another perspective, thus hopefully producing better legislation. Certainly a point I agree with totally (then again Chaney was always one of the Libs I had a lot of respect for).

Then again, I was also surprised by the FF guy who didn't seem to enamoured of the sale of Telstra or relaxing cross media ownership laws. Perhaps if they hold the balance of power it won't be as easy as I first assumed for the Coalition. Mind you, we'll find out the truth about the Nats on the sale of Telstra as they actually have the power to stop it cold if they have the guts to do so - in either house.

By having control of the Senate democracy doesn't cease, however some of the checks and balances are suspended to some extent unless some of the senators have a few more balls than most politicians at this time.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
Thread starter #20
Mr Q said:
Then again, I was also surprised by the FF guy who didn't seem to enamoured of the sale of Telstra or relaxing cross media ownership laws. Perhaps if they hold the balance of power it won't be as easy as I first assumed for the Coalition. Mind you, we'll find out the truth about the Nats on the sale of Telstra as they actually have the power to stop it cold if they have the guts to do so - in either house.
QUOTE]

"Hi Mr Family First Senate man, John Howard here, Just calling to see what you think about a bill we are putting up to legalise homosexual marriages. You don't like it .. hmmm, well I guess if you let us sell Telstra we could be convinced..."
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#21
funkyfreo said:
I wonder if it would be a good tweak to our democracy, although it would cost $$ to run a second election, to vote on the Senate a month after voting vor the lower house. So we elect a government, and then decide how much unbridled power to give them in the senate once the dust has settled.
Interesting idea (I could support it, although the costs would be high). However I think it would require an additional caveat that Senate terms come into line with their elections rather than have the current fixed terms, thus preventing things like what happened after the 1996 WA election where the Coalition lost control of the Upper House and proceeded to ram controversial legislation through before the new MLCs took office.

(To be honest, I would prefer fixed terms for all Parliaments in Australia - its one reform I could adopt from the US system without problem)
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Posts
1,940
Likes
176
Location
SportsTAB, Memory Lane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Woodville,Roys,NT Thunder
#22
Why do we need "checks and balances" in the senate?? Did Keating get it right by saying the Senate was a "non-representative swill"??

Yes, I can understand the idea behind the "checks & balances" theory (and could probably mount an argument supporting it), but this can really hinder the govt at the time.

Wouldn't it be better if the govt of the day could go right ahead with it's policies without having to massage them significantly to appease so minority party or independent. In this way they have no excuses. If the government of the day "run hard, do good" - they get rewarded with another term by the voting punter. If they stuff up, they stuff up because of their policies & have no excuses - they are then shown the door by said punters.

I suppose in a nutshell I'm advocating getting rid of the Senate. Works in Queensland - or does it???

Fatty
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
Thread starter #23
As an example, this following month would be full of advertising based around sale of telstra, IR reform etc etc. Would get a bit negative maybe? Would at least have saved the democrats I rekon.

I doubt if all the blue collar workers who abandoned Labor based on the forests debacle policy would still vote Liberal when they thought about IR reform and Telstra.
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Posts
1,940
Likes
176
Location
SportsTAB, Memory Lane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Woodville,Roys,NT Thunder
#24
funkyfreo said:
No - in the 1st election you ONLY vote lower house on the lower house ballot paper.

Then a month later you ONLY vote for the senate on the senate paper.
I could live with that. A few logistics to think about. A 6 week campaign for the House of Reps, then a 4 week one for the Senate. Another week before counting is finalised, then does that Senate immediately take office (or like it is currently - in a few months time). Who's governing the place during this period?
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
Thread starter #25
FattyLumpkin said:
Why do we need "checks and balances" in the senate?? Did Keating get it right by saying the Senate was a "non-representative swill"??

Yes, I can understand the idea behind the "checks & balances" theory (and could probably mount an argument supporting it), but this can really hinder the govt at the time.

Wouldn't it be better if the govt of the day could go right ahead with it's policies without having to massage them significantly to appease so minority party or independent. In this way they have no excuses. If the government of the day "run hard, do good" - they get rewarded with another term by the voting punter. If they stuff up, they stuff up because of their policies & have no excuses - they are then shown the door by said punters.

I suppose in a nutshell I'm advocating getting rid of the Senate. Works in Queensland - or does it???

Fatty
I don't see it just as a checks and whatever house, I see it as just as valid as the house of reps.

One house gives you elected members based on local areas, and the other gives you elected members based upon a gross percentage of the votes in a larger area (ie states).

Thre senate is actually far more representative of the overall voting pattern. So it is like two ways of counting the same thing, and you only get complete control if you win by both methods.

If you were going to get rid of either I'd get rid of the house of Reps.
 
Top Bottom